Concert posters - City Council ban
ke...@cam.ac.uk
the posters have disappeared from various church railings - St Botolph's
on Trumpington Street is one. You might think that that's because the
churches have made a decision to take them down. Not a bit of it! I
understand that this is a City Council decision and that the churches
are very unhappy about it. Music and drama groups and others have been
putting posters on these railings with the full consent of the churches
for many years.
Somebody has decided that they would like Cambridge to be ever so tidy,
and if that means that the most useful places to advertise cultural
events are to be banned, that's too bad - who cares about Cambridge's
cultural life compared with the importance of having tidy railings?
An exception is being made for adverts for events in the church itself,
and GSM is apparently allowed to advertise College events, since
Colleges are part of their ministry. All other posters on church
railings (and possibly elsewhere; I don't know) are being taken down by
the City rangers.
Of course the churches (and the rangers, who are actually taking the
posters down) should be free to remove things that are offensive, out of
date, untidy etc. But tidy posters about current events are part of
what we should be displaying to show tourists that Cambridge is not just
a museum.
I understand one person (or it might be two) has complained. In
response to this the Council are going to do a real disservice to
artistic endeavours in the City, and the listening public, as well as
to tourists.
I shall be writing to protest (can any City Councillor tell us where is
the most effective place?). If any of you agree with me that this is a
foolish decision and a gross over-reaction, you might like to write in
as well.
Katy
Roland Perry
15 Jun 2009, ke...@cam.ac.uk remarked:
>All other posters on church railings (and possibly elsewhere; I don't
>know) are being taken down by the City rangers.
Anyone else doing it would be charged with criminal damage and theft.
What power do they have to do this?
--
Roland Perry
Martin
> Some of you with an interest in concerts etc. may have noticed that all
> the posters have disappeared from various church railings - St Botolph's
> on Trumpington Street is one. You might think that that's because the
> churches have made a decision to take them down. Not a bit of it! I
> understand that this is a City Council decision and that the churches
> are very unhappy about it. Music and drama groups and others have been
> putting posters on these railings with the full consent of the churches
> for many years.
Walking past those railings, with the enormous amount of cultural stuff
going on, is one of the things that makes me proud to live in Cambridge.
Is the legal situation here any different to me putting up a poster in my
window facing the street?
> I shall be writing to protest (can any City Councillor tell us where is
> the most effective place?). If any of you agree with me that this is a
> foolish decision and a gross over-reaction, you might like to write in
> as well.
The Cambridge Evening News for a start. newsdesk -AT- cambridge-news.co.uk
The Councillors for Market Ward (the central area) are listed here:
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/council-and-democracy/councillors/market-ward.en
and Councillors for each area are linked to from the left of that page.
Martin
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
I don't understand this. There has been no such council decision. There
have been public complaints that posters are not removed after they become
out of date so the churches may be applying a ban if they are not willing
to take down old stuff. But there has been no ban on posters on railings
which are essentially a private matter between railing owners and those
displaying posters.
I'll make further inquiries.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Gotch
> I understand one person (or it might be two) has complained. In
> response to this the Council are going to do a real disservice to
> artistic endeavours in the City, and the listening public, as well as
> to tourists.
It should also be noted that the amount of "authorized" advertising
space in central cambridge that is not on church railings is inadequate
and prohibitively expensive for amateur groups to use.
Being involved in various artistic endevours in both music and theatre
in Cambridge I have to say that mostly we get by in spite of local
government rather than because of it.
There are many of us who spend a great deal of our time and our own
money in this area. Most productions or concerts lose money even if
they sell out. It is sad that the council (or some of its officers)
feel that they should put up extra barriers up to attracting audience
and therefore minimising the losses made.
These kinds of policies also do nothing for town/university relations
as advertising for student run events will not be in positions where
people who are not members of the university will see it except for
Great St Mary.
-p
--
"Unix is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are."
- Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ke...@cam.ac.uk
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Some of you with an interest in concerts etc. may have noticed that all
>> the posters have disappeared from various church railings - St Botolph's
>> on Trumpington Street is one. You might think that that's because the
>
>have been public complaints that posters are not removed after they become
>out of date so the churches may be applying a ban if they are not willing
>to take down old stuff. But there has been no ban on posters on railings
>which are essentially a private matter between railing owners and those
>displaying posters.
Well, every single poster, old or new, has vanished from St Botolph's this
morning, and I am assured that that is not by any wish of the churches.
Katy
Calvin Sambrook
news:a8e8qBcRXiNKFAK$@perry.co.uk...
The answer to that is "some". There are planning permission regulations
which relate to the display of advertising but they have clauses which allow
certain things to be deemed permitted by default. In essence if it's
charitable you can do some low key advertising with the landowners
permission, if it's commercial you are much more restricted unless you get
explicit consent. Anyone remember those big bright yellow signs which
appeared on just about every entrance to the city a few months back
advertising a storage company? It only took one phone call to Planning...
To quote from "Outdoor advertisements and signs: a guide for advertisers"
(June 2007
Department for Communities and Local Government):
"Class 3(D) permits temporary notices or signs which are intended to
advertise
any local event being held for charitable purposes, which may be religious,
educational, cultural, political, social or recreational, but not for any
commercial purpose. This permission would include an advertisement for:
a church bazaar
a fete for a parent-teacher association
a sponsored marathon in aid of charity
an amateur sports event, but not any sporting event organised for
commercial purposes.
The advertisement permitted by Class 3(D) must not exceed 0.6 of a
square metre."
and then...
