So, Andy Burnham — is this a serious statement?
The Government has announced plans to breathe new life into Britain’s “hollowed-out high streets”. The proposals include tighter controls on vape shops, betting shops and rogue businesses, as well as new guidance covering the appearance of shopfronts.
According to the official announcement, communities and councils will be given more say over what opens in their town centres. Planning permission will be required for vape shops, while councils will receive greater power to refuse new betting shops and adult gaming centres.
I’m sure we can all agree that something needs to be done about the number of vape shops, bookies and questionable businesses appearing on our high streets. In some towns, they seem to occupy every other unit.
But stopping unwanted businesses from opening is only part of the answer.
We also need to make it easier for good, legitimate businesses to take their place.
Give genuine small businesses a chance
Let’s hope the Government follows through on its commitment to reform Small Business Rates Relief.
The rateable value thresholds need to reflect the actual cost of occupying commercial premises today. Otherwise, many small start-ups will continue to look at high-street units, do the maths and realise they simply cannot afford to move in.
If we want independent shops, cafés, studios and service businesses on our high streets, they need a realistic chance of surviving beyond their first year. It’s no good restricting vape shops and betting shops if the units are then left empty because legitimate start-ups cannot afford the rent, rates and running costs.
That just replaces one problem with another and leaves us with the same shutters-down, ghost-town atmosphere.
For this piece, though, I’m more interested in the signage side of the announcement, because that raises plenty of questions for those of us working in the industry.
Who decides what good signage looks like?
The Government says it wants to tackle poor-quality shopfronts, “garish neon signs” and oversized logos. It plans to work with councils and the Planning Advisory Service to produce clearer expectations for the design and appearance of high-street shopfronts.
On the surface, that sounds positive. We’ve all seen shopfronts that look like they were designed during somebody’s lunch break and fitted even more quickly.
But will we get solid, consistent guidelines that are passed down to local councils? More importantly, will the Government take advice from time-served sign makers & designers when deciding what should be allowed?
There is a real risk that broad terms such as “garish”, “oversized” and “poor quality” will mean completely different things to different councils — or even different planning officers within the same council.
Without informed and practical guidance, improving standards could quickly become a matter of personal opinion.
Is neon really the problem?
The reference to garish neon signage is particularly interesting.
What exactly do they mean by neon?
Cheaper faux-neon products might not be suitable for every exterior fascia, particularly when they are badly designed or fitted without any thought for the surrounding building. But genuine, traditional glass neon can look fantastic. In the right setting, it is artistic, characterful and highly skilled work.
Some of Britain’s most memorable signs have used traditional neon. Properly designed signage can add life and identity to an area rather than making it feel cheap.
The issue isn’t necessarily neon itself. The issue is poor design, poor materials and inappropriate use.
A blanket approach could end up discouraging one of the most creative and traditional parts of the sign industry while doing very little to address the genuinely bad work appearing on some shopfronts.
How big is “oversized”?
Oversized logos are another area where the details will matter.
I can understand the concern. A logo that completely overwhelms a fascia, ignores the proportions of a building or fights with every sign around it can make a high street look untidy.
But who decides when a logo becomes oversized?
Will it be an experienced sign maker or designer with an understanding of scale, spacing, visibility and the architecture of the building? Or will it be a council officer without a trained eye for signage telling a time-served sign maker that their carefully considered design is wrong?
There is also the question of company branding guidelines. Established businesses often have strict rules controlling the size, spacing, colours and proportions of their branding.
What happens if local signage guidance conflicts with those rules?
And if every fascia, letter and logo has to sit at roughly the same height and scale, do we risk making high streets bland? A well-designed high street should feel coordinated, but it shouldn’t look as though every shop has been forced to use the same template.
Consistency and quality are good. Uniformity for the sake of it is not.
Could this raise standards in the sign industry?
There could be a real opportunity here.
Could these changes finally challenge the cheap sign-making that has undercut skilled businesses in recent years?
People within the industry will know exactly the sort of work I mean: halo-illuminated letters without proper light diffusion, visible harsh cold white LED modules reflected against a badly fabricated, high-gloss aluminium composite tray, careless spacing and poor installation.
It may be cheap, but it isn’t good value. The customer ends up with a sign that looks poor, performs badly and may need replacing far sooner than expected. Meanwhile, experienced sign makers who price the job properly are told they are too expensive.
Clearer standards could help educate customers about the difference between a cheap sign and a professionally designed, fabricated and installed one. They could also encourage businesses to invest in shopfronts that will still look good years later.
Perhaps we might even see a resurgence in traditional sign-making skills, including hand-painted signwriting, traditional neon and well-crafted sign lettering.
These skills give places personality. They are exactly the sort of thing that can make a high street worth visiting.
The danger is more red tape
There are plenty of questions, and I suppose time will tell whether this is a serious commitment or simply another bit of government guff that never sees the light of day.
If Andy Burnham is serious, and the Government genuinely follows through, then let’s hope it is done properly.
The sign industry should be involved from the beginning. That means speaking to experienced sign makers & designers — people who understand materials, lighting, branding and the practical realities of fitting signs to buildings.
Handled well, these proposals could raise standards and level-up the industry a bit. They could reward skill, improve our town centres and make customers think more carefully about the quality of the signs they buy. Not to mention create jobs!
My worry is that the idea will disappear into a maze of consultations and committees before emerging as a shadow of its former self: more paperwork, more inconsistent decisions and more red tape.
Poorly written guidance and badly used local powers could make it harder for legitimate businesses to open in the first place, never mind decide what their signage should look like.
Improving our high streets is a worthwhile goal. Addressing rogue operators, unfair business costs and genuinely poor-quality shopfronts could make a real difference.
Good signage is not the enemy. Badly designed, badly manufactured and badly fitted signage is the problem.
Let’s hope the people writing the rules understand the difference.