Insufficient visual harm - what do you think?

[hpsaucey]

Laddy Muck Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

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

> > I loved the bee mural!

>

> Me too! There used to be a spider too...is it

> still there?

Has the bee one gone??? If so what a shame.

[Penguin68]

It is difficult to read this with the Solomon's Passage thread (or many others) and not feel that this is a tragic waste of effort - there are important causes to espouse in ED, this really isn't one of them, but seems purely diversionary. [And yes, I do know that, as a Councilor, the OP doesn't have Solomon's passage on his specific plate]. The forum isn't representative, so calling for comments here is (very possibly) pointless. I am very pleased that an official has chosen to make a judgement about causes (breaches of regulations) that are worth pursuing and ones that aren't. Isn't that type of judgement one we keep asking officials to make (proportionality and cost: benefit judgments?)

[Rook]

take it down and replace it with a mural like on the wall behind EDT

[Sue]

hpsaucey Wrote:

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

> Laddy Muck Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Sue Wrote:

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

> > > I loved the bee mural!

> >

> > Me too! There used to be a spider too...is it

> > still there?

>

> Has the bee one gone??? If so what a shame.

Yes it's gone, I think there were some damp problems or something and the wall had to be repaired, it was mentioned on here at the time.

There's now another mural there, which sadly I find really boring compared to the bee.

Don't remember the spider.

[Nigello]

It doesn't take that much effort to canvas opinion, monitor it and then ask the offender to take the offensive item down, so the "what aboutery" reasoning doesn't hold water. It's not particularly ugly, it's in good nick and it's promoting a local business but if it's allowed to stay then others may well do it and that would look bad.

Still awaiting answers as to whether the steam fairs/circuses are allowed by Southwark to post bills/placards if they take them down afterwards......

[TheArtfulDogger]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Still awaiting answers as to whether the steam

> fairs/circuses are allowed by Southwark to post

> bills/placards if they take them down

> afterwards......

Apparently they have deemed consent under section 3f of the following document

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/783/schedule/3/made

As long as they notify Southwark at the correct time, don't display them more then 14 days prior and remove them with 7 days of last performance then they don't need specific advertising consent ...

The things you Learn when you run away to a travelling circus!!!

[Earl Aelfheah]

I agree with James B. Southwark should enforce the planning regulations and not their aesthetic judgments. I certainly don't want the council deciding on what is or is not visually acceptable. The solicitors firm should know better.

[sizemore]

If it's illegal then what's to stop anyone else removing it?

Or better still painting over it with something more interesting like a penguin eating a hot dog.

[red devil]

That might be construed as stealth advertising for one of the market stalls...;-)

[Loz]

sizemore Wrote:

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

> If it's illegal then what's to stop anyone else removing it?

>

> Or better still painting over it with something more interesting like a penguin eating a hot dog.

Just because it is illegally sited, that wouldn't stop the owners having you charged with criminal damage.

[Abe_froeman]

Penguin, you say this isn't one of the important causes to espouse in ED in the context of Solomon's Passage but I think the two are intrinsically linked.

If Southwark Council employees pick and choose which bits of the law relating to planning and buildings that they personally wish to enforce, and have the chutzpah to tell an elected councillor so, then it's no surprise that it starts with an illegal billboard and ends with an unsafe building.

All of these laws are in place for a reason and Sotuhwark's job is to implement and administer them, not choose which bits they like and which they don't.

[rendelharris]

I sort of half agree with you Abe, but sometimes a little discretion has to be exercised - for example there was an article in The Guardian recently reporting how Brighton council had been ordering people to tear down the cycle storage boxes in their front gardens as by law any development beyond the street facing building boundary needs planning permission. If Southwark suddenly decided to follow the same course I think most would agree it was a pointless waste of time and money...there are some laws more honoured in the breach than the observance, as the Danish chap said.

How about Glazer Delmar can keep their ad in exchange for some pro bono advice for the Solomon's Passage residents? Just a thought...

[Elphinstone's Army]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> I sort of half agree with you Abe, but sometimes a

> little discretion has to be exercised - for

> example there was an article in The Guardian

> recently reporting how Brighton council had been

> ordering people to tear down the cycle storage

> boxes in their front gardens as by law any

> development beyond the street facing building

> boundary needs planning permission. If Southwark

> suddenly decided to follow the same course I think

> most would agree it was a pointless waste of time

> and money...there are some laws more honoured in

> the breach than the observance, as the Danish chap

> said.

