Campaigners call for A-board ban on York's streets

York Press: Diane Roworth, chief  officer of York Blind and Partially Sighted Society,  makes her way up Micklegate in York,  passing A-boards on the  pavement Diane Roworth, chief officer of York Blind and Partially Sighted Society, makes her way up Micklegate in York, passing A-boards on the pavement

ADVERTISING boards, bins and street cafes in York are making parts of the city no-go areas for people with impaired vision and should be banned from pavements, campaigners have said.

A-boards outside businesses are so common that many streets are almost impossible for blind people or people with limited mobility to navigate, York’s Blind and Partially Sighted Society has said.

It says action should be taken to make sure the city does not become totally inaccessible to some groups.

City of York Council is planning to set up a special body to look into the use of A-boards, and the society is urging it to take a strong stance.

Diane Roworth, chief officer of the Blind and Partially Sighted Society, said A-boards had been a problem for many years because businesses believed they attract customers, but they make life difficult for visually impaired or elderly people, and parents with pushchairs.

She said obstacles in the path of people who rely on a cane or a guide dog could mean they easily lose their bearings and get lost even on a familiar route.

“A guide dog will navigate their owner around an obstacle, but if there are a lot of obstacles the owner can soon get thrown off course and not know where they are.

“The pavements are getting more and more cluttered, but we don’t need A-boards when we can use shop windows, walls, and to an extent even overhead signage for advertising.”

Anne Smith is completely blind and uses a guide dog to get around in York.

She said many visually impaired people use the “building line” to get around, following the edge of buildings on streets they know, so even moving A-boards away from the buildings to make sure their path is not blocked would help.

Alistair Briggs, the council’s traffic network manager, said: “To represent all views and interests, a scrutiny committee is being set up to look into the matter of A-boards in the new year, to which interested groups will be invited.

“The committee will then report back with recommendations for a revision of the policy.”

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:09am Sat 28 Dec 13

nearlyman says...

.....And why is that night club in clifford street allowed to commandeer the entire pavement at night time as an extension to its premises ??
.....And why is that night club in clifford street allowed to commandeer the entire pavement at night time as an extension to its premises ?? nearlyman

10:43am Sat 28 Dec 13

Dave Ruddock says...

Alistair Briggs, the council’s traffic network manager, said: “To represent all views and interests, a scrutiny committee is being set up to look into the matter of A-boards in the new year, to which interested groups will be invited.

These A Boards are a nightmare for ever the fully sighted, I did believe this is what is known "As An Obstruction", and the Couciil Do Know about theses for Years , I sujest the Public remove them, at least move them to the Shop entrance and flat pack them, Alistair , use your eyes not another non relulting meeting , There are laws already, "Use THem"
Alistair Briggs, the council’s traffic network manager, said: “To represent all views and interests, a scrutiny committee is being set up to look into the matter of A-boards in the new year, to which interested groups will be invited. These A Boards are a nightmare for ever the fully sighted, I did believe this is what is known "As An Obstruction", and the Couciil Do Know about theses for Years , I sujest the Public remove them, at least move them to the Shop entrance and flat pack them, Alistair , use your eyes not another non relulting meeting , There are laws already, "Use THem" Dave Ruddock

11:36am Sat 28 Dec 13

gjh says...

Section 137 of the Highways Act states " If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine". However if the Highway Authority starts removing the signs and prosecuting, the shopkeepers may well protest that the signs are essential given the current economic climate and their trade is being damaged by removal. The courts will then have to decide if a sign really is an obstruction and if its placement is excusable. This is subjective and will be at cost to the Authority. Like so many things there is not a straightforward answer to this one.
Section 137 of the Highways Act states " If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine". However if the Highway Authority starts removing the signs and prosecuting, the shopkeepers may well protest that the signs are essential given the current economic climate and their trade is being damaged by removal. The courts will then have to decide if a sign really is an obstruction and if its placement is excusable. This is subjective and will be at cost to the Authority. Like so many things there is not a straightforward answer to this one. gjh

11:56am Sat 28 Dec 13

Happy Chappie says...

I hope that this will also include cars vans etc parked half on the footpath.
I hope that this will also include cars vans etc parked half on the footpath. Happy Chappie

12:01pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Happy Chappie says...