"Advertisements permitted by Class 3 must not:
have any letters, figures, symbols or similar features of the design over
0.75 of a metre in height, or 0.3 of a metre in height if they are in any
Area of Special Control;
have the highest part of the advertisement at more than 4.6 metres
above ground-level, or 3.6 metres in any Area of Special Control (except
for estate agents' boards, in Class 3(A), advertising a sale or letting of
premises situated in a building above these specified height limits); or
be illuminated in any circumstances.
And, if a Class 3 advertisement relates to a sale or event, it must not be
displayed more than 28 days before the sale or event begins and must be
removed within 14 days after it ends."
Various other clauses in section 3 specify that the display is only
permitted in relation to events in that building but section 3C does not
include this and so relates to any premises. I guess it hinges on whether
the events can be classed as "charitable" or not.
And further...
"Class 13 allows advertisements to be displayed on a site that has been used
continually for the preceding ten years for the display of advertisements.
Class 13 does not permit any substantial increase in the extent, or
alteration
in the manner, of the use of the site or the display of the advertisement."
Plenty of room for debate in this one as to whether the railings have been
used for the preceding 10 years and whether the extent has increased!
Espen Koht
"Calvin Sambrook" <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> And further...
>
> "Class 13 allows advertisements to be displayed on a site that has been used
> continually for the preceding ten years for the display of advertisements.
> Class 13 does not permit any substantial increase in the extent, or
> alteration
> in the manner, of the use of the site or the display of the advertisement."
>
> Plenty of room for debate in this one as to whether the railings have been
> used for the preceding 10 years and whether the extent has increased!
I don't see much room for debate on this. All the locations mention have
had posters of this kind up for more than a decade, and since the amount
space is finite, the extent can hardly have increased.
Tim Ward
news:h15bsg$2fk$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk...
>
> Well, every single poster, old or new, has vanished from St Botolph's this
> morning, and I am assured that that is not by any wish of the churches.
If the person who assured you of this would like to contact me I will look
into it. The last I heard (at the Rangers steering group meeting) was that
the policy was that Rangers were removing offensive posters and were
encouraging the owners of railings to remove out-of-date ones. If someone is
telling you different I need names and dates and details please.
I have certainly received complaints from members of the public about these
posters making the place untidy, but my response has been that the policy is
to support the type of event usually advertised. The City Council does make
community notice boards available in many places in the city but not in
enough places to satisfy the advertisers!
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Roland Perry
Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Calvin Sambrook <csam...@bigfoot.com> remarked:
>>>All other posters on church railings (and possibly elsewhere; I don't
>>>know) are being taken down by the City rangers.
>>
>> Anyone else doing it would be charged with criminal damage and theft.
>>What power do they have to do this?
>
>regulations which relate to the display of advertising but they have
>clauses which allow certain things to be deemed permitted by default.
And these Rangers can be judge and Jury and just take down things
without first warning the owners and going to court?
Why hasn't the council bulldozed the Rat and Parrot yet?
--
Roland Perry
ke...@cam.ac.uk
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
><ke...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:h15bsg$2fk$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk...
>>
>> Well, every single poster, old or new, has vanished from St Botolph's this
>> morning, and I am assured that that is not by any wish of the churches.
>
>If the person who assured you of this would like to contact me I will look
>into it. The last I heard (at the Rangers steering group meeting) was that
>the policy was that Rangers were removing offensive posters and were
>encouraging the owners of railings to remove out-of-date ones. If someone is
>telling you different I need names and dates and details please.
>
>I have certainly received complaints from members of the public about these
>posters making the place untidy, but my response has been that the policy is
>to support the type of event usually advertised.
I'm delighted to hear it. I have sent a request back up the line for some more
chapter and verse.
Unfortunately, not knowing today was the day, I didn't make a note of the
twenty or so posters on St Botolph's railings yesterday, but I find it hard to
believe that every single one was out of date.
I'll be in touch when I have more information.
Katy
Ben Harris
>Some of you with an interest in concerts etc. may have noticed that all
>the posters have disappeared from various church railings - St Botolph's
>on Trumpington Street is one.
A further couple of data points: Both St Bene't's and St Michael's
still had posters outside when I went for lunch, and they didn't all
seem to relate to events in the churches.
--
Ben Harris
Tim Ward
Yes. Local authorities have various powers to deal with graffiti and
fly-posting without having to go to court.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Mike Clark
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
Such as the way that Bristol has dealt with Banksy?
;-)
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Roland Perry
Jun 2009, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>> And these Rangers can be judge and Jury and just take down things without
>> first warning the owners and going to court?
>
>Yes. Local authorities have various powers to deal with graffiti and
>fly-posting without having to go to court.
But this isn't fly-posting because the people who own the church
railings don't object.
--
Roland Perry
Al Grant
> Yes. Local authorities have various powers to deal with graffiti and
> fly-posting without having to go to court.
But it's only graffiti or fly-posting if it was put there without
the consent of the owners. Were they contacted?
Perhaps the council have been told to put a stop to the
fly-posting - on road signs and elsewhere - for events at
the Junction, and this is some sort of petty revenge?
Mark Goodge
and typed:
In this case, though, it isn't fly-posting, as the posters are placed
with the consent of the property owner (the churches, in this case).
It may still be an actionable breach of planning regulations, but
that's a different matter - the local authority has no power to remove
posters where the property owner has given permission for their
display without first either contacting the property owner and/or
taking action through the courts to enforce the regulations.
It sounds to me as if you've simply got a few (possibly new) members
of staff in the City rangers who aren't aware that these posters are
placed with permission. A quiet word in the appropriate ear(s) ought
to sort that out.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
James Harvey
Posters for our event have also been removed from places like the
railings outside GSM. We noticed the other week that the Judge
Institute, which used to allow poster displays, had no posters.
