Signs will stay put, vows defiant Barry

Trusted article source icon
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Profile image for Cornish Guardian

Cornish Guardian

A NORTH CORNWALL businessman told to take down his roadside signs or face prosecution has vowed to ignore the council's order.

Barry Harding was told by Cornwall Council to remove signs advertising his building business, HMG, in Trevone near Padstow or face a maximum fine of £2,500.

However, Mr Harding, who has had the 3ft-by-3ft signs up for more than 20 years, remains defiant.

"Why now?" he asked. "I could understand it if I'd just put the signs up, but they've been there for decades, directing people to our business."

A Cornwall Council enforcement officer wrote to Mr Harding following an unannounced site visit.

A spokesman for the council confirmed the officer had been responding to complaints from the public.

"Members of the public have expressed concerns to the council in respect of a number of unauthorised advertisement signs in and around the Trevone area," he said.

"Officers have visited the sites and subsequently written to a number of business-owners informing them of the regulations and the need to remove or apply for advertisement consent, as appropriate.

"It's an offence to display any advertisement sign in contravention of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, with the offence being subject to a maximum fine of £2,500 upon summary conviction in the magistrates' court, with a continuing daily fine of £250 for failing to remove the unauthorised advertisement."

Mr Harding, who employs 20 people at his building firm, was critical of the council's actions and said he was saddened that someone complained to the council instead of coming to him.

"If someone has a complaint with my signs, why don't they come to me?" said Mr Harding.

Vital

"These boards are neat and well-designed and are vital to us for bringing in business. I've just spent the past 30 minutes on the phone talking to new customers who contacted us because they saw the signs. If you take the signs down, our business will suffer. It just doesn't make sense and I'll fight this decision."

The council spokesman said it wanted to find the best solution for everyone involved.

"Naturally, the council will continue to work with local business-owners to avoid embarking on a course of formal action, but will do so where necessary," he said.

45
Tweet this article
Report

45 Comments

  • Profile image for 2ladybugs

    by 2ladybugs

    Saturday, February 11 2012, 4:02PM

    “This sign looks no different from a guest house or hotel sign so I can't see what the problem is.
    Council tax wastage.”

  • Profile image for StanStill

    by StanStill

    Saturday, February 11 2012, 3:41PM

    “Some power-crazy little Hitler on the council trying to make a name for him/herself. The council should be prosecuted for being inefficient if the sign has been there 20 years and they have done nothing about it. Get a life Jobsworth.”

  • Profile image for josdave

    by josdave

    Saturday, February 11 2012, 2:29PM

    “They've been there for 20 years so why now? It's some jobsworth trying to justify his/her salary. It's al;most the same as the tortoise sanctuary in Sticker which had been doing business for 20+ years until some jobsworth "suddenly" found some obscure rule that it had to be registered as a zoo. Do these people have nothing better to do than upset well established businesses?”

  • Profile image for Charlespk

    by Charlespk

    Saturday, February 11 2012, 9:12AM

    “Stroof 'Errol'! . Aw dey common purpose gits wot works fer da council av bin out in forse again!

    Iss no wunder da cowncil tax keeps goin up n' up down yer!”

  • Profile image for Charlespk

    by Charlespk

    Friday, February 10 2012, 7:50PM

    “I can't imagine that this law can be enforced retrospectively. . But if it can be we should immediately do something about it.

    This was a free country before 'Common Purpose' began their subversive activities disguised as a 'Charity' and operating under Chatham House Rules to hide their identities.

    http://tinyurl.com/46uybh

  • Profile image for beachland

    by beachland

    Friday, February 10 2012, 7:08PM

    “Comitting an offence for 20 years requires a more severe punishment than an offence committed over 20 days.”

  • Profile image for Frank_Scully

    by Frank_Scully

    Friday, February 10 2012, 6:55PM

    “The photo above shows one small sign. Is it really worth hassling this guy over that? It's hardly the Las Vegas strip! Despite it being in place for 20 years, I am not sure there is any limitation on enforcement action relating to ads. But as no one has taken any interest in 2 decades, maybe some common sense should prevail here and let it stand?”

  • Profile image for Charlespk

    by Charlespk

    Friday, February 10 2012, 12:56PM

    “"If" you do not.”

  • Profile image for Charlespk

    by Charlespk

    Friday, February 10 2012, 12:55PM

    “@DuporthBob

    I have opinions, but I don't ever talk clap-trap.

    I you do not have the intelligence to discriminate between 'signage clutter' and an appropriate 'historical' sign. . The deficiency is all yours.”

  • Profile image for DuporthBob

    by DuporthBob

    Friday, February 10 2012, 11:52AM

    “Charlespk talking claptrap and Hypocrisy.... you can't have it both ways!”

        Your comments awaiting moderation

        Add your comments

        max 4000 characters