Happy Chappie wrote:
I hope that this will also include cars vans etc parked half on the footpath.
After my earlier quote and looking again at the picture accompanying the press report I notice the car on opposite side of the road is doing just this..
[quote][p][bold]Happy Chappie[/bold] wrote: I hope that this will also include cars vans etc parked half on the footpath.[/p][/quote]After my earlier quote and looking again at the picture accompanying the press report I notice the car on opposite side of the road is doing just this.. Happy Chappie

12:27pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Loollah says...

So will this ban include all the A boards outside newsagents advertising The Press?
So will this ban include all the A boards outside newsagents advertising The Press? Loollah

12:33pm Sat 28 Dec 13

dmw2008 says...

Just to balance this argument slightly, "A-Boards" are supposed to be incredibly difficult to put on the street. Infact, the council are supposed to monitor this on several streets. A few years ago, seem to remember a campaign where shop owners/bars ON Micklegate actually won the right to put "A-Boards" out on the street.
A-Boards are always going to be needed to advertise, the monitoring of them however is shocking. Kuda manage to get away with half of that street with their "exclusive" queue lines. There needs to be monitoring but not a total ban.
Just to balance this argument slightly, "A-Boards" are supposed to be incredibly difficult to put on the street. Infact, the council are supposed to monitor this on several streets. A few years ago, seem to remember a campaign where shop owners/bars ON Micklegate actually won the right to put "A-Boards" out on the street. A-Boards are always going to be needed to advertise, the monitoring of them however is shocking. Kuda manage to get away with half of that street with their "exclusive" queue lines. There needs to be monitoring but not a total ban. dmw2008

12:46pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Maquis says...

Here we go again. Time for another fight. This battle has been had twice in the last 8 years and won in favor of regulated a boards. Has this woman and the council not heard of double jeopardy.
Narrow listed buildings with narrow pavements and high frontages do not make for good advertising. People go to town to use the businesses, not to walk about in swathes of open land. To allow the small businesses to survive they need to be allowed to advertise their wares in a way that the passing public can see.
This has been accepted twice by the council officials and yet they want to spend more time and money looking at the problem yet again.
Here we go again. Time for another fight. This battle has been had twice in the last 8 years and won in favor of regulated a boards. Has this woman and the council not heard of double jeopardy. Narrow listed buildings with narrow pavements and high frontages do not make for good advertising. People go to town to use the businesses, not to walk about in swathes of open land. To allow the small businesses to survive they need to be allowed to advertise their wares in a way that the passing public can see. This has been accepted twice by the council officials and yet they want to spend more time and money looking at the problem yet again. Maquis

2:44pm Sat 28 Dec 13

mike.......durkin says...

dmw2008 wrote:
Just to balance this argument slightly, "A-Boards" are supposed to be incredibly difficult to put on the street. Infact, the council are supposed to monitor this on several streets. A few years ago, seem to remember a campaign where shop owners/bars ON Micklegate actually won the right to put "A-Boards" out on the street.
A-Boards are always going to be needed to advertise, the monitoring of them however is shocking. Kuda manage to get away with half of that street with their "exclusive" queue lines. There needs to be monitoring but not a total ban.
yor right there like us we put one out and we just started selling .wood and we doing well .whith out it we wil shut dawn......
[quote][p][bold]dmw2008[/bold] wrote: Just to balance this argument slightly, "A-Boards" are supposed to be incredibly difficult to put on the street. Infact, the council are supposed to monitor this on several streets. A few years ago, seem to remember a campaign where shop owners/bars ON Micklegate actually won the right to put "A-Boards" out on the street. A-Boards are always going to be needed to advertise, the monitoring of them however is shocking. Kuda manage to get away with half of that street with their "exclusive" queue lines. There needs to be monitoring but not a total ban.[/p][/quote]yor right there like us we put one out and we just started selling .wood and we doing well .whith out it we wil shut dawn...... mike.......durkin

2:48pm Sat 28 Dec 13

rodney'sdog says...

Keep The A Boards
Keep The A Boards rodney'sdog

3:28pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Daisy75 says...

