Acle B.N.P.

[Paladin]

On 12/01/2020 at 09:05, marshman said:

Whether or not the sign should or should not be on the post, perhaps the point is in reality, it is easier for this Forum to take a pop at the BA than all the other agencies/firms that now use that slogan and also who were directly involved in the original decision to erect that sign.

That means, the local authorities concerned, including probably the Highways Agency under whose auspices the A47 will fall, and then everyone who uses the "lie" on their material from the OS downwards.

 

I presume this forum is called Norfolk Broads Forum for a reason (although the threads often stray in other directions). I would say that the single organisation that has the most effect on the Broads is the BA, paid for by public money, so why shouldn't it come under close scrutiny. As it gets my money through my taxes and my tolls fees, I'd like to think I'm getting value for money.

If by other agencies/firms you mean the holiday trade, I believe it has been widely, if reluctantly, accepted that the BNP expression can lawfully be used for marketing purposes, even if the morals of its use are questionable. But the BA has no duty whatsoever towards marketing. Read the Act.

Genuine question - which were the other agency/firms that were "directly involved in the original decision to erect that sign"? I ask because my understanding is that the BA unilaterally made that decision, although they did then go touting around parish councils, to see which of them would accept signs being put up. I don't think district councils were consulted and the County Council responded to an application from the BA.

The signs have been erected on roads that have nothing to do with the Highways Agency, who are only responsible for the A47. The side roads into Acle (none of which actually leads to the Broads) come under the County Council.

There are two legitimate brown tourist signs on the A47 approach to Acle roundabout from the Norwich direction and another on the roundabout itself, none of which directs traffic through Acle. The status of the BNP signs is highly questionable, as there can be no case made for additional 'tourist' signs (they don't comply anyway).

[Bytheriver]

On 12/01/2020 at 09:05, marshman said:

Whether or not the sign should or should not be on the post, perhaps the point is in reality, it is easier for this Forum to take a pop at the BA than all the other agencies/firms that now use that slogan and also who were directly involved in the original decision to erect that sign.

That means, the local authorities concerned, including probably the Highways Agency under whose auspices the A47 will fall, and then everyone who uses the "lie" on their material from the OS downwards.

Off you go then boys, and do your duty!!   I wish you well and many hours of  happy correspondence - and no ST that does not mean that I support the introduction of a full NP for this area 

As far as i can see there are to be none of the new signs on the A47 & the BA paid Norfolk & Suffolk County Councils for the job

[JennyMorgan]

21 minutes ago, grendel said:

Naughty Photoshop Vandals

Definitely not photoshop! 

[Vaughan]

15 minutes ago, Paladin said:

If by other agencies/firms you mean the holiday trade, I believe it has been widely, if reluctantly, accepted that the BNP expression can lawfully be used for marketing purposes, even if the morals of its use are questionable. But the BA has no duty whatsoever towards marketing. Read the Act.

As a Richardson's customer I have often noticed that Broads National Park is emblazoned all over their publicity and I believe Hoseasons do the same. I don't like to see this but it is clearly in line with the spirit of "marketing purposes only" since they are trying to sell Broads holidays. On land as well as on water, don't forget. Whether they think they actually get any additional customers by using the NP brand, is up to them!

 

19 minutes ago, Paladin said:

The signs have been erected on roads that have nothing to do with the Highways Agency, who are only responsible for the A47.

Maybe just a small point but I understand the road over Acle bridge (an A road) comes under the Highways agency as I know they raised a strong objection to what I call the "Pedro's" development because of road access in a place with a 60MPH speed limit. The BA must have ignored this objection when they granted permission.

[grendel]

26 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Definitely not photoshop! 

If its not photoshop, there is something funny with the perspective, the angle of the sign in the image means the height on the right increases, yet the spacing of the lettering remains constant from left to right, hence the wording was added to the image, added very well i hasten to add, but as my training as a drawing office manager means I have to spot even minor discrepancies, it leapt out at me that the text wasnt following the perspective of the sign, hence my photoshop comment.

if you want technicalities, there is a 3.5mm difference in height of the sign from left to right (on an a4 print), yet the text line spacing remains constant at 14mm across the width of the sign, therefore the image has been altered and the text added, with the perspective not factored in for the text (and yes that leapt out at me without measuring)

[grendel]

35 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Maybe just a small point but I understand the road over Acle bridge (an A road) comes under the Highways agency as I know they raised a strong objection to what I call the "Pedro's" development because of road access in a place with a 60MPH speed limit. The BA must have ignored this objection when they granted permission.

I can confirm that the road to the bridge at acle is not a highways england road, 

on the highways england  map (https://highways.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6db7a2db20d04c79ab2abe7947f8cc06) this is not highlighted as highways england maintainable

that road is listed as maintainable by Norfolk County council

 

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

As a Richardson's customer I have often noticed that Broads National Park is emblazoned all over their publicity and I believe Hoseasons do the same. I don't like to see this but it is clearly in line with the spirit of "marketing purposes only" since they are trying to sell Broads holidays. On land as well as on water, don't forget. Whether they think they actually get any additional customers by using the NP brand, is up to them!

