Pepipoo have reported that new signs are in place at John Lennon Airport.
The new signs do not appear to have planning permission for advertisement consent and it does not appear any planning application has been filed.
It is not clear where the new signs are sited so The Prankster would be interested if anyone can supply any or all of the following information along with supporting photographs.
1) How far the signs are sited from junctions.
2) Where the new signs are
3) The different font sizes used
The new signs are forbidding and so cannot form a contract. Any action the airport take would therefore have to be based in trespass.
For comparison, the previous signs were blogged about here.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Are they reflectorised?
ReplyDeletecode of practice states ILLUMINATED , not reflectorised
DeleteThe signs would also have to indicate the the area where stopping is prohibited. Without that they are pretty meaningless.
ReplyDeleteobvious innit , its where the bylaws are in force
DeleteAh, of course. So people, including foreigners who might have just landed at the airport, are supposed to read the Byelaws (which incidentally are claimed not to be in use) before driving through the airport. I hope, for the sake of those diligent enough to do so, that the Byelaws actually do mark out the areas where stopping is prohibited.
Deletewhot bylaws gov?
DeleteBylaws? Arn't they trying for, "Bye laws, bye!"?
ReplyDeleteMore signs at JLA, but still apparently no consent
ReplyDeletefor any of the no-stopping signs since this hapless project started in June 2012. There appears to have been only one attempt to obtain advertisement consent from Liverpool City Council (application no. 15A/0657,
made on 18/6/2015), and that was mysteriously with-
drawn before it could be decided. Even if a retro-
spective application were to be made, consent cannot
be back-dated. In my own survey of over 40 councils
across England and Wales (and including Liverpool) I
was almost invariably told that advertisement consent
cannot be backdated - it runs from the date of the
decision. This is confirmed by the Planning Inspec-
torate and Planning Aid England (RTPI). The planning profession's influential journal, 'Planning Resource'
(Advertisements Q & A DCP, Section 30) says: "The Control of Advertisement Regulations have no pro-
visions for consent to be granted retrospectively;
it runs from the date granted and an unauthorised
advertisement remains unauthorised - and the display
is therefore a criminal offence - until that time."
An apparently illegal contract may still be found to
be binding if it is capable of being executed legally.
Nevertheless, every company operating under POFA must be a member of either BPA or IPC and abide by the relevant Code of Practice (CoP). However, both CoP's require their members to operate within the law, and that inevitably includes planning law. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v. Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, at 111, held that: "...while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on
the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA." So is it not the case that having no signage consent is automatically
a breach of the CoP, and a breach of the CoP means no access to DVLA records? Accessing DVLA records without authority has serious data protection implications, not to mention potential compensation entitlement.
(See also my second post, below, on bye-laws).
(Second post).
ReplyDeleteFor years the debate has raged as to whether bye-laws
(the latest being effective from 1st July 1982) are
still valid at JLA. The significance of this concept,
of course, is that if the bye-laws are still valid then the airport will not be classified as 'relevant land' for the purposes of POFA, and keeper liability will not apply. Perhaps the best clarification yet
is available in what I consider to be a fully legal
document: 'Liverpool John Lennon Airport - Schedule
of Charges and Terms and Conditions of Use, 1 April 2016 - 31 March 2017'. Clause 6.1 states: "The use
of the Airport is subject to the following conditions:
6.1.2 Compliance with Airport Byelaws, instructions orders as published from time to time by the Company,
the Civil Aviation Authority, the DfT and Border
Force.." (Airport is defined as "Liverpool John Lennon Airport", not the "Liverpool Airport" of the
1982 bye-laws).
Clause 9(xvi) of the bye-laws states: "No person
shall, without the permission of the council, post,
exhibit or distribute signs, advertisements,
circulars or other printed or written matter." That seems to embrace the signs along the approach roads, maybe also the signs in the pay & display car parks?
I have studied many sites, in forensic detail, but
this is the first I have seen where the threat of enforcement has not followed complaints about unauthorised signage, and where the advertiser has
not complied by putting in an application for advertisement consent. (Not that this changes anything, because advertisement consent cannot
be backdated - see previous post).
Apparently, new JLA bye-laws are being drafted. but
when the inevitable preamble states that the 1982
bye-laws are "hereby revoked" we will know the truth!
(See also my third post, below, on other permissions.)
(Third post).