I can see the benefit of A boards for shop keepers, but I think the shop keepers and pro A board commenters need to put themselves in the shoes of blind or wheelchair bound people trying to negotiate the streets. I recently spent a while in London, commuting in and out on the Tube and this really opened my eyes to how difficult it must be to have severe sight or mobility issues in London as all the stations are totally unadapted for them. I have a less severe disability and I struggled with the crowds and steps etc. However, having to struggle made me appreciate the difficulties those less mobile must face, and I would suggest all who are in favour or want to put out street signage should have to try to negotiate their street blindfolded or in a wheelchair, then think about whether the signs are necessary. The arrogance of the healthy in making decisions that further handicap people with disabilities knows no bounds.
I can see the benefit of A boards for shop keepers, but I think the shop keepers and pro A board commenters need to put themselves in the shoes of blind or wheelchair bound people trying to negotiate the streets. I recently spent a while in London, commuting in and out on the Tube and this really opened my eyes to how difficult it must be to have severe sight or mobility issues in London as all the stations are totally unadapted for them. I have a less severe disability and I struggled with the crowds and steps etc. However, having to struggle made me appreciate the difficulties those less mobile must face, and I would suggest all who are in favour or want to put out street signage should have to try to negotiate their street blindfolded or in a wheelchair, then think about whether the signs are necessary. The arrogance of the healthy in making decisions that further handicap people with disabilities knows no bounds. Daisy75

3:41pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Overproof says...

I can understand both sides of this.

But, the photograph with this story simply proves that there is plenty of room for both.
I can understand both sides of this. But, the photograph with this story simply proves that there is plenty of room for both. Overproof

5:33pm Sat 28 Dec 13

sdmike says...

This sounds like another PC campaign. I appreciate that A-boards can be a hazard, but in street cafes and other paraphernalia brighten up some otherwise drab parts of the city centre and should be encouraged. The problem is that all too often some "jobsworth" from the City Council will take any kind of a ban to ludicrous lengths.
This sounds like another PC campaign. I appreciate that A-boards can be a hazard, but in street cafes and other paraphernalia brighten up some otherwise drab parts of the city centre and should be encouraged. The problem is that all too often some "jobsworth" from the City Council will take any kind of a ban to ludicrous lengths. sdmike

6:06pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Pinza-C55 says...

The council need to set up an A-Team and pay them, ooh, £70,000 a year to do it.
The council need to set up an A-Team and pay them, ooh, £70,000 a year to do it. Pinza-C55

6:14pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Maquis says...

Daisy75 wrote:
I can see the benefit of A boards for shop keepers, but I think the shop keepers and pro A board commenters need to put themselves in the shoes of blind or wheelchair bound people trying to negotiate the streets. I recently spent a while in London, commuting in and out on the Tube and this really opened my eyes to how difficult it must be to have severe sight or mobility issues in London as all the stations are totally unadapted for them. I have a less severe disability and I struggled with the crowds and steps etc. However, having to struggle made me appreciate the difficulties those less mobile must face, and I would suggest all who are in favour or want to put out street signage should have to try to negotiate their street blindfolded or in a wheelchair, then think about whether the signs are necessary. The arrogance of the healthy in making decisions that further handicap people with disabilities knows no bounds.
Blind people do not negotiate the streets without some kind of aid. A dog, stick, or helper can stop the walking into things.
There are many obstacles to avoid, it's the real world, not some PC utopia. We have bins, bollards, lamp posts, and many other things which do not seem to be such a problem, however when it comes to someone daring to try to make a living, who in turn pay the taxes to help support the disabled, they are hammered as their livelihood slightly adds to the existing problem.
They are essential to the small businesses in the city and need to be kept. Remove them and condem more people to the dole que.
[quote][p][bold]Daisy75[/bold] wrote: I can see the benefit of A boards for shop keepers, but I think the shop keepers and pro A board commenters need to put themselves in the shoes of blind or wheelchair bound people trying to negotiate the streets. I recently spent a while in London, commuting in and out on the Tube and this really opened my eyes to how difficult it must be to have severe sight or mobility issues in London as all the stations are totally unadapted for them. I have a less severe disability and I struggled with the crowds and steps etc. However, having to struggle made me appreciate the difficulties those less mobile must face, and I would suggest all who are in favour or want to put out street signage should have to try to negotiate their street blindfolded or in a wheelchair, then think about whether the signs are necessary. The arrogance of the healthy in making decisions that further handicap people with disabilities knows no bounds.[/p][/quote]Blind people do not negotiate the streets without some kind of aid. A dog, stick, or helper can stop the walking into things. There are many obstacles to avoid, it's the real world, not some PC utopia. We have bins, bollards, lamp posts, and many other things which do not seem to be such a problem, however when it comes to someone daring to try to make a living, who in turn pay the taxes to help support the disabled, they are hammered as their livelihood slightly adds to the existing problem. They are essential to the small businesses in the city and need to be kept. Remove them and condem more people to the dole que. Maquis

