Issue - meetings

Public Question

Councillor Bick raised the following points as a Market Ward Councillor:

      i.          Welcomed the City Council taking ownership of ‘A’ board issues as the County Council/Highways Authority had not taken action although they had responsibility to do so.

    ii.          ‘A’ boards blocked pavements for all users and caused crushes where people unexpectedly stepped into streets to avoid ‘A’ boards, usually without looking for traffic.

 iii.          The highway should be for public use and no business had the right to do so. Suggested the County Council had chosen not to take action against businesses who put ‘A’ boards on the highway (pavements).

  iv.          There were better alternatives to ‘A’ boards for signposting businesses. Queried why these were not used eg discreet signs.

    v.          ‘A’ boards were a hazard and street clutter. The City Council should have a default position of no ‘A’ boards. They should be implemented by exception not default.

  vi.          The proposed policy appeared to give permission for ‘A’ boards near buildings and so could lead to greater numbers.

vii.          Queried if officers had the time or resources to take enforcement action on top of their other duties.

viii.          Expressed concern that people who dropped litter got a fixed penalty fine whereas inappropriate ‘A’ boards got a warning and 48 hours to take remedial action before further penalties were imposed. This seemed unfair.

  ix.          Queried when the ‘A’ board policy would be reviewed to see if it was effective.

 

The Operations Manager (Community Engagement and Enforcement) responded:

       i.          Businesses were surveyed to ascertain why they used ‘A’ boards (eg to signpost businesses) and if they would voluntarily remove them. Respondents had not looked at alternatives.

     ii.          The policy tried to balance business and highway user needs.

   iii.          There was an enforcement team of 7 officers to cover all duties. ‘A’ board enforcement work would complement other duties. The ‘A’ board policy would also allow enforcement work to be undertaken by City Rangers, which was not currently possible.

   iv.          ‘A’ boards were not given a fixed penalty like dog fouling as they were not a crime that could be penalised in the same way.

 

Matter for Decision

In 2014, the City Centre Accessibility Review was commissioned to gain a fuller understanding of the issues affecting ease of access in and around the city centre for a range of users, but particularly pedestrians, disabled people.  The review report was considered at the March, 2015, Community Services Scrutiny Committee, and in July, 2015, a plan of action was developed and approved at committee to take the next steps to bring about the identified changes needed.  This plan included the development of an advertising board policy.  A progress update of the actions undertaken from the action plan was presented to committee in July, 2016.  In March, 2016, a survey of advertising signage use in the city centre was undertaken and the views of local business users sought on the voluntary removal of advertising signs, such as A-boards.  In January, 2017, a draft city-wide policy for Advertising Boards was approved at committee for consultation with relevant stakeholders.

 

The June 2017 Officer’s report reviewed the consultation findings and set out a proposed final policy for Advertising Boards and timetable for implementation.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Streets & Open Spaces

       i.          Approved the Policy for placing of Advertising Boards, as set out in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Approved the implementation timetable for the policy, allowing for officers to undertake a three-month education programme and engage with key stakeholders including Cambridge BID and trader associations.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Operations Manager (Community Engagement and Enforcement).

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Shop curtilage extended 1m into the pavement, so they could do what they like in this area.

     ii.          Queried if the policy would lead to an increased number of ‘A’ boards.

   iii.          Streets and pavements should be accessible. ‘A’ boards, blocked drains and parking on pavements were all factors to consider.

   iv.          ‘A’ boards blocked pavements. This was a historic issue. Shops would not survive if people could not access them due to blocked pavements.

    v.          ‘A’ boards were of greater importance to small businesses who had less brand recognition than larger ones, so smaller businesses needed a way to attract customers.

   vi.          ‘A’ boards were of more use to visitors than local residents.

 vii.          Alternatives to ‘A’ boards should be considered.

 

The Operations Manager (Community Engagement and Enforcement) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          A review of the impact of the policy would be brought to committee circa June 2018. This should include 6 months of enforcement data.

     ii.          It was unclear what percentage of ‘A’ boards could have enforcement action taken against them hence the education first approach.

 

The Operations Manager (Community Engagement and Enforcement) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

         i.          The City Council would work with businesses and review the impact of the ‘A’ board policy if implemented. Ward Councillor feedback was also welcome.

       ii.          Feedback from Councillors was welcomed outside of the meeting on alternatives to ‘A’ boards.

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Austin formally proposed to amend the ‘A’ boards policy as follows:

·       To hold a review after 4 months.

·       To bring back a report to committee in June 2018 that would include enforcement data.

 

The Committee approved this additional recommendation nem con.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. She asked for the minutes to record the work undertaken by Councillor Bird and Operations Manager (Community Engagement and Enforcement) to get the ‘A’ board policy in place.

 

The ‘A’ board policy report focussed on access, other reports looked at other issues such as City Council support for local businesses.

 

The ‘A’ board policy aimed to reduce the number and size of ‘A’ boards to ensure they were appropriate, or enforcement action would be undertaken. 1.5m of accessible pavement would be protected for people.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.