CLICK HERE FOR LATEST NEWS...

South Oxfordshire District Council has for very many years opposed intrusive developments in the countryside, including advertising. In the past it would have taken enforcement action against advertisements of the very type it is now supporting and subsidising. Its recent actions have led to unnecessary roadside clutter throughout South Oxfordshire, are contrary to national and local planning policies, and are against highway safety guidelines. Adoption of commercial sponsorship, introduced without consultation, has also increased costs to SODC and involved it in additional financial risk. The costs of roundabout maintenance were previously borne by the County Council. Now SODC pays Marketing Force for some maintenance and advertising, while failing to take up an offer of profit sharing with the company.

Commercial advertising in the countryside is contrary to SODC policy

SODC's policies on rural advertising reflect the requirement in PPS1 for “protecting and enhancing the natural environment and the quality and character of the countryside.” Policy G4 notes “the need to protect the countryside for its own sake is an important consideration” and “this Policy seeks to prevent development in the countryside”. This policy is breached by the roundabout advertising. Other relevant SODC policies are G2, G6, C1–C4.

Advertising on roundabouts is specifically contrary to Policy AD1

Policy AD1 says “signs which are not to be displayed on the premises to which they relate will not be permitted” and “advertisements must not distract or cause danger to road users or hinder ready interpretation of road traffic signs”. The signs we are disputing do not in any way relate to the roundabouts on which they are erected. The Royal Society for the Protection of Accidents advise us that "the purpose of advertisements placed by the roadside is to catch the attention of passing road users. Therefore, by definition, such advertisements have the potential to distract drivers and riders from road and traffic conditions. Even a momentary distraction could result in an accident."

The arrangement fails to meet planning regulations

When Marketing Force approached SODC, the Council's previous practice which had been to refuse all such advertising was reversed and attention turned to finding an interpretation of the advertising regulations which would allow the Marketing Force scheme to proceed without public scrutiny.

The first proposal was to dub the commercial advertisements “name plates” for the roundabouts: the SODC file papers recommending this proposal explicitly describe this as “tenuous, but worth a go”. However, the County Council refused to allow the roundabouts to carry names and the next idea was to add the words “working with South Oxfordshire District Council” to the bottom of the advertisements. It was felt that if the signs could be then be claimed to “identify the location” of the roundabouts, falling under the same concession which allows a name plate on a house. It is an extraordinary interpretation of planning regulations that the words “working with South Oxfordshire” can “identify the location” and lead to this exemption, leaving aside whether there is any policy need to "identify the location" at all.

The “house name plate” concession which SODC has sheltered behind has a maximum size limitation. Marketing Force argued this was too small, so SODC decided to breach planning controls and agreed that it "would not take issue or pursue [that the size of the signs] was a breach of advert regs."

The arrangement fails to meet "probity in planning" guidelines

As outlined above, SODC sought to find an interpretation of the regulations that allowed it to avoid any planning applications or public consultations for this scheme. This questionable behaviour in planning is contrary to the “probity in planning” guidelines. These require any application in which the Council itself has a direct financial interest—as it does in this case—to be handled openly and transparently. In avoiding planning applications, or indeed any consultations at all, the Council kept the scheme “behind closed doors” until it was fait accompli.

Other Councils allow roundabout advertising but we have found none that allow it on every roundabout, rural as well as urban. The normal arrangement is that the highways authority contracts the marketing company, which then must apply for planning permission to a planning authority which considers each case on its merits. Other councils take into account Department of Transport safety guidelines but SODC appears to have ignored these.

The arrangement fails to deliver Best Value

SODC claims as a benefit that Marketing Force will now tidy up the roundabouts. There is no evidence that the roundabouts were in need of improvement, no survey of condition, no assessment of the schedule of works necessary for any improvements (if needed). In particular there is no estimate of the alternative costs of SODC or OCC tidying up the roundabouts.

Previously OCC spent £50 a year on each of the 38 roundabouts (£1,900 a year); SODC made no payment. Now SODC pays Marketing Force £2,000 for maintaining just five mini-roundabouts near Henley, as well as advertising on a roundabout itself at a cost of £2,950. We calculate from quotes from Marketing Force that advertising rights for the roundabouts are set to gross the company around £100,000 a year.

In September 2004, Marketing Force offered a profit sharing scheme. SODC did not negotiate or respond to this offer. The contract signed by SODC did not include profit sharing. Neighbouring Buckinghamshire, along with many other councils, has a profit sharing scheme for the selected roundabouts where they allow Marketing Force to operate.