ReplyDeleteThe large signs erected by ANPR companies are classed
as advertisements and almost invariably require prior
consent from the LPA before display. As established in
the first post (above) consent cannot be back-dated,
so unauthorised signs are unlawful until they receive
LPA consent. This may be several years and hundreds
or even thousands of PCNs later.
This is not the end of the matter. Operators using
the electronic link (known as KADOE) to the DVLA
database to obtain keeper names and addresses are
contractually bound to abide by various restrictions.
Clause A5.1 states: "The Customer shall at all times comply with the Law and Industry Best Practice in
carrying out its obligations under the Contract."
So if the signage is unauthorised there is no right
to use KADOE, and keeper details should not be given.
Operators also frequently hide behind "commercial
confidentiality" to avoid showing the contracts they
have signed with landowners. Little wonder, because
in all the contracts I have seen following Freedom
of Information requests there has been a requirement that the landowner shall obtain all necessary permissions (especially planning permissions) prior
to the installation of signs (condition precedent, concurrent and subsequent). Easy to miss is the requirement that the appointment of the operator is subject to all necessary permissions having been obtained.
In summary, far from being a technical detail,
failure to obtain signage consent may have
catastrophic consequences all round.
These signs are the subject of enforcement complaint EC33501
ReplyDeleteAs expected (see Prankster's update at the top of
ReplyDeletethis blog) JLA has now filed a new advertisement consent application for the red route signs on the approach roads (Ref: 17A/0037, registered on 10 Jan
2017 with Liverpool City Council). On the face of it it is not a retrospective application but seeks permission for new signage for an upcoming 5-year (i.e. standard) term commencing 31 Jan 2017.
Question 4 of the application form asks if pre-
application advice has been sought from the LPA and
the answer given is "yes", but details, unusually,
are witheld (presumably for secrecy).
The application shows a sign ("entrance board") which
is virtually identical to that shown by the Prankster
at the top of this blog, and which has apparently
only recently been erected. Strange, because in Q.8
of the application form it is stated that the adverts
being applied for are not already in place. Has some-
body jumped the gun?
The location plan shows four "RESTRICTED ZONE" "No
Stopping at Any Time" signs with all the sort of details seen on the older generation of signs.
It is highly likely that all these new signs will be
approved by the planners within weeks, especially as
there has been pre-application advice, so there will
be a fresh start. But where does that leave all
those people who have been pursued for payment over
the last four and a half years? The signs from June 2012 to date never (as far as I am aware, and correct
me if I am wrong) had planning consent, and the planners tell me that, and I quote: "Any retrospec-
tive consent would apply from the date it is
granted." Over 40 LPA's across England and Wales, together with all the leading planning authorities, tell me that advert consent cannot be backdated, and without consent signs remain unlawful. In such situations (providing, of course, POFA is invoked)
the CoP (whether BPA or IPC) is breached, and keeper details may not be obtained (see Supreme Court quote in my earlier post) from DVLA. Surely all these PCN's should be refunded?
The long-awaited advertisement consent application for
ReplyDeletesignage at JLA was registered at Liverpool City Council
(application no. 17A/0037) on 10th January 2017. It is,
however, not a retrospective application for historic
signs but a normal prospective application for the
upcoming five years commencing 31st January 2017.
Question 4 of the application form asks if assistance
or prior advice has been sought from the Council and
the answer is "yes". Normally details of this are
entered on the form, but here the space is left blank (why the secrecy?). Question 8 asks if the adverts
(signs) are already in place and the answer is "no",
although a drawing is submitted of a sign ('entrance
board', headed "No Stopping") virtually identical to
that pictured at the top of this blog. It is difficult
to see how this sign can constitute a contract, as it
merely forbids. The location plan shows four identical
signs bearing the minimal information one would expect to find on a contract sign. These are headed
"RESTRICTED ZONE" and "No Stopping at Any Time", and
are actually quite similar to the signs displayed over
the last several years.
Bearing in mind that pre-advice and assistance have apparently been taken, it is highly likely that this
application will be approved in several weeks. We still don't know the status of the red lines on the
tarmac - these are not mentioned in the application.
Meanwhile, where does all this leave the huge numbers
of motorists pursued over the last four and a half years for alleged contraventions whilst unauthorised
signs were in place? Even if a retrospective appli-
cation had been made for these, the Council tells me
that: "Any retrospective consent would apply from the
date it is granted." For the reasons I have set out
(above) no signage consent means no CoP compliance,
no KADOE contract (and possibly no landowner contract)
compliance, no POFA compliance, and no right to
obtain keeper details. How will all these victims be
compensated?