URGENT BUSINESS

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – TUESDAY 6 AUGUST 2002

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

Report on enforcement approach to advertisements in connection with a national event in London.

Summary

To consider how the Local Planning Authority should respond to the display of advertisements in respect of a national event taking place in London on 22 September 2002.

Background

On 25 July 2002 the Planning Enforcement Section were approached by the Highways Department querying the display of a large number of signs across the Island. Whilst going to an appointment, one of the Officers noted seventeen of these signs were spotted on land just west of Forest Road Garage and further reports of signs in other locations have been received. The signs refer to the Liberty and Livelihood March, Sunday September 22^nd 2002.

Further investigations reveal that this is a national event being organised by the Countryside Alliance.

Reports of the signs appearing elsewhere on the Island have been received. In addition to the boards, which measure 0.98 metres by 0.75 metres, banner signs have also been observed together with a number of A4 sized paper signs.

Where the signs have been placed in the highway verge then the highways section has removed them, however, there still remain a large number of signs on private land which cannot be removed without giving a minimum of two days notice.

I have spoken to the main office of the Countryside Alliance, their Regional Co-ordinator and the people on the Island organising the coaches to travel up to the event in London.

Any sign, whether displayed on land or property, even with the agreement of the relevant landowner, must comply with the exemptions set out in the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 and thereby benefit from deemed consent or alternatively, should have the formal approval of the Local Planning Authority following the submission of an application for Advertisement Consent.

Within the Regulations there are a series of exempted classes of which Class 3D, which relates to temporary notices or signs, would appear to be relevant in this particular case. This class applies to:

1. An advertisement announcing any local event of a religious, educational, cultural, political, social or recreational character.

2. Relating to any temporary matter in connection with an event or local nature of such a character, not being an event or activity promoted or carried out for commercial purposes.

Once having satisfied this basic criteria an advertisement under this class must then comply with six guidelines. These are as follows:

1. No such advertisement may exceed 0.60 square metres in area.

2. No such advertisement may be displayed earlier than 28 days before the date (or first day) on which the event or activity is due to take place.

3. Any such advertisement shall be removed within 14 days after the end of the event or activity.

4. Illumination is not permitted.

5. No character or symbol on the advertisement may be more than 0.75 metres in height or 0.30 metres in an area of special control.

6. No part of the advertisement may be more than 4.60 metres above ground level or 3.60 metres in an area of special control.

When applying these criteria to the Liberty and Livelihood signs I do not consider that an event being undertaken in London can reasonably be described as a local event. Secondly, one of the qualifying criteria indicates that an advertisement must not be displayed more than 28 days before the date of the event and on the basis that the advertisements refer to an event day of 22 September then the signs are clearly in breach of this requirement. Finally, at 0.735 square metres the signs exceed the permitted size limit of 0.60 square metres.

Information from the Countryside Alliance and at least one property owner with whom the matter has been discussed have raised two issues in defence. Firstly, there appears to be a misconception that a landowner themselves can display any signs that they wish and secondly, the London office of the Countryside Alliance have indicated that they have sought a legal opinion which suggests that the Local Planning Authority must follow the discontinuance procedure under Regulation 8 if it wishes to see the signs removed. It has been pointed out that the discontinuance procedure only applies to advertisements displayed with deemed consent or formal consent and does not apply to signs which are displayed illegally as in this case. In response to the Local Planning Authority’s view that the event is not local in nature it has been suggested that it is clearly of interest to the Island and its population.

At 5 June 2002 Development Control Committee meeting Members set out a series of guidelines to use on an interim basis up until the end of this year when considering signs for local events. In terms of compliance with the rules laid down by the Committee the size of the signs, but not some of the banners, would comply, although clearly the display of the signs some seven weeks in advance of the event does not meet the fourteen day guideline set down by Members.

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1. To identify the relevant landowners and write to them advising them to remove the signs within two days and that a failure to comply with this request will result in the Local Planning Authority collecting the necessary evidence with a view to prosecution under Section 224(3) of the 1990 Planning Act.

2. To identify the relevant landowners and write to them advising them to remove the signs within two days and that a failure to comply with this requirement will result in the Local Planning Authority removing the signs from private land under the powers granted under Section 225(i) of the 1990 Planning Act.

3. On the basis that all the signs are removed, and only at that point in time, for the Local Planning Authority to enter into discussions with representatives of the Countryside Alliance to agree to the display of a limited number of signs and banners within clearly identified locations with these only to be displayed no more than fourteen days before the date of the event and to be removed within seven days after the event.

4. To take no further action on the ongoing breach of the Advertisement Regulations.

Conclusions

A significant number of signs have already been displayed and this number may well be added to over the coming weeks before the event. Even applying the Council’s more relaxed interim policy, the signs do not comply on the basis that they are being displayed some seven weeks before the event as opposed to the fourteen days set out by the Council. In any event, the more fundamental question applies that the march in London is not considered to be a local event.

This time of the year has seen the display of a significant number of signs in connection with local events some of which, have exceeded the Council’s own interim guidelines. Nevertheless, these have related to local events and have certainly not been displayed in advance of the event to the degree that the Liberty and Livelihood signs are. I do acknowledge that this event is of interest to the Island and its population and on that basis Members may wish to consider accepting the display of a limited number of signs in specified locations. This would be the result of discussions with the Countryside Alliance but which should only take place following the removal of all the existing illegally displayed signs. I propose that any agreement involves the Chairman of the Development Control Committee in the final decision. However, if Members do not consider that any flexibility should be shown because of the location of the event then only the first option should be adopted.

RECOMMENDATION

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services