The web site for information about the Cathedral City of Ely in the U.K.

The Full Entry

Ely’s Illegal Pavement Signs – Official Response

Published Thursday, May 11th, 2006 by Karl Bedingfield

Image: Cambridge County Council's Own A-Board

A few weeks ago Ely Online ran a somewhat tongue-in-cheek article about Cambridge County Council’s East Highways Division dawn raid on ‘unauthorised’ advertising boards – boards that help promote shops that are not easy to come across should you be visiting Ely for the first time.

Some readers raised the valid point that nearly all cars that park along High Street over-run onto the pavement (this happens because when High Street was renovated a few years ago all the standard road kerbs were removed for low profile versions for pedestrianisation.) causing a worse obstruction than the advertising boards. Ely Online wrote to Cambridge County Council and today received an email in response to the article. A bit further down we publish that email in full with no alterations.

Before that Ely Online would like to point out an observation that was brought to our attention recently that is – at best – highly hypercritical after the council’s holier-than-thou attitude over the removal of some Ely shop’s pavement signs. So imagine our surprise when we found the Council’s own advertising boards in the worst possible location, roundabouts. The council have the sponsored (yes they are also making money from the signs) ‘A boards’ placed on many of Ely’s very busy roundabouts. Surely this is a distraction to the motorists or do different rules apply here?

So imagine our surprise when we found the Council’s own advertising boards in possibly the worst location, roundabouts.

So just to reiterate (again) what CCC stated about the City Centre advertising boards: ‘Illegal signs are a safety issue as they create hazards and distract drivers and can cause confusion’. The only thing wrong with that sentence in relation to this advertising board is ‘illegal’, for sure it is a safety issue and certainly something that is a hazard that distracts drivers when they should be concentrating on what traffic is coming from the right of the roundabout. It also raises questions as to whether CCC received any money for this and if so where did it go?

Anyway, as Richard writes in his email: ‘When the county council places signs on the highway we assess the impact on other road users and if we get things wrong we are liable for our actions.’ So Ey Online wonders what what Mr. Preston is doing about these dangerous and distracting signs?

Here’s the email from Cambridge County Council…

Image: CCC Signage

East Highways Division – A Response

Dear Mr. Bedingfield

With reference to your story on unauthorised signs I would make the following comments:

The £20 recovery charge is intended to cover some of the costs incurred in enforcing against unauthorised signs. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for the unauthorised actions of others?

If you have any evidence of what you call ‘reprisals’ or ‘retaliation’ please let me know details and I will investigate. If this refers to officers simply carrying out their responsibilities, then the terms are inappropriate.

On the issues of footway parking and over run, we do not have any powers to enforce against this.

The use of the term ‘authorinazi’ is at best unfortunate and probably says more about your publication than the county council.

When the county council places signs on the highway we assess the impact on other road users and if we get things wrong we are liable for our actions. With many traders, there is little consideration given to highway users, particularly the elderly, frail and disabled, when placing their signs on street and of course they take no responsibilities for their actions.

With regard to your hope that an agreement can be reached, our policy is quite clear that we will are not in a position to authorise traders signs on the highway and we will take enforcement action to protect the interests of the public when appropriate.

On the issues of footway parking and over run, we do not have any powers to enforce against this, this being a police responsibility. We have raised these issues with the police to encourage action to be taken.

If advertising is important to traders then they are encouraged to seek advise from the planning authority over how this can be done within the law.

I leave you with this question – what would be the attitude of a trader if the county council came along and erected one of its signs on their forecourt without permission and regard to their customers?

Related Articles

8 Comments so far (Leave a comment)

  • At 2:57 pm on May 14th, 2006, Dave Carter wrote:

    Excuse me Mr. Preston, the Cambridgeshire County Council do not OWN the pavements of Ely!

    It is obvious to the vast majority of Ely residents that the parked cars are indeed the problem here. Get it sorted!

  • At 12:05 pm on May 16th, 2006, Aaron wrote:

    It was a good point but it was rubbish.

  • At 8:54 pm on May 17th, 2006, Karl Bedingfield wrote:

    Hmmm. you don’t make much sense Aaron.

    I was mearly suggesting that an advertising board – wherever located – is designed to attract attention meaning that an a-board at a roundabout is surely going to distract the motorist at a time when attentivness at road junctions is paramount!

  • At 1:46 pm on July 13th, 2006, John Trueman wrote:

    Midhurst is plagued by illegal signage on the roadside verges coming into the Town from the North and West. Sometimes we have up to 17 signs, usually nearer 6, but they are quite definitely a dstraction to motorists as well as unsightly.

    Has the proactivity of your council made a difference? How does the system work? Do you get on the spot fines?

    Regards
    John Trueman
    Editor, Midhurst Pages

  • At 12:28 pm on July 16th, 2007, Steve Jones wrote:

    All these obstructions on the pavement make life very difficult for blind or other disabled people.

  • At 5:52 pm on September 20th, 2007, Mr. N. Llaw wrote:

    Dear Sir/Madam, you think Ely has problems with blighted pavements? Check my site to witness the contempt that the council and police have for the residents and visitors alike of Portwood, the town centre Ward of Stockport. Even publicly accusing them of aiding and abetting criminal activity does not penetrate their collective consciences.

    Mr. N. Llaw

  • At 9:13 am on September 21st, 2007, Jacques Cartier wrote:

    Those signs are a pest for disabled people, and people with prams and little children. It’s a hassle for blind and partially sighted people in particular. They force pedestrians into the road, so they are a real pain for motorists as well. Merchants should try something else if they aren’t getting much business. They could always get a normal job, I suppose. Anyway, can you start a campaign to stop them littering Ely with these signs?

  • At 12:02 pm on August 19th, 2010, Dan Jackson wrote:

    I think these signs are good to promote local business. They do not detract to much from the official road markings and if they are sponsoring the maintenance of the roundabout they are placed then that’s a good thing.

    I don’t agree with some of these apathetic views of distraction and being a pest for blind people. I think if they have made it into the middle of a roundabout they’ll have a little more to worry about other than the signs!

Leave a comment

Comment notes

Keep comments relevant. Inappropriate or offensive comments may be edited and/or deleted.

Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br/>.

Create links using the <a href="http://urlhere"></a>.

The following HTML elements may also be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> . All other code will get removed before posting.