Council told that signs must be removed

A report to the authority's community services and licensing committee meeting tomorrow says that BT has brought in a new policy on signs fixed to its posts.

The signs either have to be removed or BT will have them re-fixed to meet health and safety regulations - a move which would cost RDC thousands of pounds, says environmental health manager Steve Richmond.

He says that bylaws introduced to curb dog fouling meant that metal signs needed to be displayed on posts throughout the district.

"Although most were put on lamp posts, a substantial number were placed on BT posts, particularly in villages where no lamp posts exist," said Mr Richmond.

He said that under the new BT policy, only BT could fit signs, and they had to be at a certain height so as not to impede erection of ladders, or BT staff climbing the poles to get access.

BT's legal position is that any other organisation putting signs on its posts would be seen as trespassing on BT property.

It has told RDC: "In such circumstances, BT will be entitled in law to recover all reasonable costs associated with repairing, renewing or altering any apparatus which has

been worked on by any unauthorised person.

"BT will vigorously pursue recovery of such costs."

BT wanted RDC to enter into an agreement on the issue of the placement of signs.

But, says Mr Richmond, it would cost £176 to refix an existing sign, and £231 for a new one, both plus VAT. The cost would be prohibitive to the council, he says.

"BT will not allow our own staff to refix the signs.

"The council would be liable for the costs if we do not remove the signs and rely on BT engineers to do the work."

The committee is being recommended to have all the signs on BT posts removed, and the council's dog warden and animal welfare officer is to liaise with parish councils to find alternative sites for the signs in villages.

Updated: 11:55 Wednesday, April 14, 2004