KEY POINTS:
The fevered rhetoric from the opposing camps hardly boded well for a sensible conclusion to the Auckland City Council's plan to prohibit inner-city billboards and many of retailers' commercial signs. Indeed, given the odium heaped upon them, members of the council's hearing panel might almost have been excused for digging in their toes. Who would not take umbrage at being accused of being incapable of holding a fair hearing because of preconceived anti-sign and anti-business views? Or of having their proceedings likened to a kangaroo court.
Such presumptions were, as it turned out, wrong. The councillors on the panel have acted with commendably open minds in formulating recommendations to the council. The result is a compromise that recognises the role of billboards and signs, while imposing tighter restrictions when they are an unwelcome intrusion. Council confirmation will result in all existing lawfully established billboards and most existing lawfully established signs remaining.
The original bylaw review proposals were hopelessly ill-conceived. It makes no sense to deprive Auckland of what, in most instances, is a business-friendly way of leavening an unexceptional cityscape. The planned banning of billboards, shopfront advertising above verandah level and suchlike was clearly a case of overkill.
Industry submissions told the hearing panel of this, and the threat to jobs, in the strongest terms. They also reinforced the complaint that the hearing panel was stacked with councillors passionately in favour of much tougher regulations. To its credit, the panel responded, appointing an independent commissioner to its ranks. This gave it increased knowledge and a different perspective. Also to its credit, it acknowledged the increasing doubts of council officials about some of the proposals. From this source came the initial impetus to increase the height limit on new verandah fascia signs, and to let lawfully established verandah signs remain.
But other parties also made concessions. The Property Council, for example, admitted that some signs and billboards in Auckland City were "either of such poor design, or are in such bad taste, as to seriously detract from the built environment's visual amenity". That, it said, undermined the desirability of Auckland as a destination for commercial property investment.
Such recognition suggests it should not be beyond the council and the industry to find common ground on the removal or modification of billboards in sensitive places, such as heritage and character areas. That should be the council's focus over the next five years. Billboards that degrade such areas have no place, whether the city is Auckland or Athens.
The tortuous public hearings should also have taught the council something about consultation. APN Outdoor New Zealand, owned by Herald publisher APN News & Media, says it was involved only in early discussions. Many in the industry remain angry about the time and effort required to turn the council around. A little more consultation earlier in the piece would surely have alerted the council's planning and regulatory committee to the implausibility of its proposals, and the degree of opposition they would attract.
Be that as it may, the final outcome inspires some confidence in the democratic process. Councillors have reacted to the tenor of public hearings, rather than their own instinct. Looming local body elections may well have played a role in this. Whatever the case, Auckland City will benefit from this welcome display of inclusiveness.
