Submission re Billboard & Signs Bylaw

1 March 2007

The Manager
City Planning Group
Auckland City
Private Bag 92516
Wellesley St
Auckland

Email: bylaw@aucklandcity.govt.nz

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS BYLAWS

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review of Auckland City Council Signs and Billboards Bylaws. This submission is on behalf of the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry in association with the following organisations, many of whom are making individual submissions:

- APN Outdoor Ltd
- Artcraft Signs Ltd
- Blockhouse Bay Mainstreet Assn Inc
- Eden Valley Business Association
- Ellerslie Business Association
- Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern) Inc
- Glengarry Hancocks Ltd
- Glen Innes Business Association
- Heart of the City
- Newmarket Business Association
- New Zealand Retailers Association
- New Zealand Signs & Display Association
- Onehunga Mainstreet & Business Association
- Otahuhu Mainstreet & Commercial Assn Inc
- Outdoor Advertising Association of New Zealand
- Parnell Mainstreet Inc
- Progressive Panmure Business Association
- Property Council of New Zealand
- Remuera Business Association
- Rosebank Business Development Community
- Signpak New Zealand Ltd
- SKYCITY Entertainment Group Limited
- St Heliers Bay Village Association Inc
- The Eastern Suburbs Gym Club
- The Mad Butcher Group

We confirm our strong desire to participate fully through the review process. We wish to be heard at the Council submission hearings to reinforce the reasons for our strong recommendation that the proposed bylaw should be withdrawn.

In place of the new bylaw we recommend that:
- Council take active steps to improve enforcement of the current bylaws; and,
- Establish a partnership with the industry and business mainstreet organisations to remove illegal signs and address ongoing issues and concerns.

In support of Councillors withdrawing the proposed bylaw and going back and consistently implementing the existing bylaws, we note that a major contributor to the City’s state of ‘visual pollution and clutter’ which the City is justifying the imposition of new bylaws arises from the fact that previous signage and billboard review decisions have not been systematically policed and enforced. Had the City been more diligent in implementing its existing bylaws there would not be the level of visual clutter and pollution that advocates of the new bylaws are using to support their case.

Individual submissions will reinforce this point with specific examples of signage and billboards in a state of disrepair and breach of current bylaws.

Also, the draft bylaw was published with just two days’ notice to the industry. If the Council had been more willing to delay this release and been consultative and prepared to work with the industry before unveiling the proposed bylaws, the City and stakeholders represented in this submission wouldn’t have been forced into this level of standoff. Viewed dispassionately, the existing bylaws are sufficient to fix most of the concerns, with the 2-or-3 three areas needing to be brought more in to line with international branding standards able to be easily addressed – it need not be a complex issue.

The group submission is at a high level in respect of impacts, principles and offers a constructive solution, and will be complimented by many individual organisations providing detailed submissions looking at specific examples of impacts and consequences in different areas of the City.

KEY IMPACTS

The Auckland Chamber of Commerce and other parties to this submission are of the view that proceeding with the proposed signage and billboard rule changes set out in the proposed bylaw will do incalculable damage to the Auckland City economy, reputation and relationships with ratepayers and other significant customers. Our summary of key impacts of the new bylaw includes the following:

Signage:

* Banning signs “as of right” above verandas and limiting the veranda facia sign to 300mm in height on buildings in Business Zones 1,2,3, Mixed Use and the CBD will require in the order 75% of City signage to be removed and/or replaced within 12-18 months.

* The industry estimates a $5000 cost to a typical small-medium business to remove and/or replace non-conforming signs. This cost will have a severe impact on the bottom line and already tight margins of many small businesses, especial dairies, retail and other shops along mainstreets of suburbs like Mt Eden, Dominion Rd, Waiheke, Mt Roskill, Panmure, Otahuhu, Onehunga and also larger businesses in main street areas like Queen Street, Newmarket, Remuera and Parnell.

* The City has 60,000 businesses, 95% of which are small-medium. The industry estimates at least 75% of businesses will need new signs, at an estimated cost in excess of $225 million plus the cost of waste disposal. The point: the claimed benefits of the wholesale overhaul of the City’s signage and billboards that Council is seeking to impose is overridden by the enormous disruption and costs this will impose on directly affected parties and indirectly ratepayers.

* This estimate of costs for implementing the bylaw excludes costs for challenge and litigation individual or groups of businesses will likely bring to the Council over confiscated property rights, a possibility acknowledged in the Council’s background paper mention that it may infringe the Bill of Rights which provides for the right of freedom of expression.

* The industry’s own independent legal opinion confirms the Council’s assessment that the bylaw may infringe the Bill of Rights, and notes that businesses have a constitutional right to advertise. Any bylaw infringing on those rights must interfere as little as possible and be reasonable and proportionate.

* The fact that a large number of business groups have agreed to band together for this submission reinforces our strong belief that Council has completely misjudged the mood of a core group of stakeholders and customers by concluding in the background paper that the impact of the bylaw on the right of freedom of expression is “not seen as significant.” In our view, Council’s proposed changes are so wholesale and draconian they cannot possibly be justified as being ‘reasonable’ and contributing to the improvement of the City’s economy and character.

* The blanket banning of signs “as of right” above verandas will not only severely and unfairly limit the freedom of expression by property owners but will over time create a sterile and ‘conforming’ urban landscape and business environment with little character.

