Acle B.N.P.

[Paladin]

13 minutes ago, Wussername said:

Advertise in Leeds, North Allerton. That's where you need to do your marketing (let us know how you get on)

Not very well, I would think. I've got relatives in those areas 

[Wussername]

1 minute ago, Paladin said:

Not very well, I would think. I've got relatives in those areas 

I was born in North Allerton. I also won the North Allerton best baby competition. Were you there?

[Paladin]

1 minute ago, Wussername said:

I was born in North Allerton. I also won the North Allerton best baby competition. Were you there?

At the competition, yes. With my son

[Paladin]

56 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I don't know if this route has been explored, but the BA are allowed to use the term "Broads National Park" for marketing.

Are official road signs allowed to carry marketing signs ?

Try asking Norfolk County Council  They are the ones who gave permission for the signs to be put up. Let us know the answer you get, please.

I have read that the signs have been described as gateway signs, tourist signs and boundary signs. But not marketing signs. The first three are controlled by Traffic Sign Regulations (to which they don't comply). The last one, if marketing equates to advertising, needs planning permission, which they haven't got.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

The cost has been £31,640.23 (incl. vat)

That would have paid for the proposed 24hr moorings accessing Peto's Marsh! 

[Paladin]

3 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

That would have paid for the proposed 24hr moorings accessing Peto's Marsh! 

Erm, not really. The cost of the signs is coming out of the Secretary of State Grant. Guess who's paying for the Peto's Marsh moorings.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

The last one, if marketing equates to advertising, needs planning permission, which they haven't got.

Marketing is. lest we forget, the only use that the BA can make of the BNP term. I can't believe that the BA would be so cavalier as to forget that very clear judgement!

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Marketing is. lest we forget, the only use that the BA can make of the BNP term. I can't believe that the BA would be so cavalier as to forget that very clear judgement!

But therein lies the rub. ALL signs placed on the highway are controlled by either the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (direction, boundary, village name signs etc.) or the planning regulations (advertising signs). The word 'marketing' is not to be found in any of that legislation. So the signs have to be called something that the legislation recognises, in order to be compliant and legal.

[grendel]

it still breaks the sussex council guidelines that specifically exclude national parks from signage and says such would need specific authorisation, so one must ask why they have allowed them despite their own guidelines.

[NorfolkNog]

3 hours ago, Paladin said:

I understand that 35 signs have been purchased.

The cost has been £31,640.23 (incl. vat)

Good grief. Unless I'm missing something, that's nearly a grand each! Are they done in gold leaf?

[Boatingman]

In a previous life I was involved in a sign manufacturing company allowing for inflation since my time we could have halved the cost

Ray

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

The word 'marketing' is not to be found in any of that legislation. So the signs have to be called something that the legislation recognises, in order to be compliant and legal.

Okay, so I accept that but the court judgement is clear with its condition re marketing.

noun: the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising.

Wooly, I know, but that's nothing new for you know who.

[Paladin]

It seems as if Google Maps isn't buying it any more. Latest map attached...

Nor is Ordnance Survey...

[JennyMorgan]

"Veritas vinci"!

[vanessan]

Had google maps previously referred to the area as a BNP then?

[grendel]

yes it had

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, vanessan said:

Had google maps previously referred to the area as a BNP then?

As had the Ordnance Survey. Maps should, indeed must be factually correct. Well done that man, s small but important point of detail. Who to persuade next, Marshman maybe?

[marshman]

You might have to continue working on Google - on the page giving details of the area attached to the map, it still refers to the BNP!!! And also JM you know I know the situation - merely that I take a more relaxed view !!

[TheQ]

On 20/01/2020 at 21:53, Boatingman said:

In a previous life I was involved in a sign manufacturing company allowing for inflation since my time we could have halved the cost

Ray

They probably included the cost of many meetings, to decide.

Do they want signs,

 Where will the signs be,

What lies the signs will say,

What colour the signs will be,

What dimensions the signs Are,

What to put in the tender for contract for manufacture,

Which bid to accept,

 Which councils to ask permission of,

When to be installed.

 

All of this will take time money , lots of cups of tea plus biscuits .

Lots of paid for employee time, lots of Exectutive paid for time..

 

 

[JawsOrca]

It seems as if Google Maps isn't buying it any more. Latest map attached...
Nor is Ordnance Survey...

Just dont click on it.. the tag there I guess comes from OS but is managed by the BA.. which you will see when you click it. They can change at will and suspect they will. I'm a map editor and tried to remove references but couldn't.

The more the ba push this the more worrying it becomes. Theres certainly seems to be a motive going on here and further reduces my trust if them. I really wish they revert back to previous tags and spent money where its deserved.

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[ChrisB]

The OS "Get Ourside" inititive does.

[grendel]

in part additional cost for the signs would be the bespoke background colour , ie not a colour found on any other signs

[ChrisB]

The OS "Get OUTSIDE" inititive does. Edit to correct typo.

[ChrisB]

The BA's background colour is a standard Pantone 326

 

[Paladin]

32 minutes ago, grendel said:

in part additional cost for the signs would be the bespoke background colour , ie not a colour found on any other signs

And here's me thinking that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 specified the only background colours that are permitted. The government even kindly provides the colour specifications , expressed as Pantone (print), CMYK equivalent (print), RGB equivalent (print).

I don't see much leeway there for having road signs in a bespoke colour. The only blue on the official traffic signs list is Pantone 300, which is one that doesn't appear on the Authority's list of colours. The turquoise that looks to have been used on the signs is Pantone 326 i.e. non-compliant.