Port Stephens Council backs out of $6000 fine against 'building and pest inspection' sign at Salt Ash

Lawyers for Mark Colecliffe of Anna Bay argued that the trailer’s primary use was not for advertising and were able to establish that Port Stephens Council cited the wrong section of the Act when it issued the penalty.

Rather than re-issue the penalty notice with the correct offence code the council said it chose not to prosecute the fine in Local Court and instead agreed to pay Mr Colecliffe $1100 in legal costs. This was after the council had sought an adjournment.

“I don’t think a $6000 fine really fits the crime, if you could call it that – I wouldn’t be fined that if I exceeded the speed limit by 45 kmh” Mr Colefliffe said.

“Trailers are an interesting case, they are a registered vehicle and I’m legally allowed to put it by the roadside. But as soon as you put a billboard on it council says it’s an illegal development.”

The fine was issued on November 23, 2016, when the box trailer and sign were located adjacent to Nelson Bay Road at Salt Ash, outside a friend’s property.

“It wasn’t even next to the road, it was on the other side of a drain next to a fence,” Mr Colecliffe said.

He received a written warning before he received the fine. But with “signs like this everywhere” he said he felt singled out.

“Consistency is what we’re looking for here and commonsense,” he said.

While the council said other people had gained approval for their trailer-based advertising Mr Colecliffe said it was a nonsense.

“To expect people to lodge a DA [development application] for a sign on a trailer is a load of crap,” he said.

“Where do you draw the line? Do you stop people from putting sign writing on their cars because it might distract people?”

Despite this case the council said it had managed to stem such illegal advertising that posed a “safety risk”.

“Roadside advertising has been a problem in the past, however, public education campaigns and enforcement has kept it at reasonable levels,” the council’s Environmental Health and Compliance acting coordinator Nicholas Jones said.

“Council is not in the business of revenue raising, but is instead focused on ensuring that people are given fair warning, where possible, and are educated about the right thing to do.”

Mr Jones said council was under a legal obligation to assess these forms of advertising.

“It is council's role to regulate the use of public and council land for advertising purposes, as set out in various pieces of legislation,” he said.

“This is both to uphold safety and visibility for road users, and to maintain the aesthetic of Port Stephens.”

Mr Jones said in Mr Colecliffe’s case the ranger had chosen not to press ahead.

“The regulation of placement of the sign was and is still enforceable under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, however on this occasion, the incorrect offence code was issued,” Mr Jones said.

“The officer decided not to reissue the penalty under the correct offence code and pursue further, which they were within their rights to do.”

While Mr Colecliffe questioned the council’s handling of the matter – labeling the whole case a waste of time and money – Mr Jones said there was no need for a review of ranger processes.

“At the time of the offence, over 12 months ago, the relevant officer was informed that they had chosen the wrong offence code,” Mr Jones said.

“No further change to procedures was deemed necessary.”

He urged people to contact the council if they had questions about this form of advertising.

“Generally, you are required to obtain consent from the land owner – in this case, council –  before placing an item in the location for the purpose of advertising,” Mr Jones said.

“It's always best to contact council to find out whether prior approval or consent is required.”