I'm particularly disappointed if this is the Council's enforcement
action, since they're then creating a monopoly for themselves: they
charge through the nose for putting posters up on Countil noticeboards.
It's prohibitively expensive for amateur groups to use that service for
more than a small number of boards for a small number of weeks, and our
choir relies on the generosity of places like GSM and St. Botolphs to
boost our advertising spaces.
I'd certainly appreciate any help Councillors could give in trying to
get to the bottom of this recent action, and reversing it if it happens
to have become some sort of official policy.
-James
PS come to Cambridge Chorale's 'American Connections' concert, 4th July,
St. Mary's Church, Saffron Walden! (goodness knows we need all the
publicity we can get...)
--
James Harvey, Chairman, Cambridge Chorale
http://www.cambridgechorale.org.uk/
Tim Ward
news:972ad76b50....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
>
> Such as the way that Bristol has dealt with Banksy?
Yeah, I'm thinking of going and having a look, being one of the schoolboys
who was once upon a time dragged round that museum (as described in the
Grauniad review of the exhibition).
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Douglas de Lacey
>
> If the person who assured you of this would like to contact me I will look
> into it. The last I heard (at the Rangers steering group meeting) was that
> the policy was that Rangers were removing offensive posters and were
> encouraging the owners of railings to remove out-of-date ones. If someone is
> telling you different I need names and dates and details please.
Here's some correspondence from our[1] publicity member:
<quote>
Last week I noticed that the laminated poster I put on Great St
Mary's railings had gone. I put up two more in plastic envelopes 2
days ago and they were gone this morning. I went in and spoke to
someone in GSM. Apparently the City Council are enforcing the 'no fly
posting' regulation and taking all the concert (and other) posters
down. I went to the Guildhall and the person dealing with this was
out of their office so I left my home number. They have just called
back. Apparently there were lots of complaints about 6 months ago
that the railings were a real mess - out of date and inappropriate
posters. So they are enforcing long enstated (but previously
uninforced)legislation and taking them down. Michaelhouse has adopted
a policy whereby you can give them a poster and, if they agree, they
will display it for the week preceding the event and they initial the
corner so that the council don't rip them off.
According to the law GSM could still display posters if they gained
planning application for each one!!!
Anyway the guy at GSM didn't like the new enforcement and I told the
council person that I didn't either even though I accepted the
arguments in favour.
</quote>
and confirmation:
<quote>
I spoke to someone at City Council. They were telling me that all
posters apart from those advertising events at Gt St Marys were being
removed from the railings, not just out of date or unsuitable ones.
Michaelhouse has adopted a policy that they will put up posters if they
approve and just for the week up until the event (ours hadn't appeared
by yesterday morning). I also spoke to someone else who was giving out
concert flyers at West Road last night. He confirmed that posters for
concerts were being removed and that if there were contact details on
them they would be issued with a warning.
There is nothing on the railings to indicate that this change of policy
is taking place.
</quote>
Is that enough for you, Tim? Personally I agree with Martin: these
posters are a not unattractive part of Cambridge's ambience.
Douglas de Lacey
[1] "We" being Choir 2000, who wanted to advertise the first UK
performance of Suter's Le Laudi in West Road Concert Hall on Sunday.
Details at www.choir2000.org </plug>
Mike Clark
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
It does sound like an interesting exhibition.
Tim Ward
That doesn't pertain across the whole city. In particular the city council
is responsible for some disused churchyards and their railings and has never
given permission for any of the posters that adorn those railings.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Tim Ward
news:h15pdr$o98$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> Is that enough for you, Tim?
Name please - there are around 1,100 city council employees.
Calvin Sambrook
news:79n4r4F...@mid.individual.net...
That's true but they still have to act within the law, they can still only
remove posters which are disallowed by law. Mind you there's not much
anyone can do other than petition the council, AIUI even "criminal damage"
would only result in recompense for actual damage caused... that'll be two
long cable ties, 27p.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Ward) wrote:
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:wS3Wx733...@perry.co.uk...
> > In message <79n4r4F...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:40:36 on
> > Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
> >>> And these Rangers can be judge and Jury and just take down things
> >>> without first warning the owners and going to court?
> >>
> >>Yes. Local authorities have various powers to deal with graffiti and
> >>fly-posting without having to go to court.
> >
> > But this isn't fly-posting because the people who own the church
> > railings don't object.
>
> That doesn't pertain across the whole city. In particular the city
> council is responsible for some disused churchyards and their
> railings and has never given permission for any of the posters that
> adorn those railings.
It has actually - All Saint's in St John's Street.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Rudin
> AIUI even "criminal damage" would only result in recompense for actual
> damage caused... that'll be two long cable ties, 27p.
Yebut criminal damage is a criminal offence, recompense for the damage
caused is a separate issue.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Lacey) wrote:
> Last week I noticed that the laminated poster I put on Great St
> Mary's railings had gone. I put up two more in plastic envelopes 2
> days ago and they were gone this morning. I went in and spoke to
> someone in GSM. Apparently the City Council are enforcing the 'no fly
> posting' regulation and taking all the concert (and other) posters
> down.
I don't understand this. Having just spoken to my wife, a regular
worshipper and past PCC member at GSM, she tells me there were definitely
non-GSM posters on their railings yesterday.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
>>>fly-posting without having to go to court.
>>
>> But this isn't fly-posting because the people who own the church railings
>> don't object.
>
>That doesn't pertain across the whole city. In particular the city council
>is responsible for some disused churchyards and their railings and has never
>given permission for any of the posters that adorn those railings.
