COURT CASE

Page 1 | 2 | 3
 

Campaigner Richard Butler has accused the city council of hypocrisy over its plans to hang a huge sign over the side of Chapel Street car park. The council prosecuted him over his two-metre sign as he did not have consent to display it from Council House chiefs. Now the council plans to drape an advert measuring 54m wide and 13m high on Chapel Street car park, after it asks itself for consent first. The planned giant translucent banner will advertise the Cathedral Quarter. Council leader Chris Williamson said it would encourage people to use the car park, brighten up the area and promote the Cathedral Quarter.

He said, "First and foremost this is about promoting the Cathedral Quarter and secondly to promote the fact that the car park is there and is one of the most convenient car parks for people wanting to get to the Cathedral Quarter. It also has the added benefit of dressing what is not a particularly attractive structure. This will improve the way the car park looks from the street." It is expected to cost around £20,000, which will come out of the council's public realm fund, set aside to pay for improvements to public spaces. (Source: Derby Evening Telegraph, Aug/07)

Prosecuting, Helen Barrington said, "This wasn't a small banner, it was an extensive banner that went across the front of Mr Butler's building. We have a problem with advertisers finding loopholes in the laws, we do have a problem with fly posters." She added, "You could have the situation of people putting signs on their houses saying a certain brand of burgers is best and saying it was an expression of interest not an advert."

Mr Butler accused planning officer Neil Jackson of refusing to help him stay within the law after he advised him against submitting a £220 planning application for the banner. Cross-examined by defence counsel Michael Mallender, Mr Jackson said giving too much information to Mr Butler could have helped him "circumnavigate" the advertising laws.

In other words, the council had no intention of advising him how to keep within the law. It seems they were hell-bent on prosecuting from the word "Go!" Mr Butler was found guilty of displaying an advert without consent. He received a 12-month conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £1,706 in court costs.

Mr Butler warned the ruling would have implications for protesters everywhere, and said the people of Derby should be disgusted by their council's actions. He said, "We will have to consider whether to make an appeal but I am very, very sad that the city council have used advertising law to suppress opposition to their road scheme."

District Judge Joanne Alderson said the inclusion of Derby Heart's logo and phone number breached advertising laws and "invited public support". And that's the last thing the council wants. Councillor Lucy Care, said, "This banner was on a residential building in a residential area. If this case had gone through, then it would have made it much easier for people to put up banners like that and it would be impossible for people to get them taken down." Until the council bulldoze the area, that is.

District Judge Joanne Alderson ruled that the banner was an advertisement and would have been one even without the website address and that the words "Save Five Lamps" would alone be classed as an advertisement in law. Mr Butler said, "This is a vindictive prosecution. It has been very unfair and, quite frankly, it stinks. I'm very, very sad that the city council used advertising law to suppress opposition to its road scheme."

Jonathan Guest, the council's director of development and cultural services, who oversees advertising enforcement, said, "We did not take action because we thought it was a public protest against Connecting Derby. We wanted to avoid the proliferation of unauthorised advertisements." Of course you did, Mr Guest. Further proof of the council's dislike for criticism and it's determination to get its own way at all costs.

Suddenly Derby City Council is interested in signs, so much so that it has pursued someone who displayed what they consider to be an illegal one to the tune of a £1,700 fine. I wonder why it does not don't show such alacrity with the maintenance of its own. 18 months ago, I wrote to the newly-elected Joan Travis, pointing out, among other things, that the warning signs for Markeaton Primary School, located on Kedleston Road, opposite Wheeldon Avenue, had been turned round 90 degrees and this could be the cause of an accident.

She said she would notify the appropriate department. In March 2004, matters nearly came to fisticuffs when a cyclist in Darley Park not only failed to give way to pedestrians but insisted he had priority on a "No Cycling" path. I informed the council of this, the inadequate signing and the potential hazards. I was assured that matters would be looked into and, if necessary, rectified. To date, nothing has been altered in either the park or on the street. Could it be that Derby City Council ise only interested in signs which will help fill the coffers, not those which will cost money to maintain? Can someone reassure me that there are no double standards in the Council House? A L Bennett

Next >>>