The report of the Strategic Director Place (Document “BM”) updates the Executive on the effectiveness and practicality issues of the 12 month trial ban on pavement obstructions in Bradford City Centre, Saltaire, Ilkey and on A647 Leeds Road between Thornbury Gyratory and Bradford City Centre.

On the basis of the trial’s findings a number of potential options for the continuation, revocation or amendment of the policy related to pavement obstructions in the future are presented for the Executive’s consideration and determination.

Recommended –

Executive approve the retention of the pavement obstruction ban with the following modifications:

a)            The current trial zone ban areas be retained;

b)           Arrangements to allow licensing of pavement obstructions be incorporated into the Council’s approach.

c)            That the development of details of the licensing arrangements including the approval of policy for determining locations suitable for placement of obstructions and levels of license fee to be charged be delegated to the Strategic Director: Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holder.

(Environment & Waste Overview & Scrutiny Committee)

                                                (Richard Gelder – 01274 436703)

The report of the Strategic Director Place (Document “BM”) updated the Executive on the effectiveness and practicality issues of the 12 month trial ban on pavement obstructions in Bradford City Centre, Saltaire, Ilkey and on A647 Leeds Road between Thornbury Gyratory and Bradford City Centre.

On the basis of the trial’s findings a number of potential options for the continuation, revocation or amendment of the policy related to pavement obstructions in the future were presented for the Executive’s consideration and determination.

The Strategic Director reported that feedback had been received from the Chair of Ilkley Civic Society after his report had been written.  He confirmed that members of the Executive had received copies of the submission.

The Strategic Director advised members that the points raised by Ilkley Civic Society related to the previous code of practice on advertising boards and the fact that there had been no consultation on it, however this was a Department of Transport document not a Council document.

He noted that Kirklees operated a licensing system.

A number of people with disabilities attended the meeting and stated that if footpaths were clear of obstructions this would be better for disabled and able bodied people and people with visual impairments are more confident to go out.  They noted that the report referred to difficulties identifying footpaths and commented that the Council should know where the footpaths were.  They observed that initial costs would be highest but would then decline.  They felt that if the ban had been extended the streets would already be clear and as it was 3 months since the end of the ban they would have to be cleared again.  Disabled groups were willing to work with the Council and help with the ban.  Introducing a licensing scheme would discourage them from volunteering.  Members were urged to support a District wide ban on pavement obstructions.  The estimated cost of the district wide ban was questioned in comparison to the cost of the pilot.  They did not agree with the introduction of licenses as people with visual impairment or mobility issues would be unaware of the location of the obstructions.  The issue of obstructions caused by cars parking on pavements was raised.  It was stressed that introducing a system of licenses would not alleviate the problems experienced by disabled people negotiating obstacles on pavements.  

A representative of RNIB attended the meeting and reported that they supported a policy of zero tolerance across the whole country.  He referred to the number of collisions with  and injuries sustained because of pavement obstructions.  He also referred to the impact on the health and wellbeing of individuals.  He agreed that the cost of the scheme would diminish over time.  He commented that an overall ban would be easier to enforce and monitor than a scheme of licences.  He referred to bans that were in place in other parts of the country and trial bans that were being undertaken.  He further noted that Bradford had led the way with the trial ban and that this was a backward step.  He noted that he had seen no evidence of any economic impact on businesses.

A member who was the Co-Chair of the Strategic Disability Partnership attended the meeting and urged the Council to make a clear decision to introduce a district wide ban.

The Chair of the Health and Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee attended the meeting and expressed concern that the comments of the Scrutiny Committee had not been considered in detail.  She noted that there had already been a cost in identifying land ownership and other related issues.  She questioned the cost relating to enforcement officers as the Council already had wardens patrolling the city centre and other areas on a daily basis.  She did not agree with the introduction of licenses as this would cause more confusion for enforcement.  She added that service users had made a sensible offer in helping to implement the scheme.  She concluded that the issue relating to highways records should not be a barrier to implementing the ban.

A Shipley Ward Councillor attended the meeting and while not speaking on behalf of traders he understood that traders in the Shipley Ward should be treated in the same way as other traders in the district.  He concurred with the other speakers.

With reference to a number of the points raised the Strategic Director responded as follows:

·         Staffing costs were based on a rage of staff and future predictions on the impact of how resources were used.  He added that the financial model was only as good as the information available, for example it was not known how many boards there were in the district and that a pro rata calculation had to be made.

·         Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) in the district banned driving on pavements but there were no TRO’s banning parking on pavements.  If a car was obstructing the highway, the police and Council could take action.

·         Staffing costs were based on how many people had been involved, averaged over a 12 month period which was calculated at 2.52 FTE’s (full time equivalent).

·         The Council had the authority to reduce obstacles on adopted highways but not on private curtilages.  The Council’s records on the length of highways were very accurate but not regarding the width of the highway which was the critical issue and had taken a significant amount of time to establish.

·         It was accepted that as the policy became the norm, the cost would come down but a level of enforcement would still be required.

·         Consideration would have to be given to how the licensing scheme would work.  A licence would only be granted where the width of the pavement was sufficient.  In Kirklees the license is displayed in the window of the business and the board placed next to the business.

·         Officers were unable to find any reference to a ban in Leeds.  A trial ban was being introduced in York.  Liverpool operated a licensing scheme.

The Leader raised concerns about obstructions caused by cars parking on pavements.

The Regeneration, Planning and Transport Portfolio Holder thanked everyone who had engaged in the issue and those who had attended the meeting.  He explained that the success of the trial ban had been assessed but that there was no funding for subsequent years and noted that there would be a cost of employing 2.5 enforcement officers.  He contended that extending the ban would put more pressure on a reducing budget.  He stressed that any proposals would have to be sustainable.  He added that this authority would be going a lot further than other West Yorkshire authorities by introducing a licensing fee which would be ring fenced.  The authority would look to put the licences on line so that they could be readily viewed.  The introduction of a licensing scheme in Kirklees saw a reduction of 75%in A Boards on streets.

The Neighbourhoods and Community Safety Portfolio Holder asked for confirmation that the recommended course of action complied with the Council’s equality duties.  In response the Strategic Director referred to the paragraph 7.1 of Document “BM” which dealt with the Council’s equality obligations and added that a formal Equality Impact Assessment was only required where there would be a negative impact arising from proposals and this was not considered necessary in this instance.

Resolved –

That the retention of the pavement obstruction ban be approved with the following modifications:

a)            The current trial zone ban areas be retained;

b)           Arrangements to allow licensing of pavement obstructions be incorporated into the Council’s approach.

c)            That the development of details of the licensing arrangements including the approval of policy for determining locations suitable for placement of obstructions and levels of license fee to be charged be delegated to the Strategic Director: Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holder.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place

Environment & Waste Overview & Scrutiny Committee