* The practicality and design value of limiting the veranda facia sign to 300mm in height regardless of the unique design features of the building is strongly questioned. Imposing a 300mm template across the City that ignores building design features, business brands and logos, access and direction requirements is totally impracticable. We believe that such a blanket rule is unlikely to be enforceable without major investment by Council to increase staff by at least 20 or more to handle “the paperwork” and door-to-door enforcement. Rates will need to be increased to police the bylaw, provide for compensation and respond to likely legal challenges over confiscated property rights.

* Forcing small businesses to EITHER spend large amounts of money – possibly requiring a loan to be taken out - to conform with smaller less effective signage OR take a calculated risk and leave the non-conforming signs in place in the belief that because current bylaws have not been policed consistently therefore they will likely ‘get away with it’ is unfair on the shop owner and bad and ultimately counter-productive law making by Council.

Billboards:

* In addition, in the order of 431 billboard sites are expected to not comply and have to be demolished with the Council proposing to reserve the right to add to that number any of the remaining 144 sites where billboards do not meet or breach an aesthetic or like standard set by the City.

* The industry estimates a billboard costs on average $4000 to demolish and dispose and $45,000 to establish, suggesting a cost in excess of $2 million for demolition of non-complying billboards but running into many millions of dollars if replacement (possibly to another site) in order to comply becomes an option.

* It should also be very clear to Councillors – as it is to Council staff – that the industry has co-operated with the conclusions of previous reviews, of which there have been at least four since the early 1990s. As a result of this co-operation:
 Billboard numbers have decreased 20 percent since 2003
 50 more sites will be eliminated in the next 12-18 months due to development
 The industry has proposed a process to work with Council and owners to help broker a solution to deal with possible removal of non-conforming signs and billboards on the between 5-and-10 heritage sites under the Council’s spotlight – A blanket law change is NOT required to address this issue.

Signage & Billboards Combined:

* Assessment of potential economic impacts overall includes:
- $120 million wiped off property values
- $210 million lost to the Auckland economy
- More than 400 jobs lost, fuelled by the vacuum of doubt already being created within the business community on whether they should proceed to put up a sign or billboard while uncertainty prevails.

* The rubbish stream created from the high volume of signs & billboards that will have to be removed and/or replaced “as of right” will be huge. A mountain of waste will be created in contravention of City (Regional and National) policies to promote a sustainable and eco-friendly environment.

* In many cases existing use and property rights will be overridden inevitably leading into the realm of legal challenge and revision of tenancy and lease agreements.

* An inappropriate level of industry consultation was undertaken prior to the publication of the proposed bylaw changes. As publicity on the proposed bylaws confirms the undue haste to introduce a seriously flawed bylaw – a law change that deliberately exempts Council signage and the proliferation of signs and billboards associated with local government campaigns – invites cynical responses towards City Councillors supporting these changes and severely tests the industry’s goodwill towards Council staff tasked to administer the bylaw.

* Compelling evidence suggests Aucklanders will not support the proposed changes.
- A recent Colmar Brunton survey found 89 percent of Aucklanders believed the Council should focus on more pressing issues.
- Just 19 percent of respondents supported the Council’s proposed ban on billboards, a figure which is likely to be lower once the full economic and social impacts are more widely understood; including,
- The likelihood of charities losing millions of dollars in free billboard media support for their causes.

* Auckland City (once again) is projecting a brand that it is anti-business. Cities Auckland is competing with in this part of the world for businesses to locate and invest, including sister city Brisbane, have managed to successfully put in place a brand that incorporates recognition that advertising and signage adds to the character of the city. Brisbane, for example, has transparent local laws to regulate how, where and what kind of advertising signs and billboards can be used, and which are supported by an enforcement and industry consultation arrangement.

SOLUTION

This submission strongly supports a solution based on a premise of stronger enforcement of the current bylaws and greater co-operation and partnering with industry and local business mainstreet organisations. We agree there is a case for improving Auckland’s signage and billboard environment, including and especially better Council policing of the current bylaw.

The industry has confirmed it wants to work in partnership with the Council to raise standards, remove illegal signs and identify rogue elements operating independently of the various industry associations.

For example, the outdoor advertising association (OAANZ) has also proposed forming a joint Council-industry-stakeholder(business mainstreets) panel to resolve issues and develop new standards to maintain quality of structures and city amenity values.

As proof of the industry’s goodwill, Councillors should note that the industry has co-operated with the conclusions of previous reviews and been proactive to seek to work more harmoniously with Council staff.

CONCLUDING COMMENT

We strongly recommend that Council change course from its currently adversarial approach and instead put in place a partnership relationship with the industry and business mainstreets to work together to a shared vision and goal – building a world class City that Aucklanders are proud of and is exciting and vibrant to live, do business and visit.

The alternative of continuing down the path the proposed bylaws lead is more confrontation, acrimony, constant challenge of the Council’s capability to govern in the best interests of its customers, and creation of a difficult vacuum with unpredictable political, economic, social and legal consequences.

If Council persists in on its present path: How Auckland City will be transformed to the detriment of our urban and amenity values and way of life will be reinforced by individual submissions from group members showing the impact of the bylaws in their business areas and mainstreets.

We strongly hope that Council listens and then acts to restore common sense to the management of this issue.

Michael Barnett
Group Convenor

Chief Executive
Auckland Chamber of Commerce

ENDS

© Scoop Media