Those aren't the railings being discussed today. But it's a bit
dog-in-a-manger to take down posters advertising local "charity" events
even from those.
--
Roland Perry
Calvin Sambrook
Any chance you could get back to this council employee and ask for a
reference to this "long enstated (but previously uninforced) legislation".
That way we could all read the original documentation and assure ourselves
that the council have correctly interpreted it. If it exists.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Perry) wrote:
Indeed it would be, but we haven't been able to bottom out any City
Council responsibility for a change here in the course of today.
We know there was certainly no Executive Councillor decision because it
would have been taken by me or my successor and neither of us did any such
thing.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Martin
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Al Grant wrote:
> On 15 June, 15:40, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> > Yes. Local authorities have various powers to deal with graffiti and
> > fly-posting without having to go to court.
>
> But it's only graffiti or fly-posting if it was put there without the
> consent of the owners. Were they contacted?
What business of the city council is it to interfere in this way though?
These are private railings and surely therefore a private matter between
the 'advertisers' and the churches concerned?
Martin
Steve Slatcher
wrote:
As an ex-resident, and now occasional visitor, it seems to me the
laminated poster tied to railings is a phenomenon of the last few
years. It may have happened earlier, but not nearly to the same
extent. The large number of posters on my visit this year really did
catch the eye in a way they never used to. So I can sort of
understand that some might be offended.
Not that I personally would argue that they should be removed.
--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk (Martin) wrote:
I think you'll find the law makes it the council's business.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Steve Slatcher <steve.s...@pobox.com> remarked:
>As an ex-resident, and now occasional visitor, it seems to me the
>laminated poster tied to railings is a phenomenon of the last few
>years. It may have happened earlier, but not nearly to the same
>extent. The large number of posters on my visit this year really did
>catch the eye in a way they never used to.
Streetview shows what was there recently: http://tinyurl.com/leozbq
http://tinyurl.com/lkmjn9
I also recall a fence-full of posters in the centre of Newnham Croft,
but Streetview didn't go there.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
on Tue, 16 Jun 2009, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> What business of the city council is it to interfere in this way
>> though? These are private railings and surely therefore a private
>> matter between the 'advertisers' and the churches concerned?
>
>I think you'll find the law makes it the council's business.
Which law though? Not fly-posting, as the property owners have given
permission; there have been suggestions that it's "planning permission",
but the alleged 10-year rule seems to stymie that.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Ayliffe
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> illuminated us with:
Ahem. The city isn't _entirely_ responsible for that area. I suspect
the landowner may have some thoughts. ;-)
--
Mark
Real email address | "Did you sleep well?"
is mark at | "No, I made a couple of mistakes."
ayliffe dot org |
tony sayer
<rol...@perry.co.uk> scribeth thus
Humm ... perhaps we need a war or serious recession to keep our minds on
more important things;!...
--
Tony Sayer
PaulB
We certainly do need an event of catastrophic proportions to bring our
increasingly fragmented society back to the common good. As to the
posters I happen to agree with Martin, I quite like them and thing they
are/were a good thing, and as for the out of date ones, well so what, at
least they are colourful.
Paul
Douglas de Lacey
> "Douglas de Lacey" <de...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:h15pdr$o98$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>> Is that enough for you, Tim?
>
> Name please - there are around 1,100 city council employees.
At this remove all she can say is "Fiona possibly or Jenny". No-one ever
seems to have a surname nowadays.
Douglas de Lacey
Tim Ward
Not much of a help I'm afraid. We seem to have established that there has
been no policy change from the top, ie the portfolio holder, so a definite
name of someone who said policy has changed would be very helpful.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Roland Perry
Jun 2009, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Name please - there are around 1,100 city council employees.
>>
>> At this remove all she can say is "Fiona possibly or Jenny". No-one ever
>> seems to have a surname nowadays.
>
>Not much of a help I'm afraid. We seem to have established that there has
>been no policy change from the top, ie the portfolio holder, so a definite
>name of someone who said policy has changed would be very helpful.
why doesn't someone ask the rangers:
a) Did they in fact remove the posters, and
b) If so, why?
--
Roland Perry
John Lawton
> In article <5$mEqP9xnpNKF...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
>
>
>
> Perry) wrote:
> > In message <79nca8F1rhnu...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:48:07 on
> > Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
> > >>>Local authorities have various powers to deal with graffiti and
> > >>>fly-posting without having to go to court.
>
> > >> But this isn't fly-posting because the people who own the church
> > >> railings don't object.
>
> > >That doesn't pertain across the whole city. In particular the city
> > >council is responsible for some disused churchyards and their
> > >railings and has never given permission for any of the posters that
> > >adorn those railings.
>
> > Those aren't the railings being discussed today. But it's a bit
> > dog-in-a-manger to take down posters advertising local "charity"
> > events even from those.
>
> Indeed it would be, but we haven't been able to bottom out any City
> Council responsibility for a change here in the course of today.
>
> We know there was certainly no Executive Councillor decision because it
> would have been taken by me or my successor and neither of us did any such
> thing.
Colin,
Were you not at a recent West/Central Area Committee meeting where a
written question in the open forum asked that these railing notices be
removed. In reply the committee most definitely rejected this idea,
and some councillors expressed a liking for them.
J
Chris
> In article <5$mEqP9xnpNKF...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
>
>
> Council responsibility for a change here in the course of today.
>
> We know there was certainly no Executive Councillor decision because it
> would have been taken by me or my successor and neither of us did any such
> thing.
