| Suspension of all Runnymede banner sites |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Administrator |
| Sunday, 16 August 2009 10:05 |
|
Did you know that all the current banner sites in Runnymede have now been suspended by Surrey County Council? If you did not know and have used the sites in previous years please email your complaint to Robert Earle: robert.earle@surreycc.gov.uk, or write to him at SCC. A copy of the email informing me of the suspension and my reply on behalf of the Egham Chamber of Commerce can be viewed below. PLEASE forward this to as many people as possible, i.e. schools, colleges, charities, dance groups, amateur dramatic groups, dance schools, scout and guiding groups, etc, etc. Thank you. Kind regards from Anna Barry Administrator, Egham Chamber of Commerce Phone: 01784 460108 Email: admin@eghamchamber.org.uk Website: www.eghamchamber.org.uk Address: c/o Strode’s College, Egham, TW20 9DR Dear Bob Thank you for your email and clarification on why SCC are banning the use of banners on the highways. On behalf of the Chairman, Committee and members of the Egham Chamber of Commerce I would like to make the following comments on why we object to SCC banning the use of banners. 1. A lot of charities, associations, Church groups, social groups, dance and drama groups, event organisers, etc, all use this method to publicise their events. This is a cheap way to reach the public, especially in this economic climate. 2. The public like to know what is happening in their community. 3. The Borough Councils and I assume the County Council, have to support the vitality of their towns in their area. This would include being able to use banner sites in Surrey. 4. The sites have been in use for several decades without incident. 5. If the banners are a visual distraction to drivers then please ensure that you ban road signs, advertising hoardings, illuminated shop signs, flashing window signs, etc, etc, the list is endless. 6. The risk assessment includes the potential for banners to become undone. If you put in your instructions that they should be fixed at certain points, i.e. each corner and at least once every metre, by cable ties then they would not become undone from the railings. It is unlikely that even a vandal could break them away from the cable ties unless they happened to have heavy duty cutters conveniently secured in their pockets. Each eyelet in a banner is secured on a heavy duty edging to the banners. Perhaps just ban home made banners if you are worried about this happening. 7. Your point about obscuring visibility. The banner sites would have all had safety checks done prior to allowing them to be used. This would have taken into account whether a banner on the site would obscure visibility and if that was proved to the case then that site would never have been used in the first place. I have never heard of any complaint of anyone in a wheelchair finding that a banner obscures their vision. How would it? They would not be crossing a road where there was a continuous fence, they actually are intelligent people who know to cross where their pathway is not obscured or blocked. 8. As everyone who books the sites have to have charitable status then you are really only damaging those in the community who actually need the most help. 9. Everyone who books a site also has to have 5 million public liability insurance to cover their banner, therefore SCC has always made sure that they would not be liable should anything happen. 10. You say that SCC want to 'lead by example by complying with any national legislation' but this piece of legislation is from 1980. If banner sites have been used since this act was written, for the last 29/30 years then why has SCC decided that it is leading the way, surely this would have been actioned in 1980 if this was essential. Please explain what business process resulted in the Runnymede Banner Sites being suspended. We as an organisation would like to make it clear that we are very displeased that SCC have decided to act in this way. Surely this is a step too far in the current 'nanny state' that we live in. Kind regards from Anna Barry Administrator, Egham Chamber of Commerce Phone: 01784 460108 Email: admin@eghamchamber.org.uk Website: www.eghamchamber.org.uk Address: c/o Strode’s College, Egham, TW20 9DR -----Original Message----- From: Robert Earle [mailto:robert.earle@surreycc.gov.uk] Sent: 16 July 2009 11:33 To: Anna Barry Cc: Ian Paterson Subject: Runnymede banner sites [Scanned] Good morning Anna The decision made by SCC Highways to suspend the above sites indefinitely, followed a review of certain Business Processes, of which Banners on the Highways was one. The reasons were outlined in the letter I sent to most regular clients, who made use of these sites. Briefly then: 1. The Highways Act of 1980 is national legislation and Surrey County Council had not applied for, nor given any exemption. This Act clearly stipulates that “A person, who ….. or affixes any picture, letter, sign or other mark upon the surface of a highway or upon any tree, structure or works on or in a highway is guilty of an offence ……..” and it is our intention to lead by example by complying with any national legislation. even more so those pertaining to Public Highways 2. A risk assessment had been carried out by qualified Highway Engineers, whereby it was established that the banners on pedestrian guard rails do in fact pose a potential safety hazard for the following reasons. a. Visual distraction to drivers b. Banners becoming undone due to poor securing methods, strong winds, vandalism, etc. c. Obscuring visibility in some cases, especially for disabled persons in wheelchairs. The only legal banner sites are overhead sites. These have been approved by Surrey County Council Highways and are currently managed by the local Borough/Town/Parish Councils for the respective areas. The sites are: a. Farnham b. Hasslemere c. Chobham d. Camberley (under review) Any organisation may apply to have an overhead banner site approved by SCC Highways, provided all the requirements are met. Click link below: Banners - Consent under the Highways Feel free to contact me for guidance and advice in this regard. I understand your disappointment and dissatisfaction with the suspension of the Runnymede sites. However, it is the responsibility by law for SCC Highways to protect people and property on public highways and we view it as an irresponsible approach to first wait for a possible serious injury before acting. I trust you will find this information helpful Bob Earle Business Support Officer West Area Highways |