In This Issue
Highgate Garden Centre set to close within a fortnight
Not a flaming June – but best for 5 years
Bents launch The Great Plant Experiment
Pots of Garden Lighting sales as summer kicks in
Sevenoaks GC wins six-year battle over advertising signs
Floralsilk open new "must see" showroom
Solex starts at the NEC on Monday
Get your Garden Re-Leaf Day monies in now!
Waitrose move ahead with garden centre plans
Aylett and Simpsons share Garden Re-Leaf ‘Westland Challenge’ prize worth £6,000
Cultivation Street entries flooding in
Barton Grange founder at opening of world's first nursery park
First clue in GCA 'guess the venue' comp
Veg seed packs are back in demand
Still time to book for GIMA Awards dinner
T&M employees clock up 165 years
Volumes of growing media still show encouraging signs
Mr Fothergill's appoints head of direct marketing
GCA members have a 'big debate' over peat
Dig these Solus deals for Autumn
Floramedia appoints an Image Library Supervisor
Slug Gone lands British Wool logo
Lechuza self-watering pots launch in the UK
GTN Bestsellers - garden centre sales data every week
Bestsellers Top 50 charts every week
 

Read more»
Send us your news and great ideas

Contact us with your news.  Email mike.wyatt@tgcmc.co.uk or trevor.pfeiffer@tgcmc.co.uk or call the GTN News team on 01733 775700

 


Sevenoaks GC wins six-year battle over advertising signs


The owners of Sevenoaks Garden Centre in Leicestershire have won a six-year fight over roadside advertising signs.

But Paul and Susan Barratt, who have been running their business for more than a decade, say they are £8,000 out of pocket in legal costs and fear they might not recoup them all.

Hinckley Magistrates Court has ruled in their favour and said they were not breaching planning rules.

Mr Barratt said: "We feel vindicated and want to be left in peace to develop our business.

"Let us hope this court case means we can leave the signs on the verges without any more hassle."

Over the years, the Barratts have placed two small wooden signs on the verges, in the picturesque village of Newtown Linford, advertising the business. They put them out each day and take them in at the end of business.

But they fell foul of planning enforcement officers at Charnwood Borough Council in 2007.

The council said the signs were not authorised and could pose a risk to highway safety. The authority accused the Barratts of breaching planning regulations and, after issuing enforcement notices, took them to court.

However, the couple denied they were doing anything wrong, saying the signs had been on the verges for years and were not causing any harm.

The couple appeared at Hinckley Magistrates' Court determined to plead their case, and then learned that Charnwood Council, which brought the prosecution, offered no evidence.

The court ordered Mr and Mrs Barratt should have their costs paid out of Government funds.

Mrs Barratt said: "All along we had said we had deemed consent because the signs had been there for so long without causing any problems."

She said county highways were not upset by the signs.

"They are two small signs on the verge in areas where there is traffic calming and vehicles move very slowly."

Mr Barratt said: "We have placed the signs on the verges for more than a decade. Other businesses place advertising signs on the highway in the village. We feel we are the only ones to be on the receiving end of the council.

"We have had to continually fight for the right to advertise our business. We are half-a-mile out of Newtown Linford and the signs are vital for the viability of our business.

"We estimate this has cost us £8,000. The council knew we were pleading not guilty so why did it not drop the charges when we entered pleas?

"We have been awarded costs by the court but our lawyer said they were unlikely to meet all our expenditure."

A Charnwood Borough Council spokesman said: "The council has made every effort to find an amicable resolution over the last few years.

"The decision to withdraw the prosecution was taken on the day of the hearing following discussions between the prosecutor and defence barrister."



Share | Comment (0)
Email Newsletter Software by Newsweaver