At its meeting on 7 March 2017 the Executive received a report of the Strategic Director, Place (Executive Document “BM”) and additional information that was tabled at the meeting (Addendum to Executive Document “BM”) which updated the Executive on the effectiveness and practicality issues of the 12 month trial ban on pavement obstructions in Bradford City Centre, Saltaire, Ilkley 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.

 

Executive 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

 

The decision of the Executive has been called in by Councillors Dale Smith and Sharp

 

(i)         The reasons for Cllr Dale Smith requesting the call-in are:

 

The proposals give scant regard to the Equality Impact Assessment and subsequently do not sufficiently ameliorate the disadvantage those most affected particularly those with Visual Impairment or the need to use wheelchairs etc.

 

The evidence presented and upon which the decision was partially based, regarding the charge for a Licence is unrealistic, containing conflicting figures and presented alongside unconvincing evidence submitted by businesses regarding their claimed financial losses due to the removal of A-Boards, with the latter having been given too much emphasis.

 

A letter from the Ilkley Chamber of Trade was tabled but not circulated to members of the public and thus could not be challenged.

 

The loss of the Mobility and Inclusion Officer reduced the Council’s contact with service users, with the result that awareness of the decision to be taken at the Executive meeting was poorly advertised, thus reducing the opportunity of those whose mobility is to be most affected, to get quick access to the report in an appropriate format and have their voices heard.

 

The costing information provided for both the trial and the proposals are inadequate.  

 

The absence of adequate, detailed information detailing which other Local Authorities were implementing an A-Board ban or making a charge for any Licence, along with the outcomes, undermines the validity of the report upon which the decision was based, as this information would provide a much clearer picture of what to expect.

 

The absence of criteria for identifying areas where A-Boards can and cannot be placed undermines the validity of the decision taken, as this information would again provide the Executive and the vulnerable citizens who should benefit from any new policy.

 

The report did not adequately address the recommendations from the Health and Social Care O&S meeting.

 

(ii)        The reason for Cllr Sharp requesting the call-in are:

 

I wish to call in the Executive decision of 7^th March 2017, Review of the Operation and Effectiveness of the 12 Month Trial Ban of Pavement obstructions (Document BM) to Health and Social care Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

The reasons for the call in are:

 

1. The Executive document contains information not made available to the Health and Social Care O & S Committee when we carried out an extensive review of the trial ban in meetings last year so this new information needs to be considered by the Committee.

 

2. The executive report itself does not reflect views of the O & S Committee for proper consideration by the Executive.  In part this is demonstrated by the scarcity of the views expressed by disability organisations (2 paragraphs only) in the Executive report.

 

3. The long term operational costs of either scheme are not clearly evidenced in the Executive report.

 

4.      The call in needs to happen to allow O & S Committee to consider the differences between the report we received and the report submitted to Exec to allow the committee to make an informed choice as to whether we maintain our decision of December last year or accept the decision made by the Executive.

 

In response to the Call-In, the Strategic Director, Place will submit Document “AJ”.

 

In accordance with Paragraph 8.6.9 of Part 3E of the Constitution Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee can, following consideration of the matter, resolve to:

 

(1)  Release the decision for implementation.

 

(2)  Refer all or part of the decision back to the Executive to reconsider it in the light of any representations the Committee may make.  The decision may not be implemented until the Executive has met to reconsider its earlier decision.

 

(3)  Refer the decision to full Council for consideration, in which case the decision may not be implemented until the Council has met to consider the matter.

 

If the Committee makes no resolution, in accordance with paragraph 8.6.9 of the Constitution, the decision may be implemented.

