THERE are far more unnecessary obstructions littering the pavements than those which Blackburn with Darwen Council has targeted. Yet it appears it is either ignoring, or has overlooked them.
I refer in particular to signposts without signs and street lamps without light fittings which, by their very nature, are unnecessary. They are throughout the borough. Many have been there for years.
Other unnecessary obstructions I have seen are:
Posts with a bus stop sign only two or three feet away from a bus shelter. The posts could be removed and the signs mounted on the shelter.
Huge litter bins, placed haphazardly on the pavement, which could be mounted on street lamps, signposts, etc - as, I understand, Hyndburn Council is proposing.
Two or more signposts in close proximity when one post could carry all signs.
Pavement bollards, which appear to serve no purpose, could be removed, allowing easier passage. Such obstructions must fall under the category of Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (to wilfully obstruct free passage along the highway by so placing a sign) or, indeed, Section 149 (where a thing has been deposited on a highway so as to constitute a nuisance).
I am certin that the Act does not single out shopkeepers with regards to the control of placement of items within the highway, so why does the council appear to be doing just that? I would have thought that it would do better to lead by example rather than solely target shopkeepers.
This hypocritical attitude could be construed as victimisation. Or is it that there is one law for the council and another for the traders?
The council has stated that it is their wish to preserve and improve the environment, in particular preserving the rights and well-being of the elderly, infirm and blind.
With this and these sections of the Highways Act in mind, would it not be appropriate for the council to be placed under the same conditions as local traders and face prosecution itself for obstruction?
D GROGAN, Cobden Villas,
Oldfield Avenue, Darwen.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article