Jump to content

Acle B.N.P.


JennyMorgan

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, marshman said:

So once again we are possibly seeing yet another departure from the Forum as a result of the attitude of a few who have long held prejudices against almost every BA decision - cannot be bothered to see how many have been lost as a result of this campaign in this thread alone as I just cannot be bothered to go back and count, but one thing I am absolutely sure of, is that the Forum is in a worse place as a result!

Carry on like this and there will not be anyone to argue with - or to try and impose your view upon!!

So why do you keep coming back to it marshy, you know you love it really. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

In the meantime the contractors installing the signs have been told to desist for the time being. I wonder why, perhaps it is because an individual, or maybe several, have taken it upon themselves to actually do something. Clearly JP has overstepped the mark this time. I wonder what else is going on behind drawn curtains :default_wink::default_wink: :default_wink:

For the sake of clarity, Norfolk County Council has been asked to demonstrate the legality of the BNP signs, in relation to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. It appears that, while they were comfortable with their decision in the beginning, they are less so now and have referred the matter to the Department for Transport. Pending a response from the DfT, further installation of the signs has been put on hold.

Nothing at all to do with vandalism, just people legally challenging authority. Democracy in action?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, floydraser said:

Here's the reply. We were typing at the same time. I'm finished here, it's all your thread.

Peter, you may not like the answers, or the style in which they are delivered, but those answers are generally supported by fact and very often those facts are supported by documentation, much of which comes from DEFRA.

Let's just look at the history. Firstly refer to the Broads National Park Bill, it soon becomes clear that it, in part, was an anti-navigation Bill. There was a clear intention by the Authority for it to be able to abandon its duties as a Harbour Authority. We quickly became aware that the Authority wished to be able to close waterways, thankfully that didn't happen, thanks to petitioners going to Parliament. Further evidence is the fact that the Authority attempted to close Horsey Mere by threatening huge fines. Thankfully common sense prevailed and voluntary controls were put in place. Beyond that it is on record that senior conservation officers wished to see Hickling closed to navigation. There was also a desire to disband the Navigation Committee, indeed it was effectively disbanded for one meeting, a fact that I can verify, I was on the Navigation Committee at the time.

Agreed that JP is a clever man, he certainly understands the system and how to manipulate it, but he doesn't always get things his own way, witness the Broads Bill and the fact that the Navigation Committee is still in business. 

Personally I should like to thank you for your contribution to the debate, you have elicited answers that might not otherwise have surfaced, you have added to the debate and I am grateful for that. 

As we say in Norfolk, 'keep yew a troshin, bor!'

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/01/2020 at 13:56, Paladin said:

The Suffolk CC guidelines say:  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.

I know that Norfolk CC has classified the signs as boundary signs. I don't know if anyone has written to Suffolk CC, to ask for clarification, so perhaps I'll get on and do that now. But that doesn't stop anyone else writing to them.

I sent an email to Suffolk CC yesterday and got a reply today. I asked the following questions:

1. How Suffolk County Council categorises the signs?

2. With which specific diagram of the TSR&GD are the signs compliant?

3. If the category is ‘boundary signs’, has special authorisation for the signs been obtained from the national authority?

4. As the colour of the background of the signs does not conform to the standard colour palette for traffic signs, has special authorisation been similarly obtained.

This is their reply:

Thank you for your recent report. We can now provide you with the following update:

The Safety and Speed Management team have advised that as the majority of the proposed signs were to be located in Norfolk and only a few in Suffolk, we took the lead from Norfolk County Council. They advised us when we contacted them that they had already approved the signs for Norfolk under the information contained in TSR & GD 2016.  We therefore approved the signs for Suffolk to enable continuity of signing.

The information we received was:

We have interpreted the regs that govern boundary signs (Schedule 11 part 5 sec 38- 2 & 17) as allowing symbols & colours as long as its contrasting.

In order to provide a better sense of place, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Transport have worked closely with the traffic sign manufacturing industry to develop new boundary signs that can incorporate photographic images.

For example, Plymouth City Council’s new Tourist Gateway Sign, showing Smeaton’s Tower, designed with the Department for Transport’s assistance, was the first Tourist Gateway Sign to be formally authorised.

Department for Transport authority is no longer required for these signs as permitted under the 2015 Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions (TSRDG).

Attractive, attention-grabbing traffic signage is a great way to draw visitors to revenue earning destinations such as towns, scenic areas and individual attractions which I think covers the broads national park.

For further information about how we deal with highway issues, please visit our website:

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/highways/

Please do not use the reply function of this message. This mailbox is not monitored and therefore your email will not be seen.

All I get from this is that Suffolk County Council approved the signs simply on the say-so of Norfolk County Council , but did not make any independent assessment of their own. Yet they are the ones who would be culpable, should it be found that the signs do not comply with the regulations, and the jury's still out on that one. A reply has been sent!

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

Paladin - I'm glad your here, glad your finger is on the pulse and glad that you keep us lot updated  :default_beerchug:

Griff

Agree 100%. I would`nt know where to start, let alone dig extremely deeply.  Thanks Paly

It`s a bit late now, but i will hopefully be able to add something tomorrow, though we`ll be busy clearing out a bedroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/01/2020 at 20:58, Paladin said:

I sent an email to Suffolk CC yesterday and got a reply today. I asked the following questions:

1. How Suffolk County Council categorises the signs?

2. With which specific diagram of the TSR&GD are the signs compliant?

3. If the category is ‘boundary signs’, has special authorisation for the signs been obtained from the national authority?

4. As the colour of the background of the signs does not conform to the standard colour palette for traffic signs, has special authorisation been similarly obtained.

