Firm is fined £500 over sign in square

THE two-year battle over the Broadlands sign by the Royal Square ‘exposes the whole bureaucratic mess that goes on at the Planning department’, according to estate agent Roger Trower.

Roger Trower represented the company that owns Broadlands estate agent in the Magistrate’s Court
Roger Trower represented the company that owns Broadlands estate agent in the Magistrate’s Court

THE two-year battle over the Broadlands sign by the Royal Square ‘exposes the whole bureaucratic mess that goes on at the Planning department’, according to estate agent Roger Trower.

The company was ordered to pay a £500 fine by the Magistrate’s Court for painting a sign down the side of its premises, overlooking the Royal Square.

The company has since painted over the sign, but Mr Trower said that he had been stopped daily by strangers to ask about the case since he first went public.

‘The support from the general public has been absolutely overwhelming,’ he said. ‘I feel as though we have maybe stood up for the little guy.'

Comments for: "Firm is fined £500 over sign in square"

Andy

Having had many dealings with the Planning Department over the years I totally agree with Roger Trower....That department is a farce

GLASS BOXES

mr trower should have put a huge glass portacabin in the royal square. That is always approved by Planning.

Nick

If he did that he would creating an architectural masterpiece in the syle of the Portelet developement.

Grumpy Old Woman

Well done to Mr Trower for standing up to the States petty mindedness.

What the eff does it matter if he paints the name of his business down the side of his building? It's not ugly or obtrusive and looks a darned sight more acceptable than the majority of the hideous buildings that planning have passed in the last 10 years

In the good old days many businesses had advertising painted on their side walls and no harm came from it. In fact I see the remnants of those signs now and wish we were still living back in those times.

i liked it

i think it should be repainted as it showed style and was complementary to its surroundings.

Jerry Gosselin

He must be deluded if he thinks he represents "the little guy". The Royal Square is our most historic venue and he shamelessly tried to cash in on that to get cheap advertising space for his estate agent business. The dignity of the Square and what it means to islanders should be protected from overt attempts at commercialism like this. The fine should have been bigger.

egalitarian

Surely every business must be allowed to put their name on their premises.

Mike

Jerry, what a load of rubbish. Look around the square, there are already loads of signs up, none any better than Trower's. Planning and the states generally are a bunch incompetents and I am disappointed that the Courts did not see through this sham and throw the case out of Court.

plagne

I am glad this whole self centred self publicity has come to an end.

Harly the little guy story. A big sign on the Royal square advertising an estate agency.

£500 fine is not enough. He has kept his company name on the papers for a while .

£10,000 would make this type of self publicist wonder whether this will pay.

With his rants he must fancy we wish to give him the same role as Jeremy Clarkson.

davey West

Roger is correct, and Minister Du Hamel says we are all going to go green, and is keen to insulate houses to keep them warmer to save on fuel. Senator Ferguson asked in the States if this meant fines for home owners who do not comply with the carbon footprint blueprint ?

Yet the planning department are so keen on green, they refused me double glazing for three years. This would have kept an old house ( but not an important heritage gem ) warmer and much less noise from the street, which would have been great.

Sack the lot of them and start again.

Never did get permission.

Davey.

the thin wallet

hopefully its a thin coat of paint that will weather and see the sign underneath in years to come dont paint the wall for 10 years mr trower.

unlike his masters voice by the coop on foots old building that was allowed to almost disappear.

Richard

He would be directed to paint over it again.

the thin wallet

barmy bisson ( god rest his soul) was'nt.

remember the house up mont cochon with the biblical text.

Richard

Yes, I remember. A new planning law has come in since then.

Mrs B

The POSH (or maybe it was the States) paid for Mr Bission's house to be repainted. Gave him a nice blank canvas which he promptly wrote all over again!

C@rLiNHo5

I personally like the sign, marketing aside, I think it looks pretty tasteful and the style of the font and the way it's been painted down the side of the building in an early 1900's look & feel is very authentic and brings back character to that otherwise bland area. Visually interesting & pleasing. I have no problem with it.

egalitarian

Quite agree. Will all the other signs in the Royal Square have to be removed as well?

Sid

Not if they exist subject to the proper permission having been granted.

JessP

I agree - i thought this was quite a tasteful sign, but I guess if you let this one go, then everyone else would want a big sign which wouldn't be great.

On a related matter, I'm much more concerned about the big new neon signs on the side of the Radisson which you can see for miles - as if that building doesn't stand out enough!

Simple Sid

bureaucratic bull.....t well done Mr Trower for taking them on

Banks Boy

Let's not forget he's an estate agent!

The Thinker

I think what really annoys many people is that it would seem the Law has been very poorly written so that a discrete 'tasteful' sign (that many people weren't even aware of in the Square) has to be removed, whereas the enormous, gigantic roll down banners used by JT and others appear to be acceptable.