Thame retirement complex fined for illegal advertising

Yeats Lodge in Greyhound Lane was ordered to pay more than £2,700 after it failed to remove multiple unauthorised advertisements from around its grounds.

An investigation was launched by South Oxfordshire District Council after the authority received a complaint regarding the advertising.

Officers representing the council visited the retirement home and discovered that due to the land being within a conservation area, the adverts, a combination of flags and signs, were not permitted.

The site owner, Churchill Living Limited (then known as Churchill Retirement Living) was advised that the adverts were not authorised and that consent would be required.

A court heard that unauthorised advertisements remained in place from May of last year through to September 2023. That September the company submitted an application to the council for advert consent, but it was refused. A council officer concluded that the adverts would “affect the visual amenity of the area and character and appearance of the Thame Conservation Area.”

By law, the company was required to remove the signage and flags within 28 days of this ruling.

South Oxfordshire District Council served a summons against Churchill Living Limited in July of this year, as the adverts were not taken down.

Five days later, and 14 months after the business was first informed of the situation, the unauthorised adverts were finally removed, the council has revealed. An appeal into the council’s decision was rejected in December.

On Friday 13 December, at Oxford Magistrates’ Court, Churchill Living Limited pleaded guilty to two offences of breaching planning control. After taking mitigating factors into account, Magistrates fined the company £1,000 and ordered them to pay prosecution costs of £1,354, £400 victim surcharge and Prosecution Costs.

Councillor Anne-Marie Simpson said: “We’re very pleased that the Planning Inspectorate backed our decision to refuse this application and that the company has subsequently admitted that it breached planning regulations.

“When we were first made aware of the unauthorised adverts, our officers were very clear with the business about their responsibilities. If they had removed the signs and flags when requested and then followed the correct planning procedure they wouldn’t have ended up in court.”