Printfriendly

Saturday, 27 February 2016

Planning backlash against illegal parking signs without advertisement consent

ParkingEye's strategy of deliberately not bothering to get advertisement consent appears to be backfiring in some car parks. ParkingEye's signage is classed as an advertisement, and it is a crime to have signs erected without advertisement consent.

The Prankster has received unconfirmed reports some councils are finally taking action


Here is a photograph from the Priory Centre in Worksop. From 25th February it seems the cameras and ticket machines are 'out of order' until further notice. The Prankster wonders if this is a result of the enquiry Bassetlaw District Council are conducting into PE's use of ANPR cameras.

The Prankster has also received an unconfirmed report that in Mansfield the council slapped an enforcement notice on ParkingEye who ignored it so they sent someone round to remove signage and cameras. ParkingEye are forced to apply for permission and cannot use their kit until it is granted.

The Prankster can confirm this is not correct (at least up to last Thursday) and that Mansfield has invited ParkingEye to submit an application for advertisement consent and planning permission for its ANPR cameras at the St Peters Retail Park. The council has not taken enforcement action and has up to last Thursday has refused to cover over the signs.

If anyone can confirm these two reports or has more details, please contact The Prankster.

Liverpool Airport

Meanwhile in Liverpool, the planning wrangle at Liverpool Airport drags on. The airport applied for permission for Vehicle Control Services' illegal signs back in March 2015, but the council still has not made a decision on planning application 15A/0657.

The latest news in January 2016 is that:
The matter is largely being dealt with by the Highways department so we are awaiting them to advise whether
1.       The design of the signs is appropriate 
2.       The number of signs is appropriate
 
That is caught up in Highways own assessment which in addition to the 2 planning points is also concerned with the legality of the placement of the signs, which I think they are taking advice from Legal Services on


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

6 comments:

  1. I wonder if Capita's shareholders regret spending £57 million buying a company that thinks it can do what it wants when it wants and how it wants. The negative publicity generated by Parking Eye illustrates their sheer contempt for planning laws,the BPA CoC and motorists.
    Because people are willing to fight back against Parking Eye's "management" of car parks LA's are finally taking action.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Re. Liverpool Airport, is there a point in time, after which, their signage becomes legally established, and if so, when is it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have asked bassetlaw council (my local) about this a few times, chased the local rag and one councellor so may have helped a tad, ther are more PPCs with similar so chasing them as well

    ReplyDelete
  4. As this car park has a public road running through it plus quite a few high sided vehicles the odds of double dipping is quite high, I will streniously object to the planning consent but need a good strategy, can you send me your DD stuff please

    ReplyDelete
  5. Councils can prosecute under criminal law the erectors of these signs,recover the financial benefit of these signs (the "parking charges" under the Proceeds of Crime Act) and can remove these illegal signs after giving two days notice!!!But they chose to do nothing an let the criminals (the laws definition not mine) carry on and let CRIME PAY!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Could I suggest that you all make your objections know to your own councils for stopping illegal ANPR use.

    I have just sent out a complaint to Durham Council that you may well think OK to use, suitably modified if necessary.
    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=104041&view=findpost&p=1154436

    ReplyDelete