Insufficient visual harm - what do you think?

[Alan Medic]

Why is that wrong? If it refers to leaseholders, they aren't tenants.

[steveo]

True dat. I'll edit

[steveo]

However, I'm sure they'd represent any tenant who didn't need legal aid or pro bono.

Or who was a tenant of an existing client.

[piazzola]

It should be taken down. Delmar solicitors should be ashamed honestly.

[Jennys]

I think it should be removed.

[Elphinstone's Army]

steveo Wrote:

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

> However, I'm sure they'd represent any tenant who

> didn't need legal aid or pro bono.

>

> Or who was a tenant of an existing client.

the existing client being the landlord - Steveo throw away your spade, you are out of your depth - literally and figuratively

[Robert Poste's Child]

Surely a law firm should WANT to take it down once they realise they (perhaps inadvertently - maybe they just asked Londis for permission?) have infringed a law. I don't see what else they could do but take it down themselves, otherwise they've compromised their own integrity.

[spanglysteve]

James, have you made your concerns known tot he law firm. As Robert Postes Child say, its likely if you make them aware that they will respond without the need for formal proceedings.

[Shaila Shah]

I think if they don't have permission, the sign should come down. If it is supposed to be directional,then maybe a mini road map showing ALL the retailers and businesses on NX Road should be put up in its place.

[nxjen]

Shaila Shah Wrote:

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

> I think if they don't have permission, the sign

> should come down. If it is supposed to be

> directional,then maybe a mini road map showing ALL

> the retailers and businesses on NX Road should be

> put up in its place.

Excellent idea, but to be useful would have to be kept up to date. I am unclear who exactly has flouted the planning regulations: the owners of the wall who have allowed the sign to be erected on their property, and no doubt charging rent, or the solicitors.

[steveo]

Mr Army: My original response was wrong and I admitted it. What I meant was that Glazer Delmar will work for anyone who can afford to pay them.

And I suspect you knew that was what I meant

[Burbage]

I suggest the Community Council invite a representative of the relevant department to explain to the bewildered public exactly how 'visual harm' is defined, how it is measured, what the threshold of 'sufficiency' is, who and how decided on that threshold, details of any consultation held and, of course, documentary proof that the Council has never enforced against anything objectively measured as being below that threshold.

I'm sure they'd be delighted that we're so interested in their work, and be eager to explain.

And, if not, at least we'll know who they're really working for.

[Beej]

Burbage Wrote:

>

> I'm sure they'd be delighted that we're so

> interested in their work, and be eager to

> explain.

I still can't believe that anyone is. In fact, I can't actually believe this conversation is still going on and we haven't got anything better to do (myself included).... (yawn)

[Sue]

Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

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

Steveo

> throw away your spade, you are out of your depth -

> literally and figuratively

How can he be "literally" out of his depth?

Unless he is presently in water?!

[Cedges]

Its been there years - who cares - move on and spend our tax payer money dealing with things that actually matter please.

[Loz]

Cedges Wrote:

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

> Its been there years - who cares - move on and spend our tax payer money dealing with things that

> actually matter please.

The problem is that this sort of thing sets precedents. If more people decide to put up advertising boards and charge rent for them, they will use this one and say that the council tacitly approved it via inaction.

[Beej]

Trouble is I still don't care, precedent or not. I'm trying to care honest I am. But I have to agree with Cedges - move on, there has to be more important things that actually matter surely, if there isn't, how privileged are we!?

[Elphinstone's Army]

steveo Wrote:

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

> Mr Army: My original response was wrong and I

> admitted it. What I meant was that Glazer Delmar

> will work for anyone who can afford to pay them.

>

> And I suspect you knew that was what I meant

hello steveo, I did not say I could not afford the advice from GD, it would not matter, they do not represent or work for the tenant, and this wry throw away line of mine has gathered speed. It was an alert as much as anything. Thank you for your reply, the sign will, I suspect, stay.

[Elphinstone's Army]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> Steveo

> > throw away your spade, you are out of your depth

> -

> > literally and figuratively

>

Yes ! you are quite right Sue, where that came from who knows, thanks for pointing it out, Confused by Idioms!

>

> How can he be "literally" out of his depth?

>

> Unless he is presently in water?!

[*Bob*]

This is a test case. The thin end of the wedge. The droplet before the deluge.

If we don't come together and make a stand, shitty walls everywhere will be festooned with shiny signs and it is the children - our little ones - who will pay for our indolence.

[B&G]

It ought to be removed. It doesn't matter if it's not causing harm - it requires permission and they didn't get it. Planners seem all for it so it's unlikely they'll be refused. Rules is rules, and all that...

[Robert Poste's Child]

Mind you, if that huge bee mural didn't constitute visual harm I'm not sure what would.

[Sue]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> Mind you, if that huge bee mural didn't constitute

> visual harm I'm not sure what would.

I loved the bee mural!

[Laddy Muck]

Sue Wrote:

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

> I loved the bee mural!

Me too! There used to be a spider too...is it still there?

[bzgeo]

If the council is not taking that off, lets just print 100 banners and spam the streets with them, see if the council cares.