6:22pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Alf Garnett says...

About time that something was done about pirate signage in general, not just on pavements, where they constitute a menace but also along roadside verges, where they are a visual blight. As for wilfully obstructing the pavement, perhaps those who park half-on/half-off the pavement might get the odd nudge to consider pedestrians.
About time that something was done about pirate signage in general, not just on pavements, where they constitute a menace but also along roadside verges, where they are a visual blight. As for wilfully obstructing the pavement, perhaps those who park half-on/half-off the pavement might get the odd nudge to consider pedestrians. Alf Garnett

6:24pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Alf Garnett says...

Maquis wrote:
Daisy75 wrote:
I can see the benefit of A boards for shop keepers, but I think the shop keepers and pro A board commenters need to put themselves in the shoes of blind or wheelchair bound people trying to negotiate the streets. I recently spent a while in London, commuting in and out on the Tube and this really opened my eyes to how difficult it must be to have severe sight or mobility issues in London as all the stations are totally unadapted for them. I have a less severe disability and I struggled with the crowds and steps etc. However, having to struggle made me appreciate the difficulties those less mobile must face, and I would suggest all who are in favour or want to put out street signage should have to try to negotiate their street blindfolded or in a wheelchair, then think about whether the signs are necessary. The arrogance of the healthy in making decisions that further handicap people with disabilities knows no bounds.
Blind people do not negotiate the streets without some kind of aid. A dog, stick, or helper can stop the walking into things.
There are many obstacles to avoid, it's the real world, not some PC utopia. We have bins, bollards, lamp posts, and many other things which do not seem to be such a problem, however when it comes to someone daring to try to make a living, who in turn pay the taxes to help support the disabled, they are hammered as their livelihood slightly adds to the existing problem.
They are essential to the small businesses in the city and need to be kept. Remove them and condem more people to the dole que.
In what way "essential" ?
[quote][p][bold]Maquis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Daisy75[/bold] wrote: I can see the benefit of A boards for shop keepers, but I think the shop keepers and pro A board commenters need to put themselves in the shoes of blind or wheelchair bound people trying to negotiate the streets. I recently spent a while in London, commuting in and out on the Tube and this really opened my eyes to how difficult it must be to have severe sight or mobility issues in London as all the stations are totally unadapted for them. I have a less severe disability and I struggled with the crowds and steps etc. However, having to struggle made me appreciate the difficulties those less mobile must face, and I would suggest all who are in favour or want to put out street signage should have to try to negotiate their street blindfolded or in a wheelchair, then think about whether the signs are necessary. The arrogance of the healthy in making decisions that further handicap people with disabilities knows no bounds.[/p][/quote]Blind people do not negotiate the streets without some kind of aid. A dog, stick, or helper can stop the walking into things. There are many obstacles to avoid, it's the real world, not some PC utopia. We have bins, bollards, lamp posts, and many other things which do not seem to be such a problem, however when it comes to someone daring to try to make a living, who in turn pay the taxes to help support the disabled, they are hammered as their livelihood slightly adds to the existing problem. They are essential to the small businesses in the city and need to be kept. Remove them and condem more people to the dole que.[/p][/quote]In what way "essential" ? Alf Garnett

6:25pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Teabag1 says...

Ooooo fish n chips
Ooooo fish n chips Teabag1

6:30pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Maquis says...

Alf Garnett wrote:
Maquis wrote:
Daisy75 wrote:
I can see the benefit of A boards for shop keepers, but I think the shop keepers and pro A board commenters need to put themselves in the shoes of blind or wheelchair bound people trying to negotiate the streets. I recently spent a while in London, commuting in and out on the Tube and this really opened my eyes to how difficult it must be to have severe sight or mobility issues in London as all the stations are totally unadapted for them. I have a less severe disability and I struggled with the crowds and steps etc. However, having to struggle made me appreciate the difficulties those less mobile must face, and I would suggest all who are in favour or want to put out street signage should have to try to negotiate their street blindfolded or in a wheelchair, then think about whether the signs are necessary. The arrogance of the healthy in making decisions that further handicap people with disabilities knows no bounds.
Blind people do not negotiate the streets without some kind of aid. A dog, stick, or helper can stop the walking into things.
There are many obstacles to avoid, it's the real world, not some PC utopia. We have bins, bollards, lamp posts, and many other things which do not seem to be such a problem, however when it comes to someone daring to try to make a living, who in turn pay the taxes to help support the disabled, they are hammered as their livelihood slightly adds to the existing problem.
They are essential to the small businesses in the city and need to be kept. Remove them and condem more people to the dole que.
In what way "essential" ?
Businesses need to advertise.
[quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maquis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Daisy75[/bold] wrote: I can see the benefit of A boards for shop keepers, but I think the shop keepers and pro A board commenters need to put themselves in the shoes of blind or wheelchair bound people trying to negotiate the streets. I recently spent a while in London, commuting in and out on the Tube and this really opened my eyes to how difficult it must be to have severe sight or mobility issues in London as all the stations are totally unadapted for them. I have a less severe disability and I struggled with the crowds and steps etc. However, having to struggle made me appreciate the difficulties those less mobile must face, and I would suggest all who are in favour or want to put out street signage should have to try to negotiate their street blindfolded or in a wheelchair, then think about whether the signs are necessary. The arrogance of the healthy in making decisions that further handicap people with disabilities knows no bounds.[/p][/quote]Blind people do not negotiate the streets without some kind of aid. A dog, stick, or helper can stop the walking into things. There are many obstacles to avoid, it's the real world, not some PC utopia. We have bins, bollards, lamp posts, and many other things which do not seem to be such a problem, however when it comes to someone daring to try to make a living, who in turn pay the taxes to help support the disabled, they are hammered as their livelihood slightly adds to the existing problem. They are essential to the small businesses in the city and need to be kept. Remove them and condem more people to the dole que.[/p][/quote]In what way "essential" ?[/p][/quote]Businesses need to advertise. Maquis

7:33pm Sat 28 Dec 13

CHISSY1 says...

What is the difference between a campaigner an activist and a protester.No doubt some very learned person will explain.I say keep the boards.
What is the difference between a campaigner an activist and a protester.No doubt some very learned person will explain.I say keep the boards. CHISSY1

12:59am Sun 29 Dec 13

Leothelioj says...

Sorry guys. Just get shot of the boards. They DO NOT help or assist any business there just street furniture.

It's not end of the world.
Sorry guys. Just get shot of the boards. They DO NOT help or assist any business there just street furniture. It's not end of the world. Leothelioj

1:02am Sun 29 Dec 13

Maquis says...

Leothelioj wrote:
Sorry guys. Just get shot of the boards. They DO NOT help or assist any business there just street furniture.

It's not end of the world.
What's stupid comment. Do you really think that businesses would spend hundreds of pounds on advertising that didn't work, and have continually done so for hundreds of years?
[quote][p][bold]Leothelioj[/bold] wrote: Sorry guys. Just get shot of the boards. They DO NOT help or assist any business there just street furniture. It's not end of the world.[/p][/quote]What's stupid comment. Do you really think that businesses would spend hundreds of pounds on advertising that didn't work, and have continually done so for hundreds of years? Maquis

4:37am Sun 29 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

So if A-boards can hinder the progress of visually-impared people, what about the glut of 'street cafes' with their random arrays of tables, chairs and retaining ropes that invade into the pavement (or in the case of New Street) into the road itself??
So if A-boards can hinder the progress of visually-impared people, what about the glut of 'street cafes' with their random arrays of tables, chairs and retaining ropes that invade into the pavement (or in the case of New Street) into the road itself?? Magicman!

7:07am Sun 29 Dec 13

pedalling paul says...

