Agenda item

To present to members an updated Street Art Management Policy and outline the rational for separating graffiti from street art within the Council policy (report of the Assistant Director – Housing and Communities enclosed)

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing and Communities which presented to members an updated Street Art Management Policy and outlined the rational for separating graffiti from street art within the Council policy.

The Cultural Venues and Creative Arts Manager and the Group Manager – Public Protection were in attendance for this item.

The Cultural Venues and Creative Arts Manager introduced the report which reviewed the Street Art Management Policy, originally approved in 2022. The revised policy clarified its focus on supporting community-led street art, while removing references to graffiti, which was addressed separately as a criminal matter under the Council’s Corporate Enforcement Policy. The proposed changes aimed to reduce confusion to ensure a clearer distinction between permitted street art and enforcement activity.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members queried the rationale for removing graffiti from the Graffiti and Street Art Management Policy and asked how graffiti would otherwise be addressed.
  • The Group Manager – Public Protection explained that graffiti continued to be treated as a criminal and environmental enforcement matter and would be managed through the Council’s Corporate Enforcement Policy and Enviro-Crime processes, including partnership working with the Police, cleansing teams and enforcement officers, and that this change did not alter the Council’s approach to tackling graffiti.

• Members sought clarification on the scope of the policy and whether street art was limited to Council-owned land.
  • The Cultural Venues and Creative Arts Manager advised that whilst the policy primarily supported street art on Council-owned or community-supported sites, street art could also take place on private property with the landowner’s consent, and that in such cases the Council could not insist on compliance but would encourage engagement with officers and the community.

• Members queried how officers distinguished between authorised street art and unauthorised graffiti, particularly where artwork might be visible from public areas.
  • The Cultural Venues and Creative Arts Manager explained that the determining factor was landowner consent and the consultation process set out in the policy, with unauthorised works continuing to be treated as graffiti and addressed through enforcement routes.

• Members raised concerns that members of the public might not easily be able to identify whether artwork had been formally approved and suggested whether approved street art should be visibly marked or labelled.
  • The Cultural Venues and Creative Arts Manager advised that, in practice, approved street art projects usually involved consultation, funding and promotional activity, and undertook to explore whether clearer identification or promotion of approved works could be incorporated.

• Members expressed concern that encouraging street art could lead to copycat graffiti on nearby properties.
  • The Cultural Venues and Creative Arts Manager explained that authorised street art projects were often delivered through workshops and educational activity, making clear distinctions between designated authorised spaces and unlawful graffiti.

• Members sought clarity on the relationship between the Street Art Management Policy and the Corporate Enforcement Policy, expressing concern that the enforcement policy did not include specific examples such as graffiti.
  • The Group Manager – Public Protection confirmed that the Corporate Policy was intentionally generic due to the breadth of legislation enforced by the Council  and undertook to review accompanying web-based guidance to clarify the Council’s practical approach to managing graffiti. 

AGREED:

1)    That the separation of the Street Art Management Policy from the Graffiti Policy be supported;

2)    That as graffiti was already governed by national legislation and the Corporate Enforcement Policy, the proposal that a separate Graffiti Policy was not required, be noted;

3)    That the Panel’s comments be noted.