 

(Richard Gelder – 01274 436703)

 

 

The Highways Services Manager presented Document “AJ” and explained that the decision of the Executive in relation to the operation and effectiveness of the 12 month trial ban of pavement obstruction (Executive Document “BM”) had been called-in.  He informed Members that the reasons cited were, amongst others, in regard to Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) concerns; insufficient evidence; information not provided to the public; inadequate costings; information submitted that had not been scrutinised; and the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee not being adequately reflected.  It was noted that the responses to the issues raised were covered in the report.  With regard to the associated cost, it was acknowledged that Year 1 had amounted to £61,400, however, a reduction would be expected in Year 2 and onwards and the projected total would be approximately £36,000.  This was an unbudgeted cost for the Service.  The Highways Services Manager outlined that if an extension of the ban into a larger area was undertaken then the costs would not be reduced until Year 3 and 4.  He confirmed that the criteria for the location would be based on National Guidance from the Department of Transport.  In conclusion he stated the differences in the reports submitted were due to consultation undertaken at the request of the Committee and a request from the Executive to include financial and licensing information.  

 

The Regional Campaigns Officer, Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) was present at the meeting and made the following points:

 

·         The Local Authority had a responsibility to give due regard to decisions made under the Equality Act 2010.  This applied to changes and new policies and it was believed that this had not been undertaken.

·         Guidance stated that an EIA should be undertaken at the start of a process, however, it had been reported that it would not be undertaken until the Licensing Policy had been completed.

·         The proposed Licensing Policy required an EIA and this would inform whether the policy should be implemented.

·         Information and evidence gathering needed to be undertaken.

·         Information from the trial ban and representations from groups should be included in the EIA.

·         Due process had not been followed as the EIA had not been undertaken.

·         The letter from the Ilkley Civic Society mentioned other obstructions.  The RNIB had a ‘Street Charter’ and would encourage the Council to give it due consideration.

·         Details of other licensing schemes for comparison had not been provided within the report.

 

A letter from a member of the public, who was present at the meeting, was read out by the Overview and Scrutiny Lead officer and included the following comments:

 

·         The trial ban had been introduced due to the Council’s lack of control over A-boards.

·         A ban was still required due to the failure of businesses to take notice of the Code. 

·         A survey of A-boards had been undertaken in Ilkley during January 2015 and only 6 out of 33 had been cited in accordance with the policy, however, no prosecutions had been undertaken.

·         Under the ban pavements were clear and safe.

·         The notion that the Council would undertaken an EIA on every application for an A-board was ludicrous and would be prohibitive.

·         An EIA was required before a policy was compiled and accepted. 

·         The practice would not be workable.

·         It would be cheaper and simpler to make the trial ban permanent.

 

A representative of the Bradford Association of Visually Impaired People was present at the meeting and stated that:

 

·         Its members travelled elsewhere to do their shopping.

·         People wanted to shop in Bradford and had done so during the trial ban.

·         Bradford should adopt the RNIB’s ‘Street Charter’.

 

Members of the public present at the meeting made the following comments:

 

·         Leeds had undertaken a zero tolerance to A-boards for 15 years and it was a more pleasurable shopping experience.

·         Liability had not been mentioned in any of the reports and the Council would be liable if it proceeded.

·         Wheelchair users had to take detours around A-boards.  If a wheelchair user had an accident due to an A-board it could mean they would be housebound.

·         The Council’s treatment of the disability groups was disappointing.

·         The recommendation had changed in the report to the Executive.

·         It had been assumed that the Council believed in consultation.

·         Consultation regarding A-boards had been on going for many years.

·         Disabled groups and traders did not want a licensing policy to be introduced and had stated this at every meeting.

·         A licensing policy would cost more than the revenue gained.

·         The actual costs were not known.

·         The licensing policy idea had come from nowhere and the people of Bradford had been ignored.

 

A Councillor was present at the meeting and stated that:

 

·         There was anger at the decision to licence rather than ban A-boards.

·         There was an issue with the costings and it was believed that they were not accurate.

·         Volunteers would help enforce the ban.

·         There were hidden costs in introducing a licensing policy.

·         It was disappointing that the businesses had not taken part in the Council’s consultation.

·         The Council had a chance to be proactive and take a stance.

·         The acceptance of the ‘Street Charter’ should be encouraged.

 

A representative of the Ilkley Business Forum was present at the meeting and commented that:

 

·         Various arguments had been raised.

·         There was not a general ignorance in relation to the siting of A-boards.

·         Complaints had been made about the bad practice of siting A-boards, but the majority of business complied with the policy.

·         The main issue was in relation to pavement obstructions.

