Topic ID 1418
I can't believe that the council are making such a fuss about the traders who display their wares on the pavement. Just because one person complained. If two people write to the council to say they like it, will the council then reverse their decision? As long as there is enough space for a wheelchair or pram to pass, what's the problem? And why havn't Botsford's been asked to move their stuff? And Slades? And Harts? As a market town I would have thought it is part of the town's heritage, and I think it adds colour and character to the town.
Reply ID 17531
I think it adds character and interest to the overall street scene too. Like you say NB, it seems rather unfair to pick on just two or three traders -why? If pushchairs and wheelchairs can pass by easily and there is no additional risk to those with visibility problems why get the displays removed? All seems rather illogical to me.
Reply ID 17535
quote:Because someone complained to Hertfrdshire Highways and specifically named these three shops. Judging by the number of letters supporting the traders in this weeks Mercury the complanant is in a minoriy of one. If I complain to Hertfordshire Highays about all the A-boards at the end of Maidenhaed Street, do you think they'll pursue the matter in the same way?
Originally posted by alison
it seems rather unfair to pick on just two or three traders -why?
Reply ID 17537
This matter really has to be cleared up and i spoke to Highways this morning offerng my help. Read between the lines below as I have to be circumspect. Last year a local resident sent a barrage of complaints to local councillors who told him to politely go away. He persisted and wrote to Highways who wrote to three shops concerned advising them of the legal position. I and them thought the problem had gone away. Now this person who is retired but well versed in legal matters has once again written to Highways complaining of three shops. Not all shops, just three. As he has raised a legal matter and in this he is perfectly correct in his case work, Highways have had no option but to enforce the law as it stands. It is fair to say that the total reaction from everybody i have spoken to on this is that hasn't this person got anything better to do with his life. The shops had until March 8th to comply or face legal action for forcible removal of the goods. What is heartening from the letters page of the Mercury is the total support of Joe public and i hope it flushes the complainant out of the woodwork to explain why he has seen fit to complain about just three traders. I offered to publicly support Highways just so that everyone knows that they have been placed in an almost impossible situation and are not the instigators of this action. However I think the letters show what we all think.
Reply ID 17538
quote:Why don't you try it? I think the A-boards are far more of a hazard than the shop fronts. And they don't add anything to the street scene.
If I complain to Hertfordshire Highays about all the A-boards at the end of Maidenhaed Street, do you think they'll pursue the matter in the same way?
Reply ID 17540
Norah, the matter of A-Boards has been mentioned to me and i would love to do smething about it. Highways passed a legal agreemnt to me based on the arangement with Bishops Stortford town council but it is far too wide ranging. In view of the problem with goods displayed outside and the general downturn in trade I didn't feel it was quite the time to come down heavy on traders trying to keep heads above water. There is a solution being discused around the table at the moment involving a lot of town centre agencies and it will enhance the town. There is the will and some of us have pots of money to implement it but there are matters of planning, Highways acts and issues with street furniture such as existing signage that has to be overcome. Don't want to say much more at this stage. In view of the legal implications of the current problem with goods on the Highways and my first paragraph a host of complaints could result in the confiscation of all A-Boards not just those ones placed in odd places. The good have to go with the ugly. Therefore once again in the current climate a softly, softly approach.
Reply ID 17547
Before Marshall's moved - it was great to see the Bikes (and the dog) in the Street. As long as there is not an obstuction I cannot see a problem.
Reply ID 17552
quote:Yes, we miss her, she's lovely. Hope her new home on Fore Street treats her well and that the traffic goes by very slowly.
Originally posted by Tigger
Before Marshall's moved - it was great to see the Bikes (and the dog) in the Street. As long as there is not an obstuction I cannot see a problem.
Reply ID 17561
I have no problem with street selling, but the Just Looking shop has been growing and growing its outside stock to such a degree that I have on occasions had trouble getting past people. As usual, it seems to be a case of people being given an inch and taking a yard.