>
> --
> Colin Rosenstiel
Colin and Tim seem to be out of the loop - the leader of the Council
has been involved at some point. Someone complained to the Council
round about April time. I asked what the situation was, and got the
following back from a planning enforcement officer:
"Thank you for raising the issue over the posters on the various
churches in the City Centre. I can confirm that posters which are
advertising Church activities are permitted, any other poster is not
permitted.
I have visited the churches in the centre. My feelings were due to the
amount of posters that were not advertising Church activities, I had
to take some sort of action. I have written to the church wardens,
reminding them of what is permitted and for the removal of the fly-
posters."
and when I chased up to see if anything had happened:
"The complaint was also diverted to Councillor Ian Nimmo- Smith.
Councilor Nimmo- Smith response was that people find the posters a
good source of information and so long as the churches do not have a
problem with the posters, then he is fine with them. However he has
mentioned that the posters need to be removed when out of date.
Due to Councillor Nimmo- Smith's response, I have not taken any
further action and have closed my investigation."
Which sounds like a sensible approach to me. Don't know what has
prompted any further action...
Chris
ke...@cam.ac.uk
>>>
>>> If the person who assured you of this would like to contact me I will
>>> look into it. The last I heard (at the Rangers steering group meeting)
>>> was that the policy was that Rangers were removing offensive posters and
>>> were encouraging the owners of railings to remove out-of-date ones. If
>>> someone is telling you different I need names and dates and details
>>> please.
Well, we seem to have abit more information in the article below.
So my impression is that there was nearly a decision to ban posters, then
a decision *not* to ban posters, and then someone (presumably not the person
who decided to take no further action) went ahead and banned
them anyway. But this may be an oversimplification......
Can anything be done to reinstate Ian Nimmo-Smith's very sensible view?
Katy
***
Tim Ward
>
> why doesn't someone ask the rangers:
>
> a) Did they in fact remove the posters, and
> b) If so, why?
Yes, Colin has now got the answers to those questions, which are
(a) yes, some of them
(b) because they were (1) asked to in some cases by the churches (2) told to
in other cases by person or persons unknown, and the portfolio holder is
going to find out who this was.
Tim Ward
news:h191og$e62$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk...
>
> Can anything be done to reinstate Ian Nimmo-Smith's very sensible view?
Yes. The stated policy will be reinstated (barring serious accidents).
Calvin Sambrook
>news:2c5607ea-9807-4047-bd92->390764...@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>On Jun 15, 9:33 pm, rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In article <5$mEqP9xnpNKF...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
>
>following back from a planning enforcement officer:
>
>"Thank you for raising the issue over the posters on the various
>churches in the City Centre. I can confirm that posters which are
>advertising Church activities are permitted, any other poster is not
>permitted.
IANAL and I haven't been back to the source legislation but I have read the
government publication "Outdoor advertisements and signs: a guide for
advertisers" (June 2007 Department for Communities and Local Government) in
some detail and it clearly states that:
"Class 3(D) permits temporary notices or signs which are intended to
advertise any local event being held for charitable purposes, which may be
religious,
educational, cultural, political, social or recreational, but not for any
commercial purpose. This permission would include an advertisement for:
a church bazaar
a fete for a parent-teacher association
a sponsored marathon in aid of charity
an amateur sports event, but not any sporting event organised for
commercial purposes.
The advertisement permitted by Class 3(D) must not exceed 0.6 of a
square metre."
Importantly various other clauses in section 3 specify that the display is
only permitted in relation to events in that building but section 3C does
not include this and so relates to any premises. I would expect the
Planning Officer to know this, it is his job after all, but it is possible
he's simply got it wrong. Perhaps one of our councilors could take the
matter up with Planning to clarify their understanding of the law.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Perry) wrote:
I've posted a reply from the City Rangers direct to Katy's original post.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<adbadbd1-424b-4530...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
no-rep...@ntlworld.com (John Lawton) wrote:
Unless it was the most recent one then probably not. I missed three area
committees in a row for various reasons. I am aware of demands to tidy
them up by removing out of date notices (and no more).
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
mark.see.sig.f...@ayliffe.invalid (Mark Ayliffe) wrote:
I think you'll find that it's managed by the City as a closed churchyard.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> Some of you with an interest in concerts etc. may have noticed that all
> the posters have disappeared from various church railings - St Botolph's
> on Trumpington Street is one. You might think that that's because the
> churches have made a decision to take them down. Not a bit of it! I
> understand that this is a City Council decision and that the churches
> are very unhappy about it. Music and drama groups and others have
> been putting posters on these railings with the full consent of the
> churches for many years.
>
> Somebody has decided that they would like Cambridge to be ever so tidy,
> and if that means that the most useful places to advertise cultural
> events are to be banned, that's too bad - who cares about Cambridge's
> cultural life compared with the importance of having tidy railings?
>
> An exception is being made for adverts for events in the church itself,
> and GSM is apparently allowed to advertise College events, since
> Colleges are part of their ministry. All other posters on church
> railings (and possibly elsewhere; I don't know) are being taken down by
> the City rangers.
>
> Of course the churches (and the rangers, who are actually taking the
> posters down) should be free to remove things that are offensive, out of
> date, untidy etc. But tidy posters about current events are part of
> what we should be displaying to show tourists that Cambridge is not just
> a museum.
>
> I understand one person (or it might be two) has complained. In
> response to this the Council are going to do a real disservice to
> artistic endeavours in the City, and the listening public, as well as
> to tourists.
>
> I shall be writing to protest (can any City Councillor tell us where is
> the most effective place?). If any of you agree with me that this is a
> foolish decision and a gross over-reaction, you might like to write in
> as well.
