Insufficient visual harm - what do you think?

[James Barber]

The attached photo is a large advertisement on the side of the Londis star - corner of North Cross Road with Lordship Lane.

This large isn advertisement doesn't have advertising consent - permission to be there - and is illegal.

Southwark Council Planning Enforcement official have said they think it does'n't cause enough harm.

To me that feels like a very slippery slope.

What do other think?

Is it fine if this remains and we essentially give up trying to restrain mass advertising in East Dulwich?

Or should we fight this one.

Officer stated "It was not considered expedient to take enforcement action owing to the location of the sign and the immediate character of the surroundings. Insufficient visual harm resulted to warrant formal action."

I do have concerns that council officials didn't want to take on a firm of lawyers over this - ironic that a law firm would breach so flagrantly planning laws.

[kibris]

I think it looks fine and its good to have bussiness in East dulwich, so no problems at all

[Penguin68]

Agree with kibris

[Nigello]

I think it should be taken down. If a firm wants to advertise it should do it properly: social media is free and local publications like SE22, Dulwich Diverter etc won't be that expensive. I agree it is not distasteful or ugly but it is easy to set a precedent.

On the subject, are the fairs and circuses allowed by Southwark to put up ad hoardings if they take them down after the event?

[first mate]

Yes one is fne but what if one becomes many? Either everyone can do it or not?

[nxjen]

Is this the same sign that was discussed on a thread which James contributed to in 2011?

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,771900,page=1

[oliviaandmilo]

I think it's fine! Better than graffiti surely!!!

[red devil]

It wouldn't look fine if every business on NorthX put one up without consent, that's Jimbo's point...

[mancity68]

If it needs permission, it should get permission. Nit about harm or otherwise.

[Loz]

Will the council accept that excuse for parking?

"You overstayed the limit"

"Yeah, but I didn't cause much harm"

"Oh, Okay then. I'll cancel the ticket.".

[KidKruger]

Everyone hasn't also put a sign up though have they ?

Perhaps it's worth fretting over when that mythical and feared potential state of affairs becomes a REALITY.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Maybe the planning officials need to focus on the bigger problems, like the overrun of the development of the old police station on crystal palace road, or the change of plans for the old Iceland site rather than wasting time on petty infringements...

[Alex K]

James, if they're in breach of planning-permission regulations, go after them. Lawyers of all people should stay inside the law. This sign may be oh-all-right. The next won't be.

[Beej]

I also think it's fine, plus it helps direct people too. Jeez louise, you're getting a wee bit Victor Meldrew these days ain't you mister Barber? Live a little, go have a drink.

[hpsaucey]

Trying to gauge the scale but looks big. Prefer creative graffiti personally.

[maxxi]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is this the same sign that was discussed on a

> thread which James contributed to in 2011?

>

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5

> ,771900,page=1

slow news week

[DulwichFox]

If the sign is unofficial it should be removed.. Its far to large to be purely directional.

It is an advertisement..

Why should Galazer Delmar have priority over the many other businesses on North Cross Road,

DulwichFox

[KidKruger]

early bird gets the worm ?

[Sue]

The sign itself doesn't bother me, but if it needs permission and doesn't have it then I think it should either get permission or be removed.

It is setting a precedent otherwise and other businesses could fairly argue that they can do the same.

There's no point in having rules if they aren't enforced. You can't make exceptions unless there's a very clear and compelling reason. In my opinion.

[DulwichFox]

All businesses are equal..

.. but some businesses are more equal than others..

Some have more clout..

Foxy.

[siousxiesue]

Alex K Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James, if they're in breach of planning-permission

> regulations, go after them. Lawyers of all people

> should stay inside the law. This sign may be

> oh-all-right. The next won't be.

Have to say I agree. Lawyers of all people should know better. I also thought this about the huge taxi firm signs that appeared - often high on buildings- do they have permission too?

[damzel]

It's rather ironic that a law firm have illegally put a sign up, for that reason alone they should be forced to take it down. Doesn't really say much about their business ethic does it.

[sjsl]

Yes, although there may be more important things in life, a law firm of all people should stick to the law. Whether it causes 'enough harm' or not is irrelevant, sounds like Southwark Council Planning Enforcement are just being lazy.

[Elphinstone's Army]

This firm work for landlords but not tenants. On this premise alone I believe the sign should be removed.

[steveo]

.