Reply ID 18107
I see that "Chris" has a letter in The Mercury seeking to justify his complaint to Hertfordshire Highways about traders displaying goods in the street. It's simple - they're breaking the law as far as he's concerned. Quite why he's taken to pursuing this issue so single-mindedly is not explained however. Nor does he acknowledge or address the outcry against his actions by both traders and public alike.
Reply ID 18108
Nothing better to do with his time.
Reply ID 18110
quote:Surely there are many more laws more worthy of his defence.
Originally posted by Steve
I see that "Chris" has a letter in The Mercury seeking to justify his complaint to Hertfordshire Highways about traders displaying goods in the street. It's simple - they're breaking the law as far as he's concerned. Quite why he's taken to pursuing this issue so single-mindedly is not explained however. Nor does he acknowledge or address the outcry against his actions by both traders and public alike.
Reply ID 18111
That was my thought to Ewoowar - if he was going to launch a one man crusade against something, surely there are more pressing causes. I was surprised his letter focussed on the pet shop as well - the pavement is very wide there, it's not a really busy section for pedestrians, and they seem to be very careful in not taking up excessive space. I'd agree that there's a bit more of a problem outside Messages at the other end of Fore Street, but I'd hope that they could get this under control rather than be banned from having goods outside.
Reply ID 18112
I have to reply to this letter as there are so many issues and some of the misunderstanding has also spilled into the article by Bob Jones. I haven't had the opportunity up until now. Can't say much more now as I want to explain this in a reply to the Mercury as I am personally involved now. Much of what has been said is only part of the truth; this issue has been running since last September and 'Chris' is not telling the complete story.
Reply ID 18134
I will be interested to see your reply, it seems to me a good way to ensure even more empty shops if "Chris" has his way and there are no pavement displays I suspect there would be fewer cistomers and then fewer shops. What I still don't understand is why he singled out a few named shops and not every shop in the town, surely if hee was really into the law it would mean every outlet would have to abide by it but from what I have seen it seems to have been a few who have been "picked on". I realise the pavements must be kept clear for wheelchairs etc but surely there must be a compomise if the pavement is wide enough to accomodate both goods and potential customers.
Reply ID 18140
Just to satisfy myself i looked up a few similar cases around the country. No one denies that it is an offence to place goods on the highway without a licence but in some places it has caused closure of shops, loss of trade and eventual reversal of policy by the Council concerned. It can't be overstated that this has been caused by the single minded actions of one person who has forced Highways into taking action. No one else is involved. The funny thing is despite the name 'Chris' everyone knows exactly who is is.
Reply ID 18311
My letter edited owing to the fact that Roy Roberts actually named the culprit. Good for him. What was ommitted from my letter was the comment that if Chris compared this to sanctioning burgalry then he made criminals of just about everybody who wrote to the Mercury and i would suspect, everybody on this site as well. I still have not heard one voice in support of his stance. One other paragraph ommitted. Chris insisted that Highways brought action against the traders because it was the law and the traders were breaking the law. Highways really had no option and the officer involved has acted with professionalism and received nothing but praise from the three traders concerned. Chris actually blamed Highways for disclosing his identity but as you might have gathered, everyone in town knew exactly who was behind this attack, because it was not the first time he had raised the issue. I still have no idea why. Marilyn you are right. Up and down the country shops have gone out of business when this law has been enforced. In some cases local Councils have had to review their policy because of the loss of trade and i believe that Highways are now working with the retailers in Hertford to effect some form of licensing of pavement space.
Reply ID 18313
Is "Chris" a disgruntled shopper or maybe someone who's business has gone up the swannee???? I had to be in a wheelchair for a small amount of time (plaster of paris on the old feet!) and I had more problems getting around the parked cars and bollards than any so called obstructions from shops! If I had no problem I fail to see "Chris"s point at all. I am now fully able bodied but missing the character of wares on display. What about my human rights infringements? I wish to see goods on display "Chris" and you've taken my right away.. perhaps we should counter sue?????
