|
Resolution
number WTM/2022/13
MOVED by Chairperson R Northey, seconded by Deputy
Chairperson A Bonham:
That
the Waitematā Local Board:
a) tūtohi / receive
the public feedback on the proposal to make a new Auckland Council and
Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and
associated controls in this agenda report
b)
whakarato / provide the following
views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback
to the proposal in clause a) to assist the Bylaw Panel in its deliberations
i)
support Proposal 2 on election signs
to give certainty and clarity for election signage given the signs trigger
awareness of the election and the main candidates
ii)
endorse in Proposal 3b on event signs
only the requirement that they be limited to not-for-profits. The public
reluctantly accept just 9 weeks of election signs, but they should not have
to accept the clutter and reduced visual amenity, reduced access and hazard
of more other signs year-round. Events signs therefore should only be
permitted for an event within the board area and within 2 kilometres of the
sign’s location and they should only be permitted from one week before
until one day after the event
iii)
support regarding Proposal 3a for
local sales that signs only be permitted on the private property from which
the sale is occurring and only on that day
iv)
support Proposal 5a banning portable
signs throughout the city centre as was supported by the majority of
submissions
v)
oppose Proposal 7A, to allow larger
real estate signs in heavy industrial areas, on grounds of visual amenity. As
some submitters said: “They don’t need bigger signs. They are
quite visible as they are”
vi)
oppose Proposal 12 regarding window
signs, and suggest the following changes. We believe the general limitations
on window signs, particularly those preventing more than half of a window to
be occupied by a sign, currently applying throughout Auckland should also
continue in the central city. As a submitter said: “The trend in Lower
Queen Street for complete window coverage makes the street front impersonal”.
The largest number of submitters said these restrictions are necessary in the
city centre zone. All these rules should also apply as far as is practicable
to what is the equivalent of signage or screen intended for viewing outside
the premises – both for safety and amenity reasons, although an
internal window display, e.g., Smith and Caughey’s Christmas pageant
could occupy a whole window space
vii)
support Proposal 13C limiting
commercial sex premises to one external sign and additionally banning
subjective, promotional and advertising material. As a number of submitters
said: “It improves the treatment of sex workers”.
viii)
support Proposal 14B including
banning signs that extend beyond the height of the building
ix)
recommend further restrictions to
illuminated signs in Proposal 14C. We recommend that the maximum brightness
of signs be halved between 9pm and 7am. We also recommend specific controls
on each illuminated sign that changes or displays a video. These should be
subject to an individualised application process and the power to change or
reject them if they create a nuisance in terms of visual amenity or safety
x)
recommend also filling some
regulatory gaps as part of the Signs Bylaw or as part of the next AUP review,
whichever is the most appropriate and timely, including
1)
extending Clause 23(2)(d) (which
prohibits signs from emitting noise etc.) to outdoor signs where the sounds
or effects are audible or intrude into public space or other private spaces
2)
recommend extending consideration of
visual amenity to areas of high amenity – whether it be through public
art, urban design, heritage or natural space. Where council has invested
heavily in improving the public realm, it seems self-defeating to allow
signage that reduces the quality of space
3)
recommend strengthening rules around
amenity in mixed-use areas and put residents’ needs and preferences
first in considering applications for signage in mixed areas. Residents
consistently feedback to us that signs do not improve amenity and that
illuminated signs that intrude on residents’ living spaces
significantly reduce their wellbeing. The lights make it harder for them to
sleep and they feel intruded upon
4)
recommend that Auckland Council more
vigorously enforce its policies, as appears to be the case with Auckland
Transport’s advertising policy. We observe residents are broadly
supportive of advertising content policies that support healthy living
choices and restrict promotion of gambling, alcohol, sex work, tobacco and
vaping in residential areas and within 300m of a primary or intermediate
school. We also strongly recommend that the limitation in Proposal 13C to one
descriptive sign only be extended also to alcohol and gambling outlets where
client’s problematic and addictive behaviour can be readily triggered
by advertising or promotional signs
5)
strongly urge restricting advertising
of gas stations and new petrol and diesel vehicles if Auckland Council were
to adopt Auckland Transport’s advertising policy or develop their own
policy around content
6)
recommend amending section 13 of the appropriate
section of the current Council Signage Bylaw (Content of Signage) so that it
includes billboards
7)
recommend in a future review that
signs and billboards are covered by the same regulations
8)
recommend including façade
signs within the signage bylaw. A façade sign is signage on a property
on a boarded-up window. We also ask that bollard sleeve signage be prohibited
(these are advertising sleeves put over bollards). We are very concerned
about the prevalence of façade signs on premises in neighbourhood
centre zones and bollard sleeve signage in neighbourhood centre zones
9)
strongly recommend that if signs (or
billboards) in public places have Bluetooth elements that can be involved in
collecting data from the devices of passers-by then council should seriously
consider the legal and moral ramifications around this including around
privacy, and wellbeing of residents. If these elements are to be permitted in
policy, then this should only be done after full public
consultation, and that such a consultation needs to be well-advertised
in advance. Stakeholders should include youth, educators, health providers,
the CAB and the senior advisory panel
c) whakatuu
/ appoint Chair Northey, Member Fryer and Deputy Chair Bonham to present the
views in clause b) to the Bylaw Panel on 28 March 2022.
d) tuku
mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s)
to the persons in clause c) should an appointed member be unable to present
to the Bylaw Panel.
CARRIED
|