I'm having difficulty working out what's going on here. This is the reply
I received today from the City Rangers:
"Colin...The request to remove the posters from Church railings came from
The verger at St Botolphs Church and the Manager Of St Michaels House.It
is being backed by the Enforcement Team and the Environmental Planning
Team.As you are aware we have always removed..Out of
Date..and..Inappropriate Posters... But have been instructed to remove.."
all " that are not connected to the appropriate Church. I have to report
that the overwhelming response has been in favour of having them removed
although a few have objected.....Regards"
You will see that, at least as far as St Botolph's is concerned, there is
a conflict of evidence. You might like to go back to St Botolph's to
clarify the official position.
I am also getting contradictory information about GSM and Michaelhouse.
Joye and Cllr Catherine Smart are investigating further.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> >> Tim Ward wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If the person who assured you of this would like to contact me I
> >>> will look into it. The last I heard (at the Rangers steering group
> >>> meeting) was that the policy was that Rangers were removing
> >>> offensive posters and were encouraging the owners of railings to
> >>> remove out-of-date ones. If someone is telling you different I need
> >>> names and dates and details please.
>
> Well, we seem to have abit more information in the article below.
>
> So my impression is that there was nearly a decision to ban posters,
> then a decision *not* to ban posters, and then someone (presumably not
> the person who decided to take no further action) went ahead and banned
> them anyway. But this may be an oversimplification......
>
> Can anything be done to reinstate Ian Nimmo-Smith's very sensible view?
The Leader's view was also the West/Central Area Committee view, expressed
perfectly clearly a couple of meetings ago. It is not yet clear where this
instruction came from but it did not come from any relevant councillor.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
ke...@cam.ac.uk
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Indeed it would be, but we haven't been able to bottom out any City
>Council responsibility for a change here in the course of today.
>
>We know there was certainly no Executive Councillor decision because it
>would have been taken by me or my successor and neither of us did any such
>thing.
We now seem to have some further information from the Enforcement Manager:
***
The City Rangers have always monitored church railings with the
churches which comply with us, but there have in the past been
problems whereby they have been told that they have given permission
for people to advertise and phoned us complaining that posters have
been removed.
We now have an arrangement with the City Centre churches that they
will only advertise church events and have permission to remove
anything else and I have asked Grahame Nicholson to remove any other
posters. Michaelhouse have put signs up saying that people must now
seek permission before posting anything on their railings and the
warden has agreed that if it is appropriate to them, she will clearly
initial anything she has agreed to.
I'm not sure whether Grahame and Jim have had chance to remove the
posters from Great St Marys yet (which is currently the worst in the
City) but all that should remain on there are Great St Marys events
and they have restricted to one poster per event at each entrance -
so we are making headway with this.
****************************
So it appears that some at least of the pressure for this change has come from
the Council, but without the knowledge of (some) Councillors.
If the churches positively want this (which still seems very unclear, given
other reports)
there is not much we can do, and I can't
get hold of my original informant at present. But given the discussions
various bits of the Council seem to have had earlier, and the clear response
from Ian Nimmo-Smith when it came up before, it seems a pity that something the
Council appeared to have decided not to do has now been implemented
without Councillors being involved or informed.
It remains true that this is a damaging and deeply regrettable decision,
whoever made it. (To repeat; getting Rangers to remove out of date or
inappropriate posters is excellent, but there seems no good reason for the
further step except for minor administrative convenience).)
Katy
Mark Ayliffe
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> illuminated us with:
>
>
> In article <342kg6-...@news.virginmedia.com>,
> mark.see.sig.f...@ayliffe.invalid (Mark Ayliffe) wrote:
>
>> On or about 2009-06-15, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
>> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> illuminated us with:
>> >
>>
>> Ahem. The city isn't _entirely_ responsible for that area. I suspect
>> the landowner may have some thoughts. ;-)
>
> I think you'll find that it's managed by the City as a closed churchyard.
Actually it's rented by the city for the craft market. But in this
context you are probably correct.
--
Mark
Real email address | We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
is mark at | We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
ayliffe dot org |
Espen H. Koht
wrote:
> It remains true that this is a damaging and deeply regrettable decision,
> whoever made it. (To repeat; getting Rangers to remove out of date or
> inappropriate posters is excellent, but there seems no good reason for the
> further step except for minor administrative convenience).)
For what it is worth, the railings actually look messier than they did
before with a lower number of acceptable posters scattered across them
randomly rather than the nice and orderly ones that were there before.
Tim Ward
news:m6al35lq91f6ijcr9...@4ax.com...
>
> I wonder which part of the enforcement managers job description
> includes making up his own rules to be enforced.
The vast majority of decisions made in the council are made by officers in
the course of their day to day jobs.
Particular classes of decisions are supposed to be bounced upwards,
amounting to a tiny fraction of the whole. In particular politically
sensitive decisions are supposed to be taken by councillors (so that
councillors are at least guilty of the wrong decisions that they're going to
get blamed for anyway).
Not all officers are experts in judging political sensitivity - they can't
necessarily be expected to do that as well as being expert at their day
jobs. Mistakes happen.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Al Grant
> Not all officers are experts in judging political sensitivity - they can't
> necessarily be expected to do that as well as being expert at their day
> jobs. Mistakes happen.
Was the decision on what to remove taken by the
experts in the technical side of street cleaning?
I rather suspect it was taken by someone with a
job title like "street scene manager", who likely
earns far more than the people who clean up graffiti
and dog poo, and for whom sensitivity to what the
public want is a basic part of the day job.