Reply ID 18315
Yet another example of policing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Presumably the law is there to prevent shops causing an obstruction on narrow pavements. Complaining about the shops in Hertford is completely pointless and a waste of everybody's time and money. (no doubt some of our council tax money has been wasted on this petty crusade - thanks Chris)
Reply ID 18319
quote:Now that Roy Roberts has named him I can add that we believe he is a retired Police Inspector. Jez's comments
Is "Chris" a disgruntled shopper or maybe someone who's business has gone up the swannee????
quote:seem rather appropriate, which is why I was a big vague earlier. And yes, the amount of time expended on this at every level adds up to a lot, and a lot of money.
Yet another example of policing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law.
Reply ID 18360
I don't want to see trade effected, but the problem is, give some retailers an inch and they take a yard. On top of this, you get stupid inconsiderate public. Yesterday lunch time, I took my twin boys out (in there twin buggy) to the Glasshouse and it was a nightmare. Arriving in the town via the subway next to Iceland/M&S... First I had to deal with the pavement being cut off by M&S, with no ramps back on once I had been forced past. Then I had a BT van blocking the path up on the curb at the solicitors, so I had to go out onto the road. Next it was a waiting game letting people past as I was blocked by Lussmans pavement sign. I crossed the road outside the Salisbury. Next, just past Bradford & Binley my path was blocked by two wheelie bins, so I had to cross over again by the Peking house. Then my path was blocked by a car across the pavement at Blockbusters. So I crossed back over again, this time to play the waiting game past the scaffolding at the old Mercury building (the builders themselves were very helpful). Finally made it to the coffee shop! Now I won't even attempt to tell you about what happened trying to get back via Maidenhead street! The problem is, be it pavement signs, storage boxes (Just Looking) or market stalls, there has been a sort of "creep" which is making the town more and more untidy, and very hard to manage for people like myself or wheel chair users. Often the "stick" approach is the only language traders will hear. A few bad apples always soil it for others. Couple this with a inconsiderate people who think the traffic wardens are jobsworth and prefer to park all over the pavements, and the town quickly becomes an unpleasent place to shop.
Reply ID 18362
The traffic wardens have nothing to do with people parking inconsiderately - that is just stupid lazy £$%^£"^s If people are still parking inconsiderately then the traffic wardens are clearly ineffective and a waste of council money. Perhaps if they stopped hiding in the Multi Storey car parks trying to maximise revenue from fines, and patrolled the streets they would be more effective
Reply ID 18365
quote:I don't think the traffic wardens can ticket someone for parking all over the pavement unless they were also on a yellow line. That would have to be the police.
Originally posted by Dude
Couple this with a inconsiderate people who think the traffic wardens are jobsworth and prefer to park all over the pavements, and the town quickly becomes an unpleasent place to shop.
Reply ID 18367
They can ticket if the car still have two wheels on the yellow though...I think! Most of the parking problems these days seems to be from people you think they aren't really casusing a problem if they stick 80% of the car on the pavement.
Reply ID 18705
I see that Chris has written a reply in Mercury; still feels that it is a reasonable use of his taxes which I think is a great shame as it will spoil the character of Hertford is all the shops are clones of those in other towns.
Reply ID 18712
I notice in today letter he says that the town belongs to the people not the traders or words to that effect. He may be right and if they go along with him they will have it to themselves as there will be no traders or shops left just empty units. It is hard enough for independant businesses to keep going as it is against the muliples without the added pressure of not being allowed to try to intice what few customers are around. As yet I have not seen one reply on here or letter in the mercury that actually agrees with him.
Reply ID 18714
And has he not realised that the majority of people visit the town centre to go to the shops? I am sure his attitude could be interpreted as a narrow minded view that can ultimately damage respect for the law of the land.
