Decision details

The committee received a report responding to the Notice of Motion regarding Traditional Direction Signs, which was submitted to Full Council on 15 October 2025 by Councillor R Chadwick and seconded by Councillor R Bailey.

The Notice of Motion requested measures to retaining older-style, rural directional signage as part of retaining the character of rural areas.

The council’s approach to this signage focused on its statutory duties to maintain highway infrastructure in a safe condition. The report proposed an approach to addressing this without creating additional costs for the council.

Officers reported that:

• Highways services were largely statutory, with priority given to safety and availability of the highway network.
• There was no statutory duty to maintain traditional or heritage signs and no existing budget to audit or maintain such assets.
• Maintenance activity was prioritised using a risk?based approach due to significant financial constraints.
• A county?wide audit could cost in excess of £60,000, with ongoing maintenance and replacement costs also significant.
• Replacement of heritage signs was specialist work and therefore costly.
• While the cultural and local value of heritage signs was recognised, maintaining them would divert resources from core highways activity.

The Committee received a written statement from Councillor Bailey as seconder to the Notice of Motion. Councillor Bailey noted the financial pressures facing the Council but expressed concern that the officer response did not reflect the Council’s Corporate Plan 2025–2029, the rural proofing policy, or the Council’s general approach to the preservation of historic artefacts. Councillor Bailey highlighted the value of local heritage in contributing to a sense of place.

Councillor Bailey requested that the committee consider options for the transfer of historic signs to town and parish councils or community groups, explore ways to work proactively with such organisations to enable repair and retention of the signs, and give future consideration to the provision of financial support. Councillor Bailey also drew attention to the contrast between the Council’s ability to showcase historic items through the archive service and its current position on retaining historic direction signs.

Members asked questions relating to:

• The costs associated with auditing, repainting and replacing signs.
• The use of ward member budgets for refurbishment, which officers confirmed could be accommodated.
• Whether town and parish councils could carry out local audits.
• Potential heritage or local listing through the planning system.
• Health and safety and liability implications if third parties undertook works.
• The application of risk?based prioritisation to signage maintenance.

Officers reiterated the need to ensure all highway works complied with safety standards and confirmed a willingness to work with town and parish councils to explore feasible solutions.

During the debate, Members highlighted:

• The longevity and durability of traditional cast?iron signs compared with modern signage.
• Concerns about the removal of modern signs in rural areas without replacement.
• The importance of traditional signage to local character, countryside identity and civic pride.
• The potential long?term value of preventative maintenance.

A friendly amendment was proposed by Councillor R Chadwick which sought to introduce measures around asset identification, town and parish council engagement and a structured maintenance approach.

Officers indicated support for the intent of the amendment but advised that:

• Committing to a defined audit programme could have unquantified financial implications.
• Setting a percentage?based maintenance target could not be supported without clarity on cost and prioritisation.

Advice was sought from the Monitoring Officer who stated that amendments could not alter the content of the officer’s report other than for matters of factual accuracy.  The Chair invited Councillor Chadwick to put forward his proposed amendment as an additional recommendation and stated that the committee would move onto the next agenda item to allow him time to compose his wording.