This is their reply:

Thank you for your recent report. We can now provide you with the following update:

The Safety and Speed Management team have advised that as the majority of the proposed signs were to be located in Norfolk and only a few in Suffolk, we took the lead from Norfolk County Council. They advised us when we contacted them that they had already approved the signs for Norfolk under the information contained in TSR & GD 2016.  We therefore approved the signs for Suffolk to enable continuity of signing.

The information we received was:

We have interpreted the regs that govern boundary signs (Schedule 11 part 5 sec 38- 2 & 17) as allowing symbols & colours as long as its contrasting.

In order to provide a better sense of place, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Transport have worked closely with the traffic sign manufacturing industry to develop new boundary signs that can incorporate photographic images.

For example, Plymouth City Council’s new Tourist Gateway Sign, showing Smeaton’s Tower, designed with the Department for Transport’s assistance, was the first Tourist Gateway Sign to be formally authorised.

Department for Transport authority is no longer required for these signs as permitted under the 2015 Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions (TSRDG).

Attractive, attention-grabbing traffic signage is a great way to draw visitors to revenue earning destinations such as towns, scenic areas and individual attractions which I think covers the broads national park.

For further information about how we deal with highway issues, please visit our website:

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/highways/

Please do not use the reply function of this message. This mailbox is not monitored and therefore your email will not be seen.

All I get from this is that Suffolk County Council approved the signs simply on the say-so of Norfolk County Council , but did not make any independent assessment of their own. Yet they are the ones who would be culpable, should it be found that the signs do not comply with the regulations, and the jury's still out on that one. A reply has been sent!

I have now had a reply from Suffolk County Council:

"The Safety and Speed Management team have advised that we have contacted Norfolk CC and are aware you have asked them the same questions. NCC is seeking approval from the Secretary of State for use of these signs (wording, colour and logo) which they expect to receive shortly. We will then be informed and can update you."

I'm sure the electorate of Suffolk will be heartened to know that their county council is now subservient to Norfolk County Council. It is apparent, from that reply, that the BNP signs required, but did not have, the approval of the Secretary of State.

Nor have Suffolk CC actually answered any of the questions I asked. Obviously, they don't know the answers, without asking Norfolk CC!

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 5
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, marshman said:

Perhaps they are busy doing something important!

 

45 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Isn't it important that local authorities obey the law, then? At least they are accountable.

Murder is a crime, so is littering. 

If one fails to prioritise issues we might just as well throw the towel in now!  That's the problem with semantics, they get in the way of the issues and fudge the priorities. I take it as read that marshman meant "more important" … but then again Paladin. so did you. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paladin's posting highlights a technique used by probably scores of organisations, not just the BA. Consultation will be by stealth, or it was when I was on the Nav Com. A letter would go out to the effect saying:" I have consulted with so and so from whatever organisation and he agrees with my request etc. etc. so I trust that I can count on your support". One by one key consultees would be picked off, relying on the probability that each one would think 'well, so and so has agreed so I will too', thus further agreement was given, probably with no one bothering to check what was being agreed to! That's the system, some folk have clearly got it off to a fine art!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

 

Murder is a crime, so is littering. 

If one fails to prioritise issues we might just as well throw the towel in now!  That's the problem with semantics, they get in the way of the issues and fudge the priorities. I take it as read that marshman meant "more important" … but then again Paladin. so did you. :-)

Sorry, but I tend to take things as they are written. marshman didn't say "more important", and nor did I.

At the moment, I don't have a murder to inquire into, but I do have possible illegal activities by two local authorities to look at, so I'm looking.

Only a few days ago, marshman wrote, "There is absolutely no place for condoning what is probably criminal damage," yet he appears to be rather relaxed about the possibility of local authorites breaking the law.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, please clarify your point.

Do you mean 

"rather relaxed about the possibility of local authorites breaking the law."

or "rather relaxed about local authorities possibly breaking the law"

16 hours ago, Paladin said:

NCC is seeking approval from the Secretary of State for use of these signs (wording, colour and logo) which they expect to receive shortly. We will then be informed and can update you."

 The above quote implies (or I infer) that neither the NCC nor the SCC knows the legal position, that the NCC is finding out and will inform the SCC of the results. By that I take it that the Secretary of State would not approve anything that would be illegal. It would be a waste of time for both county councils to make the enquiry, and it would be similarly wasteful for NCC to keep the answer to themselves.

27 minutes ago, Paladin said:

At the moment, I don't have a murder to inquire into, but I do have possible illegal activities by two local authorities to look at, so I'm looking.

Good for you, and I applaud your efforts, but tend to agree with Marshman that the county councils might have "bigger fish to fry" .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Paladin said:

I have now had a reply from Suffolk County Council:

"The Safety and Speed Management team have advised that we have contacted Norfolk CC and are aware you have asked them the same questions. NCC is seeking approval from the Secretary of State for use of these signs (wording, colour and logo) which they expect to receive shortly. We will then be informed and can update you."

 

 

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

 The above quote implies (or I infer) that neither the NCC nor the SCC knows the legal position, that the NCC is finding out and will inform the SCC of the results. By that I take it that the Secretary of State would not approve anything that would be illegal.

NCC and SCC are both highways authorites, individually responsible for the majority of road signs in their areas. It is their job to know the law regarding road signs inside out. If they didn't know the legal position, they should have asked their legal teams, and/or the DfT, before any signs were authorised by them. That the DfT is now being asked to authorise the signs (if that is the case) is a clear admission that NCC and SCC had no power to authorise the signs in the first place.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.