Alterations Needed in Draft Bayside Footpath Trading Policy 2005

The
Mayor and Councillors

Bayside
City Council

PO Box 27

SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191

Dear
Mayor and Councillors,

Alterations Needed in Draft Bayside Footpath Trading
Policy 2005

Beaumaris
Conservation Society Inc. has compared the 2004 and draft
2005 versions of the above Policy and considers that the alterations
below are
needed to the 2005 draft to avoid it becoming less acceptable than the
2004
version. We note that the Bayside City Council Web
site promises to display a Footpath Trading Policy, but it does not
yet do
so. Kingston City Council at least has a clear and well-presented document
already on its Web site.

General Comment: The trend in the
2005 document is of concern as it appears to be generally moving
towards
weakening current measures that limit some of the potential excesses in
the
practice of “footpath trading”. This might be happening because those
drafting
the document are not sufficiently aware that the considerable tolerance
shown
to date by the community for many of the adverse aspects of “footpath
trading”
might be under growing strain, as many traders are taking increasing
advantage
of a growing laxity in enforcement of the existing rules. Wider limits
are
being sought by some, but Council should be aware that widening the
limits can
result in increased pressure from opponents to reduce them. Council
should
ensure that a clearly-defined policy is preferred to one that is biased
more
towards staff discretion and convenience, as such a bias leaves both
traders
and citizens unclear about the rules.

Aesthetic and Environmental
Considerations:
The drift of the new document weakens whatever already weak aesthetic
and environmental quality controls the 2004 version has, as it loosens,
widens,
and makes vaguer the controls needed on the size, number and locations
of signs
and other objects to be tolerated on public land.

SOUND PRODUCTION – Clause
5.2.1: The
proposed 2005 wording for this clause is, “No sound amplification
equipment
or jukeboxes may be utilised in the outdoor seating area to ensure that
the nuisance
is minimised and to protect the amenity of the area.” The word
“jukebox” is
somewhat obsolete and not sufficiently general. Nuisance is better
avoided than
just “minimised”. A better wording for this clause would be, “To ensure
that
nuisance is avoided, and to protect the amenity of the area, no sound
production or amplification equipment may be utilised in the outdoor
seating
area.”

WATERING DOWN OF SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS – Clause 7.5: The proposed 2005 wording for this clause is,
“Signs on footpath must be secured by
Council approved method or the Authorised Officers discretion.”
That
wording has gutted the far more specific and useful substance of the
2004
version, whose wording is, “Signs may not be tied to poles or trees or
any
other street fixture, must only be on the footpath while a business is
open and
must only be outside the premises to which they relate.” The wording of
the
2004 version is far preferable, and should be retained. It is not good
enough
to argue that the proposed new Clause 7.4, “Signs must only be in place
during
normal trading hours.” is in any way a satisfactory equivalent of the
far more
clearcut phrase in the 2004 version, “… must only be on the footpath
while a
business is open …”, as that phrase refers to the relevant business and
its
being open, whereas “… during normal trading hours …” omits the
essential
restriction of the sign being outside the relevant business only, and
it raises
doubts about what those hours are, or might be said to be, as the
simple test
of whether the business is open or not is lost. Clause 7.1 deals well
with
securing signs.

ROUNDABOUTS – Clause 7.6 of
the 2004 Version:
The wording of this clause, “Signs must not be
placed on roundabouts.” has been omitted entirely from the 2005
version. That
omission might have been made because Clause 7.3 in both versions
states,
“Signs must only be placed in the Trading Activity Zone.”, but it is
better to
retain such a simple, clear specific statement, to put the matter
beyond any
alleged doubt.

PEOPLE WITH VISION
IMPAIRMENT – Clause 7.7 of the 2004 Version: The wording of this clause,
“Advertising signs should have a contrasting colour to their background
to
assist people with vision impairment.” has been omitted entirely from
the 2005
version. That clause should be included in the 2005 version to maintain
proper
consideration for those with impaired vision.

50% WIDER SIGNS TO BE
ALLOWED – Clause 7.8 of the 2004 Version: The wording of this clause,
“An advertising sign must not exceed 600
mm in width or 1200 mm in
height. A 12 month moratorium will be provided for currently licensed
signs
which exceed these dimensions.” The 2005 version increases the width to
900 mm,
which is opposed on the grounds of its excessive visual impact, and its
reducing space for pedestrians. The last sentence of the 2005 version
continues
unchanged from the 2004 version. It relates to the 12-month moratorium
allowed
then, but that should have expired by 2005 as the 12 months has elapsed.

MORE SIGNS TO BE ALLOWED –
Clause
7.9 of the 2004 Version: The effect of the wording of this clause, “The
maximum number of signs permitted per premises is one.” has been
replaced by
the wording of Clause 7.7 of the 2005 version, “The maximum number of
signs
permitted is one per 10 m of shop front, with a maximum of 2 per
premises.”

Yours
sincerely,

Ron
Morris

Secretary

Beaumaris
Conservation Society Inc.