Agenda item

Policy for Display of ‘A’ Board Advertisements – Pilot Scheme for Mold Town Centre

Decision:

(a)       That the policy of a general advertisement consent covering specified areas within identified town centres be agreed, to be explored further through consultation with interested services within the Council, relevant Town/Community Councils and other interested parties and focus groups;

 

(b)       That the criteria for such a consent (conditions on the draft Advertisement Consent and Highways permit) be piloted in Mold town centre where a formal planning application (Consent to Display Advertisements) be submitted (by the appropriate officer) for the eventual consideration of the Planning & Development Control Committee;

 

(c)       That feedback from the consultation process be reported back to the Committee before moving forward; and

 

(d)       That, following the consultation, the policy document be reviewed by the Committee to ensure clarity on the wording.

Minutes:

Councillor Kevin Jones introduced a report to seek agreement on consultation for the grant of a general advertisement consent covering specified areas within town centres to address the problem of unauthorised advertisements on the public highway under the various legislation.  It was proposed that the approach be trialled in Mold town centre due to potential issues arising from an increase in the display of ‘A’ boards.  Councillor Jones referred to previous work done on this and explained that the intent was to work closely with Mold Town Council, the Mold town centre Manager and local businesses to regulate ‘A’ boards whilst avoiding any negative impact on trading.

 

The Development Manager provided explanation on the current practice for dealing with unauthorised advertisements and spoke about the value of ‘A’ boards in contributing to the vitality of town centres.  He said that planning legislation could be used to introduce a policy, similar to that operated by other councils, to allow the continued display of such advertisements with set criteria and joint controls in place to address safety concerns.  A shared plan for the initial scheme in Mold town centre showed that the Consent would seek to protect core retail areas, although it was acknowledged that some commercial premises operated outside this.  The introduction of a permit scheme from Streetscene would require further discussion and benchmarking on the practice of other councils.  Attention was drawn to section 1.08 of the report detailing criteria for the permitted display of ‘A’ boards.

 

Councillor Brian Lloyd questioned the reason behind the proposals and asked about the availability of figures on injuries caused by ‘A’ boards.  He stressed the importance of consultation and said that most display boards in Mold were placed up against the shops which did not create a safety hazard, suggesting that the safety issues in Daniel Owen Square could be addressed by utilising nearby advertising space.  He went on to refer to display boards located outside the proposed area of Consent, such as New Street and Chester Street, which could present a risk.

 

Councillor Jones pointed out that the consultation, which formed part of the report’s recommendations, had not yet taken place.

 

The Development Manager explained that this was the first stage of the process to seek Members’ views and that if agreed, would progress to wider consultation on developing the policy with the Town Centre manager and various retail groups, rather than on an individual basis.  He did not have statistics on injuries but explained that the proposal was to introduce a policy which offered greater controls for the Council whilst recognising the advertising needs of local businesses.  In terms of the placing of ‘A’ boards outside shops, the plan needed to be read in conjunction with the criteria set out in the report.  Having previously been explored, the suggestion for Daniel Owen Square was not recommended due to concerns about the potential accumulation of signage.  Commercial premises located outside the proposed area of Consent would still need to apply for permission to display ‘A’ boards according to the criteria.  Enforcement of the policy would be undertaken by Streetscene officers as part of their duties.

 

In support of the proposals, Councillor Paul Shotton felt that other areas could be considered under the consultation process and spoke about the potential danger of unauthorised advertisements to disabled people and those with visual impairments.

 

Councillor Nancy Matthews supported the siting of boards up against shops and suggested that the actual content should be considered as part of the eligibility criteria, to avoid any duplication with signs already displayed on the shop frontage.  The Development Manager pointed out the advantages of ‘A’ boards in terms of visibility to pedestrians and said that development of the policy would take into consideration different types of advertising which could add to the character of town centres and support businesses.