I rather hope they don't, as, during my conversations with the Advertising Standards Authority, I was told that using such an advertisement would be unlawful if a purchaser made a decision to purchase based on that misleading information. I would think that people coming to the Broads come (for whatever sort of holiday) because of the high reputation of the area and what it has to offer, not because it purports to be a national park. There appear to be no verifiable statistics available that the specific use of the BNP name has made any significant increase to the number of visitors. Increased advertising of any sort is likely to increase uptake.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

I can confirm that the road to the bridge at acle is not a highways england road, 

I may be confusing Highways England with the Local Highways Authority. One has to be so careful these days, when talking of all these official bodies (elected or otherwise) who purport to tell us what to do with our lives.

[Vaughan]

52 minutes ago, Paladin said:

There appear to be no verifiable statistics available that the specific use of the BNP name has made any significant increase to the number of visitors.

And this is exactly why you are asked to fill in a questionnaire of satisfaction when you have taken a holiday, booked a cottage, taken a ferry journey, etc.

Yes, sure, they want to know whether you were happy, or if you have any complaints about your "experience" but there is a hidden agenda! Notice the number of questions which say "How did you hear about us?".  They want to know why you booked with them, so that they can estimate where to target their marketing in future.

 

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, grendel said:

If its not photoshop, there is something funny with the perspective, the angle of the sign in the image means the height on the right increases, yet the spacing of the lettering remains constant from left to right, hence the wording was added to the image, added very well i hasten to add, but as my training as a drawing office manager means I have to spot even minor discrepancies, it leapt out at me that the text wasnt following the perspective of the sign, hence my photoshop comment.

if you want technicalities, there is a 3.5mm difference in height of the sign from left to right (on an a4 print), yet the text line spacing remains constant at 14mm across the width of the sign, therefore the image has been altered and the text added, with the perspective not factored in for the text (and yes that leapt out at me without measuring)

It's all down to the distortion inherent in cheap end mobile phone lenses & yours truly couldn't be bothered to correct it! Also who's to say that the overlay wasn't stuck on on the soss, hardly drawing office conditions and no set-square handy, this is Norfolk yer know!

 

[grendel]

 

I wonder how this falls within the auspices of the linked document for the reduction of traffic sign clutter

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43525/tal-reducing-sign-clutter.pdf

 which among other things states 

Quote

Tourist destination signs Tourist signs should only be provided for major destinations and not for facilities used primarily by local residents. Tourist signs should only be provided where existing directional signs are not sufficient. For most tourist attractions, and all tourist facilities, it is likely that signing would only be appropriate within the last two to three miles, or from where the route diverges from that to the nearest town or village.

so do we consider the current signs sufficient, or should additional traffic signage clutter be added?

ie in the sign at Acle does it need Gateway to the Broads, and Broads national Park, surely the addittion is superflous. 

[grendel]

Also forgive my ignorance, but should tourist information signs not be brown, rather than an insipid teal colour?

https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/-/media/norfolk/downloads/business/licences-and-permits/highways/brown-tourist-signs-information-pack.pdf?la=en&hash=C7A9C49899E5BCA0DC012A74ACE5AF53E8467558

and note the below referenced in that same document

Quote

Norfolk is predominantly a rural County and environmentally sensitive so sign clutter is something we want to avoid. As such we will always aim to minimise the size and number of signs we add to our highway network.

 

[JennyMorgan]

Anyone wishing to witness excessive, and repetitive, sign clutter should pay a visit to the Dutch Tea Gardens in Oulton Dyke. Classic example of over indulgent and thoughtless sign clutter. Perhaps a sign audit is long overdue.

[Paladin]

41 minutes ago, grendel said:

 

I wonder how this falls within the auspices of the linked document for the reduction of traffic sign clutter

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43525/tal-reducing-sign-clutter.pdf

 which among other things states 

Tourist destination signs Tourist signs should only be provided for major destinations and not for facilities used primarily by local residents. Tourist signs should only be provided where existing directional signs are not sufficient. For most tourist attractions, and all tourist facilities, it is likely that signing would only be appropriate within the last two to three miles, or from where the route diverges from that to the nearest town or village.

so do we consider the current signs sufficient, or should additional traffic signage clutter be added?

ie in the sign at Acle does it need Gateway to the Broads, and Broads national Park, surely the addittion is superflous. 

