Town and Country Planning Act applied to 'reverse graffiti'

[unlawful]

Hi guys

A company that I work for has found itself on the wrong side of a Local Authority Council that is threatening to prosecute under the Town and Country Planning Act and I'm hoping that someone can point me in the right direction as to whether the threat is limited to just a threat.

Reverse graffiti is a cool new way to advertise and uses nothing but water, a pressure washer and a stencil. I can't show an example of this as I'm not able to post urls to other sites with images on just yet.

So, the company has applied some reverse graffiti marketing to areas around the town centre and has received correspondence from the LA citing Section 224 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1980.

There are sites around the web which specialise in reverse graffiti - here's an extract from one such website

In the early days of reverse graffiti we saw an opinion from the Crown Prosecution Service to the Police Force in Wales that "there are no grounds for prosecution for reverse graffiti"

I was hoping that someone might be able to point me in the right direction to research any such CPS opinion on this matter in order to mitigate any potential prosecution against the company.

Any help would be very much appreciated.

 

[bovine]

Interesting concept - hadnt heard of reverse graffiti before.

Is it legal or illegal - i have no idea and can offer no useful input to your question, but part of me thinks it should be illegal but the other part of me thinks how can it be, you are only cleaning something with water. Interesting one, and to be honest i suspect you need very specialist legal knowledge and a precedent at court. If there isnt a precedent, well maybe its time to take it to court. Would be rather expensive though!

To take a different approach, why not offer to clean the rest of the surface that has been reverse graffiti'd after a period of time. Then everyone is happy.

 

[akirk]

if you advertise illegally in places where there is no planning for advertising - that is flyposters - (hence that section) - it is in breach of the law, you get caught, you pay the consequences...

I assume that reverse graffiti is simply cleaning areas so that the clean area shows your message?

methodology is irrelevant - you are caught in breach of the law.

CPS is irrelevant - this local authority correspondence refers to a planning breach, not a criminal case for graffiti - two totally different things...

Alasdair

 

[Esk247]

Doesn't matter what you call it. I've googled Reverse Graffiti and come up with this:

http://www.reversegraffitiproject.com/

still looks like graffiti to me, it's called graffiti, it breaks the rules so you're getting told off by the elders.

Just offer to clean it all up free of charge.

 

[Billmccallum]

The Town and Country Planning​

(Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007

​

​

​

​

CLASS C

An advertisement incorporated in the fabric of a building.

1. The building or any external face of it is not
used principally for the display of advertisements.

2. For the purposes of Class C—

(a) an advertisement fixed to, or painted on, a
building is not to be regarded as
incorporated in its fabric;

(b) a hoarding or similar structure is to be
regarded as a building used principally for​

the display of advertisements.

 

[Billmccallum]

Sorry, forgot to explain.

An advertised is exempt from the requirement of local council approval if its part of the fabric of the building.

It could be argued that this form of advert does not need approval.

 

No chance IMHO ,still disfiguring buildings by cleaning them in this way.

If its deemed an eyesore ,end of.

Earl

 

[Dawg]

Sorry, forgot to explain.

An advertised is exempt from the requirement of local council approval if its part of the fabric of the building.

It could be argued that this form of advert does not need approval.

"It could be argued..."
Who has deeper pockets to pay lawyers with? (As per the old adage; "The law, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all".)

Does the OP have the inclination and the funds to set precedent?

 

[An Oasis]

http://www.reversegraffitiproject.com/

Cool video

 

[unlawful]

Hey guys

Thanks very much for the helpful comments. It seems that some free street cleaning may be in order then

The 'adverts' were applied to pavements and walkways only, not to any buildings etc. I don't know if that makes any difference at all?

Dawg - there is no inclination or indeed funds to set precedent against the LA

Thanks again, everyone.

 

[Esk247]

Hey guys

Thanks very much for the helpful comments. It seems that some free street cleaning may be in order then

The 'adverts' were applied to pavements and walkways only, not to any buildings etc. I don't know if that makes any difference at all?

Dawg - there is no inclination or indeed funds to set precedent against the LA

Thanks again, everyone.

Still Council property I would assume.

If you haven't got the funds, stuff your tail between your legs and clean it up, save the fight for another day.

 

[arcon5]

Send them an invoice for your cleaning services

 

[JohnnyCash]

Just offer to clean it all up free of charge.

Wouldn't that be vandalise it free of charge?

 

[Dawg]

If you do clean it up, put on a brave face, make sure the local paper is warned, (have a mate do some pics too), alert bodies that deal with cleaning graffiti, basically do a whole press job for your business.
Silver lining stuff.

In reckon the Mail might like it as one of their "local council buffoons make ...." type stories.

 

[MikeBarnard]

Hello all.

I'm posting here because I was looking for case law on the same thing and my searches brought me through to this discussion. I work for a council and it's my job to clean graffiti within our district. I thought passing on this message will help clear up what can and can't be done.

This is written by a respected lawyer. He is replying to a question raised by another council about cleaning up after another such 'legal' campaign.

I hope you find this useful.

Mike.






"This is a practice commonly known now as “griming” in London. Unfortunately for [a named company] they are only partially right, if they are right – it [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]is [/FONT][/FONT]illegal. It is a form of criminal damage, as evidenced by the very fact that you have been required to get them to remove it. It is indeed no less an act of graffiti simply because it is done for corporate commercial gain. Criminal damage need not be permanent and it is sufficient damage if the person in control will be put to time and / or expense to put the highway back into a satisfactory condition.

Section 132 Highways ACT 1980 provides:
A person who, without either the consent of the highway authority for the highway in question or an authorisation given by or under an enactment or a reasonable excuse, paints or otherwise inscribes or affixes any picture, letter, sign or other mark upon the surface of a highway or upon any tree, structure or works on or in a highway is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £100 or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, to a fine not exceeding £200.

I am not entirely convinced that there is a loophole here. I believe the intent [of the legislation] was clearly to prohibit application of unauthorised marks on highway surfaces and it is extremely disingenuous to claim that this form of marking does not fall within that intent. In order to carry out this operation those concerned affixed a picture or mark (the stencil) in order to leave the permanent mark.

I would be inclined to charge both offences and see what a court makes of it.
Of course, you could always remind them that it does fall within the definition of an advertisement - “any word, letter, model, sign, placard, board, notice, awning, blind, device or representation, whether illuminated or not, in the nature of, and employed wholly or partly for the purposes of, advertisement, announcement or direction, and (without prejudice to the previous provisions of this definition) includes any hoarding or similar structure used, or designed or adapted for use, and anything else principally used, or designed or adapted principally for use, for the display of advertisements”.

It is not exempt from regulatory control and does not attract deemed consent.
To quote from the Control of Advertisements Regulations:
All advertisements, other than the excepted classes mentioned in paragraph 9 above, require consent before they can be lawfully displayed. Any person who displays an advertisement in contravention of the Regulations is guilty of an offence under section 224(3) of the 1990 Act and liable to a fine on conviction.