>

> How about Glazer Delmar can keep their ad in

> exchange for some pro bono advice for the

> Solomon's Passage residents? Just a thought...

a fine sentiment displayed, however : see my earlier post : Glazer Delmar take instructions from landlords and not tenants.

This was my seemingly tenuous link to the sign outside Londis, i.e. : when I asked at reception did the company deal with landlord/tenant disputes I was told, we work for the landlord. I am also a Wandle tenant, but not from Solomon's Passage, at my wit's end with them. And then spurned by my local solicitors; and despite Steveo's assumption that they will work for fiscal reward = ergo, the sign has to come down - see my logic and reasoning?

[Elphinstone's Army]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> I sort of half agree with you Abe, but sometimes a

> little discretion has to be exercised - for

> example there was an article in The Guardian

> recently reporting how Brighton council had been

> ordering people to tear down the cycle storage

> boxes in their front gardens as by law any

> development beyond the street facing building

> boundary needs planning permission. If Southwark

> suddenly decided to follow the same course I think

> most would agree it was a pointless waste of time

> and money...there are some laws more honoured in

> the breach than the observance, as the Danish chap

> said.

>

> How about Glazer Delmar can keep their ad in

> exchange for some pro bono advice for the

> Solomon's Passage residents? Just a thought...

Also, the Brighton example which you offered referred to many bins and covers : this solicitors sign is singular,

and more easily dealt with ha ha ' maniacal laughter '

[rendelharris]

> This was my seemingly tenuous link to the sign

> outside Londis, i.e. : when I asked at reception

> did the company deal with landlord/tenant disputes

> I was told, we work for the landlord. I am also a

> Wandle tenant, but not from Solomon's Passage, at

> my wit's end with them. And then spurned by my

> local solicitors; and despite Steveo's assumption

> that they will work for fiscal reward = ergo, the

> sign has to come down - see my logic and

> reasoning?

Yep and stuff 'em then, I hold no brief for the firm nor their advertisement, and on balance I'd sooner companies were not allowed to plaster the urban environment with hoardings (though perversely I do love the old painted ads on gable ends one still sees here and there). I was just making the more general point that if we don't allow local councils a little discretion and instead expect them to apply the strict letter of the law in every case life would quickly become intolerable.

[James Barber]

Hi sizemore,

If someone did paint or add something else on such an illegal advertisement would that be or not be a criminal act?

It appears council officers won't act unless it causes visual harm.

Someone could have some fun with this...

[DulwichFox]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi sizemore,

> If someone did paint or add something else on such

> an illegal advertisement would that be or not be a

> criminal act?

> It appears council officers won't act unless it

> causes visual harm.

> Someone could have some fun with this...

What are you saying James.. Are you encouraging folk to as you put it .. 'Have some fun' ?

I disapprove of their blatant advertising even though I am a Delmar Glazier client.

DulwichFox

[Sue]

DulwichFox Wrote:

>

> I disapprove of their blatant advertising even

> though I am a Delmar Glazier client.

>

Crikey. They've expanded into glazing?! :))

[sizemore]

James,

One person's visual harm is another person's art I guess :) but yeah I'd much rather see it become a suddenly interesting 'project' that prods both the illegal sign owners and the reluctant powers-that-be into action. It's just a dull sign now and it could be so much more. Penguins, hotdogs etc.

[solar]

Maybe someone viewing this thread will take 'the law' into their own hands. 😉

[Mrs2013]

deleted

[robbin]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi sizemore,

> If someone did paint or add something else on such

> an illegal advertisement would that be or not be a

> criminal act?

> It appears council officers won't act unless it

> causes visual harm.

> Someone could have some fun with this...

James, are you confident that is not an incitement to cause criminal damage? Vandalism of the sign (property belonging to another) would surely amount to criminal damage just as damaging an illegal vehicle parked on the public highway without tax or MOT would be. It's entirely up to you James, but you might want to reflect on that posting (particularly the last sentence!). After all, you are an elected representative and presumably in favour of upholding the law.

[robbin]

To put it another way, the answer may or may not lie in Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 under the heading "lawful excuse". I'm not saying either way, but you might be able to answer your question (about whether it would be illegal) by reading that.

[lpool]

The new Winkworth sign going up today seems to be more unsightly than the Glazer one below. Did this have planning permission James Barber?

[Cora]

I agree and I'm sure this won't be the last one....I agree the first one didn't bother me...but a wall of hoardings like this Winkworth one does....