Duncan Wood
Although they may well have been sensetive to the number of people who
complained about it. The front of the Judge institute was looking rather
messier than most builders hoardings.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<d141e5c9-b849-43ad...@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
alg...@myrealbox.com (Al Grant) wrote:
> On 19 June, 13:22, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> > Not all officers are experts in judging political sensitivity - they
> > can't necessarily be expected to do that as well as being expert at
> > their day jobs. Mistakes happen.
>
> Was the decision on what to remove taken by the
> experts in the technical side of street cleaning?
No.
> I rather suspect it was taken by someone with a
> job title like "street scene manager", who likely
> earns far more than the people who clean up graffiti
> and dog poo, and for whom sensitivity to what the
> public want is a basic part of the day job.
You suspect wrong.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> We now seem to have some further information from the Enforcement
> Manager:
>
> ***
>
> The City Rangers have always monitored church railings with the
> churches which comply with us, but there have in the past been
> problems whereby they have been told that they have given permission
> for people to advertise and phoned us complaining that posters have
> been removed.
>
> We now have an arrangement with the City Centre churches that they
> will only advertise church events and have permission to remove
> anything else and I have asked Grahame Nicholson to remove any other
> posters. Michaelhouse have put signs up saying that people must now
> seek permission before posting anything on their railings and the
> warden has agreed that if it is appropriate to them, she will
> clearly
> initial anything she has agreed to.
[snip]
If this was from the person I think it was they have been on holiday this
week.
In any case the aforementioned Grahame Nicholson advised the West Central
Area Committee on Thursday night that the rangers are not removing any
posters for the time being.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Hamish
> Area Committee on Thursday night that the rangers are not removing any
> posters for the time being.
...not even the ones which are out of date?
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Hamish) wrote:
Apparently not for the time being.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
ke...@cam.ac.uk
>
>Although they may well have been sensetive to the number of people who
>complained about it. The front of the Judge institute was looking rather
>messier than most builders hoardings.
The question originally raised was about the churches, not about the Judge.
There is nothing like so long a tradition of displaying posters at the Judge,
and I'm not surprised if they are a bit iffy about it.
St Botolph's, as someone else has remarked, now looks a great deal scruffier
than it did before, with a couple of posters for a church event loosely tied on
with string, and a few other hopefuls that have reappeared.
Katy
ke...@cam.ac.uk
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In any case the aforementioned Grahame Nicholson advised the West Central
>Area Committee on Thursday night that the rangers are not removing any
>posters for the time being.
Is that from now on, or is it asserted that they have not removed any posters
in the last few weeks? If the former, good. If the latter, I am surprised.
Katy
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
The former.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
Now the relevant person is back from holiday I'm more baffled than ever
about St Botolph's because the only discussions that the council was
involved in related to GSM and Michaelhouse. Duh!
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Hamish
- The Rangers at some point in the indeterminate past were removing out
of date posters from railings around Cambridge.
- Someone (or someones) complained; someone in the Enforcement
Department wrote to the various churches reminding them of the regs on
fly posting.
- Someone in the Enforcement Department then came to an arrangement with
the City Centre churches that only events in that church will be left
up; rangers would take down any posters which weren't for that church.
Michaelhouse will display anything, but only for a week, and if you
leave it with them; you can't put it up yourself.
- Now, because of the hoo-hah, rangers have been told to leave all
posters, even ones which are out of date.
I'm only trying to clarify things because we've got an event on soon;
laminated posters are expensive, and we don't have much money, so I
don't want to waste both money and time putting them up if they're going
to be taken down and binned the next day!
Thanks
Hamish
John Lawton
Precisely, these were St Botolph's notices, designed to be re-used!
Cable-ties have to be removed and discarded, so the church staff I
spoke to preferred to use string.
The biggest problems they have are with notices that are left on the
railings after they are out of date, using tie-wraps that are hard to
remove without the right hand tool. I suggested to them that side
cutters be used. The other reason for scruffiness is the damage that
has occurred to the paintwork, possibly due to the use of tie-wrapped
posters.
J
ke...@cam.ac.uk
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <h1ngd4$egn$1...@soup.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk>, ke...@cam.ac.uk ()
>wrote:
>>
>> scruffier than it did before, with a couple of posters for a church
>> event loosely tied on with string, and a few other hopefuls that
>> have reappeared.
>
>Now the relevant person is back from holiday I'm more baffled than ever
>about St Botolph's because the only discussions that the council was
>involved in related to GSM and Michaelhouse. Duh!
Of course, the St Botolph's railings round the corner in Botolph Lane are
completely covered with sample photos (presumably graduation) from the
photographic shop - causing lots of people to stand in the road and step
suddenly backwards, to the inconvenience of cyclists.... So that's one
commercial organisation taking up 25 ft of railings all by themselves.
This is not a complaint, by the way, but standards don't seem to be entirely
consistent. Possibly the shop have come to an agreement with the church or the
rangers or both to be allowed to do this.
Katy
Espen Koht
Hamish <m...@h-amishsymington.com> wrote:
> - Someone (or someones) complained; someone in the Enforcement
> Department wrote to the various churches reminding them of the regs on
> fly posting.
> - Someone in the Enforcement Department then came to an arrangement with
> the City Centre churches that only events in that church will be left
> up; rangers would take down any posters which weren't for that church.
I don't we have any kind of clarity on whether this representation to
the churches had merit or not, so calling it 'fly posting' is
prejudicial.
Tim Ward
news:8QH%l.76797$A%.14854@newsfe05.ams2...
>
> OK. May I just recap what I think has happened, then?
>
> - The Rangers at some point in the indeterminate past were removing out of
> date posters from railings around Cambridge.
