Huge billboard goes up on Coldharbour Lane without planning permission and car wash shenanigans

[TruXta]

Nice work, Steve.

 

[editor]

Cheers for the update! Thanks, Steve.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Just in passing: there is a Fundamentalist Christian guy in Devon who has built a church without planning permission. Apparently God told him to do it.

 

[Badgers]

Good work Steve.
Hope Vassall Ward is well?

 

[Laughing Toad]

After much cajoling I've finally had a proper answer out of Lambeth's Enforcement Team on this bilboard. It reads as follows :

"We have discussed the hoardings with the advertiser who initially claimed deemed consent rights under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 2007. We disagree with his claim and have explained the council’s case in a meeting with him. We gave him the opportunity to put forward a counter argument but he has failed to do so. Although the advertiser has recently provided more material, we do not consider this sufficient. In light of the above, it is our intention to issue notices threatening the removal of the hoardings".

I'm told the council is now working with the Estate Services provider for the land on which the hoarding is located in order to get them to physically remove it. Apparently it's looking positive so far, but discussions are still ongoing.

If I get any further updates I'll post them here. But fingers crossed that the illegal sign's days are now numbered.....

Brilliant job. Well done.

I still say we should burn it down though.

 

[ymu]

Should there not be punitive charges made for doing this kind of shit without permission? The fine has to be double the commercial value of the space at least or we end up wasting shed loads of bureaucrat time chasing up cheapo advertisers. Madness.

 

[London_Calling]

Under the law you are allowed to cause a crime (e.g. attacking someone) to prevent the occurenec of a greater crime (i.e. that person murdering someone else).

This defence was successfully used by 'Swords into Ploughshares' peace activists in 1996 when they were taken to court by BAE for damaging Hawk aircrafts bound for the Indonesian government to use against its own people in East Timor. The judge accepted their argument that damaging the planes was preventing a greater crime from occuring.

I thought it was the jury, not the judge, that decided that.

If memory serves, it was a 'perverse verdict'. That is, one that goes against all evidence and the law.

The defence was successful, but it has no legal basis. The jury, in that instance, sympathised.

 

[ymu]

If memory serves, it was a 'perverse verdict'. That is, one that goes against all evidence and the law.

The defence was successful, but it has no legal basis. The jury, in that instance, sympathised.

No. It's a standard defence. The defendant has to prove that they were acting reasonably to prevent a worse crime. Trident Ploughshares were on strong ground there because nothing else would have stopped those bombers getting shipped out to kill people. They stick around to get arrested, so they command a good deal of respect from juries too.

 

[laptop]

No. It's a standard defence. The defendant has to prove that they were acting reasonably to prevent a worse crime. Trident Ploughshares were on strong ground there because nothing else would have stopped those bombers getting shipped out to kill people. They stick around to get arrested, so they command a good deal of respect from juries too.

Aye. My impression is that Ploughshares (and a more recent Greenpeace case) were not perverse verdicts, but juries accepting that the action was reasonable. Though clearly lawyers in future prosecutions will try to argue otherwise.

The acquittal of Clive Ponting looks more like a perverse verdict: he had argued that he had broken the Official Secrets Act but that it was in the public interest. The judge had, following R -v- Randall et al (1963), instructed the jury that the public interest is what the government says it is; and the jury said "sod that".

 

[London_Calling]

That's interesting. Finally got to this. Fwiw, it revolves around an innovative emphasis on a term within the Criminal Damage Act 1971, S5 to be exact, the phrase 'lawful excuse' to be really exact:

"Without lawful excuse"

Apart from the general self-defence excuse applicable to any offence involving violent acts, section 5 of the Act sets out specific provisions in relation to criminal damage: a defendant will have "lawful excuse" if

(a) at the time ... he believed that the person ... believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction or damage ... had so consented, or would have consented had they known ..., or
(b) he destroyed or damaged ... the property in question ... and in order to protect the property ... and at the time ... he believed

(i) that the property ... was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection ... were ... reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

Section 5(3) of the Act states that it is immaterial whether the defendant's belief is justified as long as it is an honest belief, and therefore creates a subjective test to be assessed by the court or jury.

Leaves a lot in the hands of the jury . . . but that would seem exactly the right place.

 

[Laughing Toad]

I don't fully understand. Are you saying we can burn it down, as long as we think we can convince a jury that we believe it's the right thing to do?

 

[London_Calling]

No, it's trickier than that:

Jaggard v Dickinson (1980) QBD

D broke into a house when she was drunk. She thought the house belonged to her friend. If the house had belonged to her friend, the friend would have consented to her entering in this way. D argued that she had a defence under the Act.

("having a lawful excuse " if "he believed that the person . . . whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of . . . the property . . . would have so consented.").