·         It was disputed that many questionnaires had been circulated.

·         A-boards provided a cost effective way to change a message.

·         There had been fewer complaints in Ilkley.

·         There was little appetite for Instaplanters.

 

A representative of the Saltaire Shopkeepers was also at the meeting and reported that:

 

·         The reason for the trial ban had come from disabled and blind groups and their frustrations were understood.

·         In the Bradford District there had been 20 complaints and no accidents in the majority of places.  None had occurred in Saltaire but five had taken place in Keighley where there wasn’t a ban.

·         It was unfair that businesses outside the trial area could continue as normal. There was no level playing field.

·         The common sense approach would be to have free permits and instructions for the safe placement of the A-boards.  If the rules were not complied with, then the A-boards should be removed.

·         By introducing a licensing policy, the A-boards that had been a nuisance would not be if a licence was purchased.

 

Members then raised the following points and queries:

 

·         The figures in relation to the administration of the licence scheme submitted to the Executive had been requested, but no information had been provided.

·         What would an appeal cost?

·         There was an opportunity for the Council to stand with disabled people.  It was insulting to say that an obstruction would be allowed if a licence was purchased.  Why did the Council think it was acceptable to licence an obstruction and why had the proposal been submitted to the Executive?

·         Were A-boards not a hazard if they were licensed?

·         What were the costs to implement the licensing scheme, as nothing had been provided?  Had liability costs been included? 

·         Was an EIA undertaken for the scheme regarding skips?

·         Businesses were not complying with the existing legislation, so why would a licensing policy alter this?

·         A great deal was publicised about the Council’s strategy for people to be independent, but why weren’t disabled groups being listened to? Increasing the isolation of people was also contrary to what the Council was supposed to be doing.

·         There was no evidence to state that A-boards would be reduced if licenced.

·         Had the Council undertaken an EIA prior to the consultation?

 

In response Members were informed that:

 

·         Exact figures were not available, but it had been envisaged that the same scheme operated for skips and scaffold would be used.  The cost of the administration of an application was £50 each.

·         The figures in relation to the cost of an appeal were not available.

·         The Committee had made a recommendation, however, the Executive was not obliged to give it consideration.  The Executive had requested that a licensing policy be included, as they were aware that the ban had incurred costs and it was important that a licensing policy was considered.  It was acknowledged that A-boards needed to be located safely in order not to be considered as a menace and licensing systems operated across the country.

·         The approach taken was that if the width of the pavement was suitable for an A-board then it should be placed in an appropriate location  to ensure a ‘free passage’.  An assessment of whether there was a ‘free passage’ for pedestrians should be undertaken when an A-board was sited and it must be adjacent to the relevant business.

·         The current system would be modified for the licensing scheme.

·         Assessments were undertaken for other processes.  An answer in respect of liability could not be provided, however, any business would have to have public liability insurance.  The policy had not been developed as yet, so an EIA had not been undertaken.  There were no figures available in relation to accidents.

·         Information on the licensing system would be available on the website.  Approximate calculations had been undertaken in relation to the number of A-boards that could be licensed.

·         It was acknowledged that the Council was not doing as much as it could, however, the licensing scheme would provide a better situation than the current or previous ones.

·         A-boards would be seen even if they were banned and whether the decision to implement a fee or not, there would still be a cost to enforce any type of scheme.  If A-boards were licensed there would be fewer and they would be better enforcement.

·         An EIA must be completed before a policy was implemented and legal advice had been followed.

 

A Member indicated that the Committee had made recommendations to the Executive, who had chosen to make a different decision and this was now being scrutinised.  He stated that there were a number of options that could be taken, but he did not believe, in light of the responses, that the Executive would make a different decision.  He therefore recommended that the Executive’s decision was referred to full Council for consideration.  In response the Chair suggested a counter proposal that the details of the consultation exercise with businesses be released and that the information in relation to the resource and financial implications of the trial ban along with the details of the anticipated cost of expanding the ban be referred back to the Executive with a recommendation that further work on the costs be included.  

             

Resolved –

 

That the decision of the Executive be referred to full Council for consideration.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place