 

35 minutes ago, grendel said:

Also forgive my ignorance, but should tourist information signs not be brown, rather than an insipid teal colour?

https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/-/media/norfolk/downloads/business/licences-and-permits/highways/brown-tourist-signs-information-pack.pdf?la=en&hash=C7A9C49899E5BCA0DC012A74ACE5AF53E8467558

and note the below referenced in that same document

grendel, these are serious questions, that need to be answered by officialdom. I am already in communication with the County Council, as they are the ones responsible for granting permission for signs, whether they be tourist, directional, village signs or advertising. I have been unable to find any classification within the Road Signs and General Directions Regulation 2006 into which these signs fall. Which only leaves advertising signs, which would chime with the BNP name only to be used for marketing.

In correspondence to date, the signs have been referred to as boundary signs, gateways signs and tourist signs . I have this rather odd vision of someone hopping from one foot to the other, trying to work out how to categorise these signs in a way that makes them legal.

 

[Bytheriver]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

As a Richardson's customer I have often noticed that Broads National Park is emblazoned all over their publicity and I believe Hoseasons do the same. I don't like to see this but it is clearly in line with the spirit of "marketing purposes only" since they are trying to sell Broads holidays. On land as well as on water, don't forget. Whether they think they actually get any additional customers by using the NP brand, is up to them!

 

Maybe just a small point but I understand the road over Acle bridge (an A road) comes under the Highways agency as I know they raised a strong objection to what I call the "Pedro's" development because of road access in a place with a 60MPH speed limit. The BA must have ignored this objection when they granted permission.

Definitely a County road as the two county councillors on either side helped pay for the electric "Slow down" signs either side of the bridge & it is stated as not being a HA road in correspondence from NCC in the Pedros application. It was unusual for HA to take an interest further than the extent of an island adjacent to the A47 or any other road -

 

[Bytheriver]

7 minutes ago, Paladin said:

 

grendel, these are serious questions, that need to be answered by officialdom. I am already in communication with the County Council, as they are the ones responsible for granting permission for signs, whether they be tourist, directional, village signs or advertising. I have been unable to find any classification within the Road Signs and General Directions Regulation 2006 into which these signs fall. Which only leaves advertising signs, which would chime with the BNP name only to be used for marketing.

In correspondence to date, the signs have been referred to as boundary signs, gateways signs and tourist signs . I have this rather odd vision of someone hopping from one foot to the other, trying to work out how to categorise these signs in a way that makes them legal.

 

I had assumed the delay from spring 2019 was for the situation to be discussed - Are there any up in Suffolk yet?

[JennyMorgan]

32 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

I had assumed the delay from spring 2019 was for the situation to be discussed - Are there any up in Suffolk yet?

Not yet. I do know that Oulton Broad PC is opposed to the idea, unless it has recently been 'indoctrinated'  into changing its mind!

 

[grendel]

suffolk tourist signage policy -

https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/Roads-and-transport/traffic-management-and-road-safety/Tourist-Signing-in-Suffolk-2014-v2.1.pdf

[grendel]

this quote from the above document may answer why none have been seen in Suffolk

Quote

National Parks and collective areas such as AONB will not be signed unless traffic is routed to a permanently established tourist information facility with good access and parking and toilets, and the name appears on maps/atlases and has signed boundaries. It should be noted that boundary signs for geographical areas are not covered by TSR&GD and would therefore require special authorisation.

 

[Paladin]

But that doesn't explain why the BA paid Suffolk Highways £10,046.02 for BNP road signs in February 2019.

[grendel]

that would possibly be the special authorisation payment.

Or just maybe because its not a real National Park 

[Wussername]

55 minutes ago, Paladin said:

But that doesn't explain why the BA paid Suffolk Highways £10,046.02 for BNP road signs in February 2019.

Mr P

That is an unbelievable  sum of money. I'm serious. How can they justify that amount of money. What does it achieve?

Mission Creep. In it's most sinister form.

Have I been betrayed,  am I being betrayed. I am and old codger, a curmudgeon , sometimes my befuddled mind is unable to identify that which is reasonable in this day and age. 

I don't need guidance from you guys I am too old for that. But what I do need is a reassurance  that you will put in place a standard, disciplines,  that protects the generation that will follow us and The Broads in particular from those who seek change to achieve a personal ambition.

Andrew

[Paladin]

5 minutes ago, Wussername said:

Mr P

That is an unbelievable  sum of money. I'm serious. How can they justify that amount of money. What does it achieve?...

Andrew

If that's unbelievable, how about the £16,320.84 they paid to Norfolk CC for their BNP signs.

Both sums were placed in the "Conservation of Cultural Heritage" category in the accounts.

[marshman]

Presumably as they envisaged "road signs" it cam out of the Navigation budget!! Whatever next!!!

[Wussername]

4 minutes ago, Paladin said:

If that's unbelievable, how about the £16,320.84 they paid to Norfolk CC for their BNP signs.

Both sums were placed in the "Conservation of Cultural Heritage" category in the accounts.

Thank you Mr P

A concern. An uncertainty.