Acle B.N.P.

[grendel]

herein lies the issue, sign making companies set up for road signs will be able to produce signs in the standard sign colours (see below) pantone 326 is not one of these, so a special batch of signs would be required, with maybe a special order of materials to achieve the colour. which is not a proper road sign colour in the first place

[johnb]

Be careful what you wish for. If the signs are deemed to be the wrong colour BA will probably start again with the correct colour, another £30.000 plus spent!

[grendel]

the manual for traffic signs can be found here -

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/771873/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-1.pdf

[vanessan]

3 hours ago, TheQ said:

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..

And eventually lots of unhappy people! ☹️

[Paladin]

5 minutes ago, johnb said:

Be careful what you wish for. If the signs are deemed to be the wrong colour BA will probably start again with the correct colour, another £30.000 plus spent!

Perhaps you would like to research just what that 'correct' colour would be. But first you'll have to establish into which precise legal category the signs fall. Are they boundary signs, information signs, direction signs, village signs or tourist signs? They can only be identified by terms used in the regulations. 'Marketing' is not such a term.

But if they don't fit within those regulations, they could be advertising signs (again 'marketing' is not a word used in the Town and Country Planning Act), but then they would need planning consent, which they don't have.

[grendel]

As these signs must have had special approval (in Suffolk at the very least) surely there must be minutes of the approval meeting available. or at least a record of approval. 

unless they were just a rubber stamping exercise there must exist a paper trail regarding their approval and the process must have been followed.

 

[Paladin]

22 minutes ago, grendel said:

the manual for traffic signs can be found here -

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/771873/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-1.pdf

Very interesting, particularly the bit that says: "The legal aspects of signing are sometimes misunderstood by practitioners, particularly the prohibition on an authority unilaterally inventing its own non-standard signs. These aspects are covered in the following sections, as is the need for authorisation or a special direction when non-prescribed signs are required, or a prescribed sign is to be used in a way not permitted by the Directions."

[Paladin]

Just now, grendel said:

As these signs must have had special approval (in Suffolk at the very least) surely there must be minutes of the approval meeting available. or at least a record of approval. 

unless they were just a rubber stamping exercise there must exist a paper trail regarding their approval and the process must have been followed.

 

I think you'll find that the 'special approval' is the prerogative of the Secretary of State.

[grendel]

On 13/01/2020 at 15:41, grendel said:

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.

to reiterate my previous quote from the Suffolk council signage regulations, special authorisation would require a process and an audit trail.

[ChrisB]

On 20/01/2020 at 21:18, grendel said:

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.

Did these not go ahead then? I actually thought they looked very up market.

[grendel]

1 minute ago, ChrisB said:

Did these not go ahead then? I actually thought they looked very up market.

sorry I meant suffolk, my typing fingers easily mix up suffolk and sussex

[johnb]

40 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Perhaps you would like to research just what that 'correct' colour would be. But first you'll have to establish into which precise legal category the signs fall. Are they boundary signs, information signs, direction signs, village signs or tourist signs? They can only be identified by terms used in the regulations. 'Marketing' is not such a term.

But if they don't fit within those regulations, they could be advertising signs (again 'marketing' is not a word used in the Town and Country Planning Act), but then they would need planning consent, which they don't have.

Thank you for the challenge, most of my family already think this subject is helping to send me crazy! The danger is that if at first, second or third they don't suceed they'll just keep producing more at public expense and they either get it 'right' or we just give up! (See how crazy it's sent me already-I'm already thinking 'they' would go further than imaginable......aren't I?) 

[Paladin]

2 minutes ago, johnb said:

The danger is that if at first, second or third they don't suceed they'll just keep producing more at public expense and they either get it 'right' or we just give up!

The former will have to occur before the latter. Of that I'm certain.

[JennyMorgan]

As Chris B has shown there is a local precedent for location signs, normally erected by Parish Councils. We also have village signs sprawled across East Anglia. The difference being that they are for places that actually exist in reality, and not just in someone's delusional mind!

[batrabill]

Genuine question: if you are serious about all this stuff, don’t you have to sort this....

The National Parks website lists 15 NPs. 

Since the objective I assume, is to never have anyone refer to the Broads as an NP, aren’t you on a hiding to nothing is the UK National Parks does exactly that?

[marshman]

I hope you are not about to suggest they are flogging a dead horse!! You are likely to find the full weight of at least a dozen people piling down on you now!!

[grendel]

11 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Genuine question: if you are serious about all this stuff, don’t you have to sort this....

one step at a time.

[D46]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

I hope you are not about to suggest they are flogging a dead horse!! You are likely to find the full weight of at least a dozen people piling down on you now!!

A dozen I thought you previous claimed it was a lot less than that , less than a handful infact 

[D46]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Genuine question: if you are serious about all this stuff, don’t you have to sort this....

The National Parks website lists 15 NPs. 

Since the objective I assume, is to never have anyone refer to the Broads as an NP, aren’t you on a hiding to nothing is the UK National Parks does exactly that?

LEGALLY  ???????? It is not a national park it's a member and only a member of the national parks nothing more .

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

Genuine question: if you are serious about all this stuff, don’t you have to sort this....

The National Parks website lists 15 NPs. 

Since the objective I assume, is to never have anyone refer to the Broads as an NP, aren’t you on a hiding to nothing is the UK National Parks does exactly that?

Please note the address of National Parks UK and draw the obvious conclusion!

https://nationalparks.uk/about-us/contact-us

[ranworthbreeze]

33 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Please note the address of National Parks UK and draw the obvious conclusion!

https://nationalparks.uk/about-us/contact-us

I would have thought that the Broads Authority had enough on its plate dealing with the Broads without acting  as the press office for all the National Parks!

Regards

Alan

[grendel]

I wonder whose budget that role comes out of.

[JennyMorgan]

28 minutes ago, grendel said:

I wonder whose budget that role comes out of.

I suspect the so called NP grant.

Dear old JP, ingratiating himself in with the real NPs! 

.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Personally, for all those that say there`s nothing (at this time) to moan about, the very fact that the head office for "National Parks UK" is at Yare House should be evidence enough to which way things are going. I can see boating on the Broads becoming very expensive as we`ll probably be ending up subsidising the rest of the UKs National Parks, and if that happens, there will be an awful lot of unwanted boats, that will be totally unsuited to other waterways.

The whole fiasco of "The Norfolk Broads National Park" has gone on for far too long, and the Norfolk public are going to have to fight to make sure this does`nt happen. 

[batrabill]

No one going to answer the question ?