> - Someone (or someones) complained; someone in the Enforcement Department
> wrote to the various churches reminding them of the regs on fly posting.
> - Someone in the Enforcement Department then came to an arrangement with
> the City Centre churches that only events in that church will be left up;
> rangers would take down any posters which weren't for that church.
> Michaelhouse will display anything, but only for a week, and if you leave
> it with them; you can't put it up yourself.
> - Now, because of the hoo-hah, rangers have been told to leave all
> posters, even ones which are out of date.
>
> I'm only trying to clarify things because we've got an event on soon;
> laminated posters are expensive, and we don't have much money, so I don't
> want to waste both money and time putting them up if they're going to be
> taken down and binned the next day!
Sounds about right to me. As of today the Rangers are removing nothing. We
expect that shortly they will return to the previous regime of removing
offensive material, and removing out of date things if the churches can't be
bothered to do it themselves. Of course if the churches could be bothered to
do it themselves the Rangers could spend their time on other things.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Roland Perry
>expect that shortly they will return to the previous regime of removing
>offensive material, and removing out of date things if the churches can't be
>bothered to do it themselves. Of course if the churches could be bothered to
>do it themselves the Rangers could spend their time on other things.
Maybe we could have some self-regulation here - people putting up new
posters should first see if there's an out-of-date one they can take
down.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
22 Jun 2009, ke...@cam.ac.uk remarked:
>Possibly the shop have come to an agreement with the church or the
>rangers or both to be allowed to do this.
Have they been doing it more than ten years; maybe need planning
permission in today's nanny state.
--
Roland Perry
Tim Ward
>
> Maybe we could have some self-regulation here - people putting up new
> posters should first see if there's an out-of-date one they can take down.
We try to persuade the county to treat road signs like this - not allowed to
put up a new one unless you take down two old ones. Some days it works
better than others.
Duncan Wood
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ufSBiyvq...@perry.co.uk...
>>
>> Maybe we could have some self-regulation here - people putting up new
>> posters should first see if there's an out-of-date one they can take
>> down.
>
> We try to persuade the county to treat road signs like this - not
> allowed to
> put up a new one unless you take down two old ones. Some days it works
> better than others.
>
Could we do it with black bollards?
John Lawton
> Could we do it with black bollards?
While you're at it, how about a quick word in their ear about road
repairs, East Road, Mill Road etc.
Oh dear, suddenly they appear to be deaf.
J
Espen Koht
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if that was already the case.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Hamish) wrote:
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <9V0%l.217$eW2...@newsfe23.ams2>,
> > m...@h-amishsymington.com (Hamish) wrote:
> >
> >>> In any case the aforementioned Grahame Nicholson advised the West
> >>> Central Area Committee on Thursday night that the rangers are not
> >>> removing any posters for the time being.
> >> ...not even the ones which are out of date?
> >
> > Apparently not for the time being.
> >
> OK. May I just recap what I think has happened, then?
>
> - The Rangers at some point in the indeterminate past were removing
> out of date posters from railings around Cambridge.
Yes.
> - Someone (or someones) complained; someone in the Enforcement
> Department wrote to the various churches reminding them of the regs
> on fly posting.
It is not clear that this actually happened.
> - Someone in the Enforcement Department then came to an arrangement
> with the City Centre churches that only events in that church will
> be left up; rangers would take down any posters which weren't for
> that church. Michaelhouse will display anything, but only for a
> week, and if you leave it with them; you can't put it up yourself.
Maybe, but only in relation to GSM and Michaelhouse if so.
> - Now, because of the hoo-hah, rangers have been told to leave all
> posters, even ones which are out of date.
Yes
> I'm only trying to clarify things because we've got an event on
> soon; laminated posters are expensive, and we don't have much
> money, so I don't want to waste both money and time putting them up
> if they're going to be taken down and binned the next day!
The situation is being reviewed this week. It appears you'd be best
advised to talk to the relevant church before posting.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<35901c7c-aa4c-4b71...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
no-rep...@ntlworld.com (John Lawton) wrote:
Mill Road repairs are due next month. Please do not shoot the messenger.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Douglas de Lacey
> Precisely, these were St Botolph's notices, designed to be re-used!
> Cable-ties have to be removed and discarded, so the church staff I
> spoke to preferred to use string.
I presume you discount the openable cable-ties as being too insecure? If
so then start by having the (conventional) ties loose, cut the tongue on
the right side of the holder (no doubt someone will come along with the
proper nomenclature) and you can probably re-use them several times.
Douglas de Lacey
Mark Ayliffe
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> illuminated us with:
There's a planing machine on a low-loader in Cowley Road this morning,
so presumably it's here for some reason or other. I think the
MGB/Milton road junction is all done, so presumably it's for something
else.
--
Mark
Real email address | Bills travel through the mail
is mark at | at twice the speed of cheques.
ayliffe dot org |
John Lawton
I isn't down to me - I was only asking questions of the church
staff!
Those who fasten posters to the railings tend to pull the cable ties
tight, precluding their re-use.
J
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<f5d25955-b5d8-487d...@m19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
no-rep...@ntlworld.com (John Lawton) wrote:
Not judging by the collection of cable ties I've built up recently.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
John Lawton
> > I isn't down to me - I was only asking questions of the church staff!
> > Those who fasten posters to the railings tend to pull the cable ties
> > tight, precluding their re-use.
>
> Not judging by the collection of cable ties I've built up recently.
Colin, I do believe that you will argue about anything :)
J
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<ec5d0ab6-b86e-4279...@e39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
no-rep...@ntlworld.com (John Lawton) wrote:
:-)
--
Colin Rosenstiel