 

Councillor Ray Hughes said that the sizes of advertising boards should be considered, raising concerns about the increased sizes of advertising boards used by stallholders on market days in Mold which restricted pavement space.  Councillor Jones agreed that this was an issue and had been discussed on previous occasions with stallholders.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Haydn Bateman, the Development Manager replied that if agreed, the controls put in place would mean that the Council had no liability for any injury or damage caused to highway users.  In respect of commercial premises outside the area of Consent, any display boards not conforming to the criteria would need to be removed.  The siting of rotating/swinging advertisement signs within the area of Consent did not form part of the proposals and enforcement of display units outside premises depended on whether they were situated on private forecourts.  Councillor Lloyd also raised concerns about the size of some swingboards.

 

Following a similar query from Councillor Mike Lowe, it was explained that newspaper cabinets sited on private forecourts may not require planning permission and were outside the Council’s control.

 

In response to a further query from the Chair, it was explained that shops with a private forecourt were expected to use that area for any signage, and that the permit scheme applied to advertisements on highway land only.

 

Councillor Ian Dunbar referred to the criteria for allowing a minimum of 1.5m unobstructed passage to footway users.  The Development Manager reiterated that the Council had no jurisdiction over signage on private land, however any breach of the criteria within the area of Consent would lead to enforcement action.

 

On enforcement, Councillor David Evans suggested the inclusion of a clause that continued warnings could result in removal of the board or a fine imposed.  The Chief Officer (Streetscene & Transportation) said that the Committee had previously been consulted on all enforcement powers and would circulate the appendix listing all enforcement activities including ‘A’ boards.  He explained that the proposals were an extension of the enforcement duties undertaken by area staff, in line with the protocol previously endorsed by the Committee and Cabinet.  In response to further queries, he did not have details to hand on the number of ‘A’ boards collected by officers as part of their enforcement work.  Whilst the Council had adopted an approach not to impose fines, this could be considered by Members, however it was important to note that the aim of the scheme was to regulate display of the boards.

 

The Chair felt that the restrictions on maximum sizes of advertisements within the criteria should reflect standard document sizes which could be easily sourced by shops.  The Development Manager said that the sizes within the criteria were based on those adopted by other councils and reflected general requirements.

 

Following a query from Councillor Bateman, explanation was given on separate arrangements for enforcement of wheelie bins sited on highway land.

 

Responding to comments from Councillor Cindy Hinds, it was pointed out that if the proposals went ahead, one of the clauses would prohibit the display of ‘A’ boards on highway land where market stalls were positioned on market days.

 

The Chair remarked on the need for clarity on siting advertisements.  The Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) said that if the policy was implemented, feedback from the consultation would be shared with the Committee and a leaflet produced giving clear guidance on the siting of ‘A’ boards, with examples used by other authorities.

 

Following comments from Councillor Matthews, the Development Manager explained the current approach to enforcement with requests for removal of unauthorised signs followed up by action if necessary.  He added that Members may wish the Council to adopt a stricter regime as part of policy development at a later stage.

 

The Chair proposed that a third resolution be added for the Committee to receive feedback from the consultation before moving forward with the policy.  Members agreed to this and a further resolution suggested by Councillor Jones that following consultation, wording in the policy document be reviewed by the Committee to ensure clarity on the meaning.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)       That the policy of a general advertisement consent covering specified areas within identified town centres be agreed, to be explored further through consultation with interested services within the Council, relevant Town/Community Councils and other interested parties and focus groups;

 

(b)       That the criteria for such a consent (conditions on the draft Advertisement Consent and Highways permit) be piloted in Mold town centre where a formal planning application (Consent to Display Advertisements) be submitted (by the appropriate officer) for the eventual consideration of the Planning & Development Control Committee;

 

(c)       That feedback from the consultation process be reported back to the Committee before moving forward; and

 

(d)       That, following the consultation, the policy document be reviewed by the Committee to ensure clarity on the wording.

Supporting documents: