Haslingden outdoor shop Winfield's appeals ruling over advertising signs (From Lancashire Telegraph)
When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
Haslingden outdoor shop Winfield's appeals ruling over advertising signs
ONE of Haslingden’s best known businesses is taking a fight to display banners on a road junction to the Court of Appeal.
Dale Winfield, owner of Winfield’s of Haslingden, claims he has been displaying advertisements for his shop on land at the junction of the A56 and A580 for more than 10 years.
He said he was entitled to a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD), which would entitle him to carry on without the need for planning permission.
However, first Rossendale Borough Council, then a Government planning inspector refused him a CLEUD that would allow him to go on displaying the 13metre-long, 2.6metre-high banners on a wooden structure at the site.
He took his case to the High Court, but earlier this year, Mr Justice Supperstone rejected his challenge, to the earlier decisions and upheld the inspector’s original refusal.
Now though Mr Winfield has asked the Court of Appeal in London to order the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to have his application for a CLEUD reconsidered.
The court has reserved its decision, in order to give it in writing at a later date.
Mr Winfield claims he has used the site continually to advertise promotions at his shop since May 1997. He argued that in those circumstances he has acquired a right to do so without the need for planning permission.
However, lawyers for the Government said Mr Winfield removed the banners when required to do so by the council, and, each time he did so, it reset the clock for the purposes of the 10-year time period for acquiring such rights.
Mr Winfield argued that there were only short breaks of a few weeks at a time, and that the posts or wooden structure were in place even when banners were not displayed.
He said the judge was wrong not to find that his use of the site was continual for a 10-year period.
Dismissing his challenge in February, Mr Justice Supperstone said: “It is clear to me that the appellant’s actions in removing the advertisements when required to do so by the council were intended to remedy the breach of control at the time, thereby avoiding any further action by the council.”
He ordered Mr Winfield to pay the Government’s legal costs of £8,000.