OFFENSIVE ADVERTISING SIGNS

Evening Star, Issue 21218, 27 September 1932, Page 2

OFFENSIVE ADVERTISING SIGNS

GLARING COLOURS DISFIGURE BUILDINGS . Despite the frequent attacks made by various public bodies and individuals on advertisement hoardings and advertising signs on buildings as ugly and offensive landmarks, the practice shows no signs of abating, in fact, the contrary is the case. In Auckland recently an interesting case in the Magistrate’s Court represented the first prosecution to be made for an alleged breach of the City Council by-law prohibiting the use of certain colours in advertisements painted on the walls and roofs of buildings, verandahs, and fences, and involved the City Council and a firm of signwriters. The by-law provides that the background or base of a sign painted on a building should be black, white, cream, grey, deep blue, brown, or deep green, and it was alleged that the defendant company had not complied with this restriction. James Tyler, city engineer, said the defendant company had painted a sign advertising the Zealaudia Dry Cleaning Company on the wall of a building at 34 Victoria street west, and had used a bright red as the colour for the background. Red was not included in the colours allowed by the council. Any permit given to paint a sign on a building had to comply with, the regulation colours, and the place had to be approved by the council. The council’s staff had no power to issue such permits, all applications being dealt with by the council. The regulation had been made because councillors had objected to business firms plastering the walls of their buildings with glaring signs which were offensive to the eye. In one case a church in the city was sold and converted into a factory, the name of a disinfectant being painted prominently across the roof. Cross-examined, witness said on legitimate advertising hoardings the advertiser could use any colours he wished. Hoardings were restricted to certain areas in the city and were allowed in comparatively few streets. Counsel for the defence submitted that the by-law was unreasonable. Black and white, he said, could not be classed as colours; cream and grey were composite and indefinite; and dark blue and dark green provided for only one shade, and were also indefinite. Red, yellow, and light shades in green and blue were debarred. The colour of buildings was not affected, but only painted signs, and paintings on shop window panels were also not affected, as the glass was the background. Hoardings were also exempt. This was not reasonable. The by-law was also uncertain, as it did not definitely state which of a variety of colours in an advertisement constituted the base or background. Similar by-laws did not exist in London and other leading cities.

. In dismissing the charge the magistrate said he agreed with counsel i'or the defence that the by-law was uncertain and in many respects unreasonable. It was not definite enough and there were too many loopholes. • It would be more desirable lor painted signs to be regulated by some art authority or society, rather than by a by-law such as the existing one. Counsel for the prosecution intimated that he would appeal.