You are not currently logged in.
Thursday, February 09 2012

Village names and grass verges could be sponsored

Your village or town - and grass verges near where you live -  could be sponsored under plans by Kent County Council to raise cash.

The scheme is an extension of an initiative to allow companies to advertise on roundabouts, which started in 2007 and already makes thousands of pounds for the authority.

But the proposal to allow sponsorship of more council-owned assets has already come under fire, with countryside campaign groups labelling it as tacky.

Critics have pointed out that the government recently announced that it wants councils to reduce the amount of clutter caused by signs in towns and villages.

Communities secretary Eric Pickles recently said councils needed to cut 'street clutter' to prevent towns becoming scrap yards rather than public places.

As well as roadside grass verges, KCC says the 38 boundary signs to the county will also be offered to commercial sponsors and that it is also considering allowing advertising inside and outside its libraries.

Cllr Roger Gough (Con), cabinet member for corporate services, said: "There is a revenue potential here which is not to be sniffed at and it will offer a platform for local businesses to advertise. Obviously, we will want to strike a sensible balance and we do have the power to veto anything we think might not be appropriate."

What do you think? Join the debate by adding your comments belowSean Furey of the Kent branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) said: "This smacks of desperation. Sponsorship of grass verges is really scraping the barrel and the idea of having commercial branding on Kent's boundary signs is cheap and rather tacky, particularly given the importance of Kent's image as a popular tourist destination."

Cllr Gough rejected the charge, saying KCC was committed to reducing street clutter. "If you look at what we have done in places like Ashord's shared space scheme, we are sympathetic to the idea of reducing street clutter."

KCC is offering a four-year contract worth £536,000 to market and run its scheme to would-be advertisers and sponsors.

An advert for the contract says as many as 200 roundabouts will be available to sponsors, as well as border signs, grass verges and gateway signs to towns and villages.

Thursday, September 02 2010

The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.

Comments (11)

Comments closed

  • Sam wrote:

    Tacky, tacky, tacky. KCC should concentrate on providing council services and stop dabbling in areas it is not required to dabble in.

    04 Sep 2010 12:21 PM

    Report Abuse

  • James Trent wrote:

    If they didn't squander our money on stupid projects like Kent TV and lose £50 million to dodgy Icelandic banks there would be no need for any sponsorship. Any idea this mob have should be treated with extreme caution.

    03 Sep 2010 9:37 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Penny wrote:

    No, I think Dorothy has absolutely made the point. Would we rather have half a million levied on us by way of taxes, or legitimately have our rates offset by cash for signs on roundabouts albeit in a controlled way. Money is tight enough already.

    03 Sep 2010 8:38 PM

    Report Abuse

  • B wrote:

    I think it was Dorothy who missed the point. Surely the operative word is 'distraction'. Who has time and the motoring skills to take their eyes off the road to read an advertisement which looks cheap and nasty anyway. It's almost as distracting as using a mobile phone while driving and I've seen plenty of them.
    Plant a few more flowers.

    03 Sep 2010 5:22 PM

    Report Abuse

  • maidofkent wrote:

    I don't have a problem with firms sponsoring a road, village or library - at least we get the services - but I do think that sponsorship signs need careful monitoring to ensure removal once the sponsor loses interest. There are notices around Canterbury saying "sponsored by Whitefriars" where they have stopped bothering.

    03 Sep 2010 4:21 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Dorothy Fanwell wrote:

    Dave, the operative word you use us "unauthorised".

    The unofficial, signs clipped, strapped or otherwise affixed to roundabouts by anyone at all that you allude to will, if left alone, multiply indiscriminately. They will present a real eyesore and, with so much mixed or uncontrolled messaging appearing on one roundabout, could cause a possible distraction.

    Sponsored signs, on the other hand, are the only (non highway) signs allowed, which streamlines the messaging. Each one is subject to planning consent, generates income and is maintained and monitored in a professional manner to ensure high standards across the board are maintained.

    Very different to the other signs.

    03 Sep 2010 4:13 PM

    Report Abuse

  • dave wrote:

    I seem to remember the council taking down unauthorised signs claiming that they cause a distraction to motorists, how are these roundabout signs different?

    03 Sep 2010 2:54 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Dorothy Fanwell wrote:

    I think it's great that the council is getting up and running to do things to earn extra money in these diffcult times. If they do nothing we complain - we do likewise when they get things moving!

    Whilst I applaud managing the uncontrolled proliferation of street signs, you can't tar all with the same brush. Many local authorities up and down the country facilitate local amenity enhancements and valuable income streams via the judicious deployment of roundabout and other outdoor sponsorship programmes.These are managed in collaboration with local road safety teams and planners to ensure well considered implementations.

    This is what is already happening with roundabouts in Kent, so why shouldn't KCC try to expand on this (in a controlled fashion) to generate extra income?

    03 Sep 2010 11:42 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Dave wrote:

    On one hand we have the government minister Eric Pickles saying that our streets should be de-cluttered of all unneccessary street signs and here on the other hanb we have KCC wanting to add to the clutter.

    Despite KCC claiming otherwise these signs will be a distraction to the motorist and have an impact on safety. KCC claim that where adverts have been trialled there is no evidence to suggest this. But what motorist is going to tell their insurance company that they were looking at a road side advert when they fill in their claim form?

    03 Sep 2010 11:39 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Dee wrote:

    We have this all over Medway. The irony is, each of the roundabouts now appear less cared for than when they weren't sponsored - who wants their name on a weed filled patch of bear earth?!

    03 Sep 2010 11:33 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Angry of Tunbridge Wells wrote:

    "We do have the power to veto anything we think might not be appropriate."

    Bleeuuuuggghhh! That's all the politicians are interested in: power and money. Who are you to be the arbiter of what's "appropriate", Roger?

    How about "Welcome to Kent - sponsored by Heritable, Glitnir and Landsbanki"? Nah, thought not.

    03 Sep 2010 10:41 AM

    Report Abuse

Terms of Comments
We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions to the reader comments but we may intervene and take such action as we think necessary, please click here for our house rules.. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report abuse button, contact us here, email multimediadesk@thekmgroup.co.uk or call 01634 227834.

Advertisement

Copyright: You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit or otherwise use content on this site in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any content on this site except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of content requires the prior written permission of the KM GROUP. Read full terms and conditions.