Held: Her intoxication negated her mens rea. The offence was one of basic intent, but Parliament specifically intended the defence to be subjective.

Therefore, the correct test is what the defendant's actual state of belief was, not the state of belief that ought to have existed.

The defendant has an honest belief if is honestly held even if it is a drunken belief.

Not guilty

 

[Onket]

Should there not be punitive charges made for doing this kind of shit without permission? The fine has to be double the commercial value of the space at least or we end up wasting shed loads of bureaucrat time chasing up cheapo advertisers. Madness.

This^^

Even if the boards do now get taken down, they've had how many months of income from a massive hoarding that they've been charging people to use?

 

[Onket]

how many months ?

4 and a half months since the thread was started. I wonder how much they charge people to advertise there.

 

[editor]

4 and a half months since the thread was started. I wonder how much they charge people to advertise there.

Curiously, for a lot of the time there was nothing on the billboard. I wonder if that's because they get fined per advertisement and knew that they weren't going to get away with this one?

I've certainly learnt a lot about how these cowboys work: there was a similar-sized illegal billboard nearby that was there for at least six years so they must have made a packet out of that.

 

[Onket]

Did we ever find out if the one outside the building site next to Jamm was legal? not sure if it's still there now that the flats have been finished, I've moved house so I've not been passed there in a long while.

That one wasn't far from Steve Bradbuiry the Lib Dem councillor's 'patch', so maybe he knows more.......

 

[editor]

Did we ever find out if the one outside the building site next to Jamm was legal? not sure if it's still there now that the flats have been finished, I've moved house so I've not been passed there in a long while.

That one wasn't far from Steve Bradbuiry the Lib Dem councillor's 'patch', so maybe he knows more.......

I think the huge one right next to JAMM is a legal one.

 

[Onket]

Ouch!

 

[editor]

Ouch!

A while ago they had a really big illuminated Coca Cola advert up there that was really distracting. It was horrible!

 

[Onket]

Ah yeah, I remember someone painting over some of it with black paint.

 

[two sheds]

I'd have thought best approach would be to hang large sheets in front of the billboard with your own chosen message on. That would hardly be criminal damage and I'd imagine the billboard owner might have difficulty claiming they'd lost income from it.

 

[Onket]

Difficulty proving, maybe, but not difficulty claiming it.

 

[editor]

Ah yeah, I remember someone painting over some of it with black paint.

For the best, I reckon

 

[Laughing Toad]

I noticed today that it's been painted brown.

 

[editor]

Hmm. A notice appeared a while ago saying that it had to be taken down within three months, but now a new document has appeared. Would I be correct in assuming that they've now dreamt up a load of bollocks to say that they can keep the billboards up because they're there to screen a (non existent) construction site?

here's the planning application referred to in the note:

10/03996/FUL
Change of use to provide a hand car wash (Sui Generis) involving the erection of a cabin, installation of gates fronting Coldharbour lane, and the provision of 3 car parking spaces.

The portacabin has been already erected (at the opposite end) and there is no construction work taking place where the fuck off massive billboard is. As it is, the billboard brings no environmental benefits whatsoever - only commercial ones to the dodgy fuckers who erected it.

Opinions please!

 

[gabi]

that shit definitely belongs in the office scalding email thread. epic.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

that shit definitely belongs in the office scalding email thread. epic.

Awful! I'd write a letter of complaint about the layout and letterhead of that letter!

 

[stevebradley]

The last update I got from Planning on the CHL billboard was on 20th July as follows :

"With regard to the advertisement hoardings, notices were issued on Monday requesting that they are removed within two months. I will be liaising with the asset management team to see if we can arrange removal of the hoardings if they are not removed by the advertiser".

So notices were issued on 18th July, which gives them until 18th September to have removed it. If they're not gone by then I'll chase them to take them down themselves and seek to recover the costs from the landowner.

 

[editor]

The last update I got from Planning on the CHL billboard was on 20th July as follows :

"With regard to the advertisement hoardings, notices were issued on Monday requesting that they are removed within two months. I will be liaising with the asset management team to see if we can arrange removal of the hoardings if they are not removed by the advertiser".

So notices were issued on 18th July, which gives them until 18th September to have removed it. If they're not gone by then I'll chase them to take them down themselves and seek to recover the costs from the landowner.

Cheers Steve. This new note is baffling though because it looks it's granting this dodgy hoarding up to three years for non existent works.

I note that adverts are now appearing on the billboard too.

 

[Streathamite]

Should there not be punitive charges made for doing this kind of shit without permission? The fine has to be double the commercial value of the space at least or we end up wasting shed loads of bureaucrat time chasing up cheapo advertisers. Madness.

That's a good idea.