Last week’s announcement by William Waldegrave, Minister of Housing and Planning, declaring that estate agents’ boards are to be brought under tighter control, is indeed welcome; the proliferation of these often garish emblems in recent years has done little for the image of agency. Boards, however, mean different things to different people. Along a suburban road or an inner-city terrace — particularly in areas where gentrification has taken hold — a multi-coloured forest of strident boards is seen by the residents as an unwelcome blemish on their improving landscape. From a local authority viewpoint there are generally far more weighty issues to deal with than the comparatively minor matter of the size and number of boards on a property, and there may be a tendency to turn a blind eye. In individual cases the nuisance is likely to be only temporary, though the general grievance as a stream of properties enter and leave the market is undoubtedly permanent. For the commercial agent a board on a factory or office building — generally modest in relation to the size of property — is essential, and unlikely to produce complaints. And to house agents, the focal point of the present troubles, the boards may either indicate the importance of going along with the herd or represent a cheap and effective method of advertising, as well as signifying their strength in the local market.
Other disadvantages, though not necessarily widespread, cannot be ignored. An obviously empty house, decorated with a board or two, can be an inviting target for vandals or squatters, the latter facing the vendor with perhaps months of expensive legal proceedings before possession can be regained. At the grubbier end of activity it is also not unknown–at least in London–for the unscrupulous operator to slap a completely unjustified “flat to let” board on a block in the hope that business will result.
It is this irresponsible free-for-all that has sparked a predictable reaction, and under amendments to the Control of Advertisements Regulations agents’ boards on residential property are to be reduced from the present maximum of 2.0 square metres to 0.5 square metres. (Even the minister was apparently incorrectly briefed on the imperial equivalents, but after some official blushes there now appears to be general agreement that this means 2 feet 3 inches by 2 feet 3 inches.) In addition to this size regulation for deemed consent, only one board per property may be displayed, and even this sole representative must be removed “after the date of legal commitment to the sale or letting to which the board relates”. These amended provisions, it is proposed, will come into effect on October 28 next year.
Such rigorous restrictions have several implications, most of them to the disadvantage of agency firms. First, with size and number controlled, the advertising impact will obviously be reduced. Second, the boom in business that the new regulations will provide for signwriters will be paid for by agents, whose stocks will in most cases be obsolete. Third, there may well be a split in legal observance between the responsible and less scrupulous members of the agency world, for the latter–if past experience is any indication–have vigorously flouted the existing legislation with relative impunity. Westminster City Council, for example, has certainly prosecuted a handful of agents for erecting illegal boards, but the extent of the intransigence of many others, in the face of official disapproval and threats of action, is quite amazing. However admirable the objective of control–and few would argue against the necessity–its practical effectiveness will hinge on stringent enforcement. And mention of enforcement raises an interesting question. Is it really necessary to cut down so drastically the size of boards qualifying for deemed consent when a far stricter implementation of the existing curbs might have achieved almost the same goal? In the absence of a far more determined approach to induce moderation these new dimensions of themselves may produce little improvement.