Personally I would ban the boards where they advertise adjacent and visible premises . There may be a case for allowing businesses in low footfall side roads to advertise on a nearby main road.
Personally I would ban the boards where they advertise adjacent and visible premises . There may be a case for allowing businesses in low footfall side roads to advertise on a nearby main road. pedalling paul

1:11pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Maquis says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Personally I would ban the boards where they advertise adjacent and visible premises . There may be a case for allowing businesses in low footfall side roads to advertise on a nearby main road.
Any peripheral street in York tends to have tall narrow listed buildings.
A building like this does not bode well for advertising any business as it is hard to get permission for any meaningful advertisement, potential customers pass the building in only a few steps and a sign 10 foot above is not visible without craning your neck at just the right time.
However a small board as shown in the picture, placed perpendicular to the building and therefore direction of travel is many times more effective in attracting the attention of people who would otherwise pass by heading or the big multiples who can afford large frontages in the city centre.

The smaller streets are already struggling and this is one thing that helps massively. You will notice that on coney street and parliament street there is little need for them due to the pedestrianisation whereby people don't walk right next to the building and the frontages are much wider, allowing a much easier view of the offerings
.
Unless you want to loose the small shops and therefore the character of the city, leave the boards alone.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Personally I would ban the boards where they advertise adjacent and visible premises . There may be a case for allowing businesses in low footfall side roads to advertise on a nearby main road.[/p][/quote]Any peripheral street in York tends to have tall narrow listed buildings. A building like this does not bode well for advertising any business as it is hard to get permission for any meaningful advertisement, potential customers pass the building in only a few steps and a sign 10 foot above is not visible without craning your neck at just the right time. However a small board as shown in the picture, placed perpendicular to the building and therefore direction of travel is many times more effective in attracting the attention of people who would otherwise pass by heading or the big multiples who can afford large frontages in the city centre. The smaller streets are already struggling and this is one thing that helps massively. You will notice that on coney street and parliament street there is little need for them due to the pedestrianisation whereby people don't walk right next to the building and the frontages are much wider, allowing a much easier view of the offerings . Unless you want to loose the small shops and therefore the character of the city, leave the boards alone. Maquis

3:04pm Sun 29 Dec 13

bolero says...

We need more of these `A` boards. They could be sponsored and put to good use. Why not use them to cover all of the raised paving stones, uneven surfaces and dislodged setts on the pavements and pedestrianised ares in the City centre. Except i doubt whether there would be enough to adequately provide cover for all these tripping hazards.
We need more of these `A` boards. They could be sponsored and put to good use. Why not use them to cover all of the raised paving stones, uneven surfaces and dislodged setts on the pavements and pedestrianised ares in the City centre. Except i doubt whether there would be enough to adequately provide cover for all these tripping hazards. bolero

6:43pm Sun 29 Dec 13

goatman says...

Perhaps each A board should be equipped with flashing hazard lights then they will be able to obstruct with impunity.
Perhaps each A board should be equipped with flashing hazard lights then they will be able to obstruct with impunity. goatman

8:59am Mon 30 Dec 13

redchick says...

goatman wrote:
Perhaps each A board should be equipped with flashing hazard lights then they will be able to obstruct with impunity.
Blind people can't see flashing lights? ....
[quote][p][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: Perhaps each A board should be equipped with flashing hazard lights then they will be able to obstruct with impunity.[/p][/quote]Blind people can't see flashing lights? .... redchick

4:34pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Teabag1 says...

Can these shops not just have flappy boards hanging from high up the building rather than blocking the path???!!
Can these shops not just have flappy boards hanging from high up the building rather than blocking the path???!! Teabag1

5:03pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Maquis says...

No.

Most A boards are designed to be easily changed on a regular basis this is not something that can be done with high level signs. Also as mentioned earlier, most of the shops is York are listed and the council will not permit anything useful.
No. Most A boards are designed to be easily changed on a regular basis this is not something that can be done with high level signs. Also as mentioned earlier, most of the shops is York are listed and the council will not permit anything useful. Maquis

9:58am Fri 3 Jan 14

It's your round says...

Did Trevor Rooney the ghost walk guy ever get his A-Board back from the last time this issue was looked at?
Did Trevor Rooney the ghost walk guy ever get his A-Board back from the last time this issue was looked at? It's your round

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree