Issue - meetings

The purpose of this report is to consider a petition from traders on Micklegate for the Council to permit the use of “A” board advertising for businesses across the City. The report recommends that no formal or informal permissions be granted to obstruct the highway with “A” boards and the existing practice of treating such signage as unauthorised obstructions continue.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Advisory Panel advise the Executive Member for City Strategy to:

(i)           Approve Option B to enable Officers to develop intervention guidelines for an enforcement policy for the removal of “A” boards and the like from the Public Highway, details of which will be reported back to Members for consideration and to

(ii)   Inform the lead petitioner of the Panels decision.

Decision of the Executive Member for City Strategy

RESOLVED:That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

 REASON:   To allow the City Council to continue to tackle the problems of obstructing the Public Highway.   

Members considered a report prepared in response to a petition received from traders on Micklegate for the Council to permit the use of “A” board advertising for businesses across the city.  The issues the report examined were those of public safety, upholding legislation in a fair and consistent manner, removal of obstructions from the highway and improving the street scene.

Officers confirmed that the current practice was a reactive one in which they responded to complaints received and/or observations during the investigation of complaints. They stated that this approach was in line with the limited resources available. They also referred to three incidents involving the positioning of “A” boards, which had resulted in injuries to members of the public.

The Leader and Executive Member stated that if approval was given for the use of intervention guidelines, for the display of these boards, Officer time would be required in detailing sizes, numbers, colours, locations, type of advertising, security, minimum width of pavement etc. They felt that the resources required for this could be better used in targeting tourists/residents to visit the Micklegate area.

Other Members referred to the need for a consistent policy as the present approach left Officers open to criticism. They also referred to the present economic climate which left small businesses with severe problems as to their viability.

Consideration was then given to the following options:

A.     Confirm the existing practise used to tackle obstruction of the highway as outlined in this report (paragraphs 2-4). Recommended option.

B.     Approve the development of intervention guidelines for an enforcement policy for the removal of “A” boards and the like from the Public Highway (this would have to be brought back to a subsequent meeting for further consideration).

C.    Investigate the creation of a policy for licensing the placing of “A” boards on the Public Highway (this would have to be brought back to a subsequent meeting for further consideration).

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Advisory Panel advise the Executive Member for City Strategy to:

(i)           Approve Option B to enable Officers to develop intervention guidelines for an enforcement policy for the removal of “A” boards and the like from the Public Highway, details of which will be reported back to Members for consideration and to ^1.

(ii)   Inform the lead petitioner of the Panels decision. ^2.

Decision of the Executive Member for City Strategy

RESOLVED:That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

 REASON:   To allow the City Council to continue to tackle the problems of obstructing the Public Highway.