Reply ID 18715
quote:I have to reply and that is going to be the basis of it. I wish I could say more here or repeat what I have heard but I can't without bringing even worse legal action down on the heads of the people that run and manage this site.
As yet I have not seen one reply on here or letter in the mercury that actually agrees with him
Reply ID 18725
It smacks of being backed into a corner to defend the narrow minded stance he has taken. Sometimes it is better to admit you have just made a few wrong decisions (being polite!) and you just need to back off quietly or even take a more positive step and apologise. Alternatively you can dig yourself further in.
Reply ID 18860
It will be interesting to see the results of the Mercury's phone poll next week.
Reply ID 18865
Are Hertford's pavement displays a hazard? NO - Call 01992 526647 Presumably no one on here wants the yes number!!!!
Reply ID 18879
quote:Is that Mr lee's phone number? [:)]
Originally posted by Blakey
Are Hertford's pavement displays a hazard? NO - Call 01992 526647 Presumably no one on here wants the yes number!!!!
Reply ID 18965
You will all be pleased to know that common sense prevailed at the Highways Panel last evening. It was decided that subject to further invetsigation being undertaken by Highways that each shop will be judged on its own merits and licensed accordingly following a submission to the panel. A nominal fee may be requested either on an annual or one-off basis. Enforcement may be handed to the PCSO's. Or possibly as one unnamed person offered, to the Town Centre Manager in exchange for a fat, plain brown envelope.[:D] All Councillors - District and County, especially Cllrs Ruffles and Newton - spoke eloquently in favour of a negotiated settlement. Full report will no doubt appear in this weeks Mercury.
Reply ID 18997
quote:Was this meeting open to the public and if so, was Chris present? It will be interesting to read his comments in the Mercury also.
Originally posted by Roosterquote:
Originally posted by sloopjohnb
You will all be pleased to know that common sense prevailed at the Highways Panel last evening. It was decided that subject to further invetsigation being undertaken by Highways that each shop will be judged on its own merits and licensed accordingly following a submission to the panel. A nominal fee may be requested either on an annual or one-off basis. Enforcement may be handed to the PCSO's. Or possibly as one unnamed person offered, to the Town Centre Manager in exchange for a fat, plain brown envelope.[:D] Was this panel open to the public? and if so, was Chris there? It will be interesting to read his comments too. All Councillors - District and County, especially Cllrs Ruffles and Newton - spoke eloquently in favour of a negotiated settlement. Full report will no doubt appear in this weeks Mercury.
Reply ID 19006
It's one of those type of meetings that is open to the public but the public are rarely aware of the fact. I only found out through the Mercury. Before the question of goods on pavments was heard there was about 90 minutes of petitions presented by the public on Highways issues such as crossings by schools and pavements on roads where there were none. Part of the democratic process. once they had had their three minutes that was that. And as far as I could tell Mr Lee was not present - not that I know what he looks like anyway. He has made his point, narrow that it was and that's all he ever wanted to do. It was left to everyone else to resolve the matter and I have to say again that I was very impressed by the arguments put forward by our representatives.
Reply ID 34652
Just bumping this issue. Any further news?
Reply ID 34664
Highways have just drawn up a draft Code of Practice and I have delivered a copy of this to most traders in town likely to be affected. It is due to be debated next week; so not much time for comment but unlikely that there will be any changes made. If anyone would like a copy please email me. There is no mention about who or how this will be enforced. I hope that common sense will prevail. I would not like to see concerned members of the public walking the streets with a tape measure ensuring that advertsing boards are the correct height and distance from the edge of the kerb. To repeat myself I have a bit more trust in the traders in town to adopt common sense and place boards where they are least likely to cause obstruction etc. Highways are not banning boards or the display of goods just looking for co-operation in the way that they are placed. However now that this is likely to be enshrined in black and white it does give the pedants of this world something to refer to when complaining - and if the experience of other Councils is anything to go by if the action does get to court the courts usually find in favour of Highways.