As reported in last September's edition of the Newsletter, we were greatly concerned about the proliferation of Traffic Signs that suddenly appeared throughout Portsmouth. At no small cost, more than 300 large directional signs have been sited, as well as a number of equally large intrusive illuminated signs bearing mythical Car Parking information.

We cannot disagree with the policy to provide clearer assistance to visitors; to safely navigate the confusing maze of roads that choke our city; to find their way to the ferries or to the tourist facility of their choice. However, we contend that the actual implementation has been achieved with little concern for the unimpeded passage of pedestrians and cyclists and with total disregard to the visual amenity of Conservation Areas and many other city locations.

Despite Governmental guidelines to the contrary, the consultants employed by PCC have zealously pursued the technique of cramming multiple destinations (sometimes, misleading) and/or the names of recreational facilities upon each sign. Because they have applied large-scale script plus illustrative icons for each facility they have been forced into erecting signs up to 8 metres in height. In many cases the large size of individual signs has required two or even three hefty metal tubular poles to support them. Inevitably this has led to the obstruction of pavement and/or cycle tracks and has created visual disfigurement of the street scene.

Our efforts to rectify the situation started in May 2002 and still await resolution. Initially, the City Planning officer agreed that there was validity in our complaints but claimed that the City Engineer, acting as the Highways Authority, had authority to locate signs as and where he chose to do so. He finally admitted that at least in the case of the Conservation Areas there was a case for consultation - in future - between the planners and the engineers

The City Engineer claimed that the new signage had been approved by the City Council. Certainly the principle had been approved - and, as noted above, we support it. But what the city council did not formally approve and what we objected to was the over zealous implementation of an excessive number of costly, obstructive large-scale signs. In some cases these were misleading and/or prejudicial to road safety. Specifically, their overall impact was to unnecessarily desecrate the visual amenity of conservation and other areas.

Our objections, as made to the City Planning Officer and the City Engineer remained unanswered until we drew the attention of the Chief Executive to regulations and guidance provided by the Department of Transport which inter alia limited the number of destinations that should be displayed on each sign. Such a limitation is in the interests both of road safety and visual amenity. The government guidelines clearly say there should be interdepartmental negotiations and that proliferation should be avoided.

With the consultants present, these points were discussed with the City Engineer and the Planning (conservation) Officer in November 2002. It was agreed that PCC would undertake a survey of the signs in the conservation area and possibly of other offending signs identified by the Portsmouth Society. The target date was Christmas 2002. To date it has not been completed by PCC.

Bob Adderley