Planning application for "The Foresters Arms" now known as "The Bishop".

[Chener Books]

James Barber has alerted us to planning application 11-AP-2953 for 25-27 Lordship Lane.

The planning documents use the name "The Foresters Arms". The building has been known as "The Bishop" for some years now.

The application is not yet on the Southwark web-site. James says it is for a 10m x 8m (80 square meters) illuminated advert.

Earlier this year planning application 11/AP/1705 for a 11m x 8m (88 square meters) illuminated advert was rejected.

The attached photo-montage if of the rejected application.

John K

[silverfox]

Is the mock-up to scale John?

[Glutenberg]

That looks bad!

So the new application is a little smaller....but still.

Can't they just put it over Foxtons?

[Sue]

(6)

[StraferJack]

is it that bad really? Doesn't it look like the sort of thing that is on buildings when they are being redeveloped?

Is it worse than scaffolding?

I doubt it's a permanent fixture

[Sue]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

>>

> Is it worse than scaffolding?

>

> I doubt it's a permanent fixture

xxxxxxx

Surely they wouldn't need planning permission if it was temporary. I guess they will make money out of it by renting the site.

And yes, much much worse than scaffolding imo. It's illuminated, ffs (6) Will loom over Lordship Lane like a big looming thing.

[silverfox]

Imagine that with a big golden m on it with the wording "McDonald's only five minutes away in Peckham"

(Then again, imagine a wonderbra ad ...)

[Glutenberg]

Will make the pub look a bit tacky...... imagine a giant illuminated Pampers advert on top of your boozer?!

[AlexC]

I was thinking it would look quite good with a massive "Drink beer here" sign, with a big flashing arrow pointing down towards the door!

[Glutenberg]

... or an advert for EDT?

[Bellenden Belle]

I think it is quite an eyesore but as Lordship Lane becomes more and more commercialised sadly there becomes less of an argument against such things.

Unfortunately as precious as we may be, Lordship Lane isn't a particularly distinctive looking street so there is a harder case for preserving the "character of the area".

[david_carnell]

Whilst Lordship Lane is hardly an aspic-preserved Georgian delight, it is still someway from becoming the generic suburban high street that you'd find in places like Sutton or Bromley.

I don't think you need planning permission for temporary hoarding like this to cover buidling works since it would be incorporated into the original planning application.

If that's the case then I can safely place myself in the "opposed-to" camp. It's a carbuncle and residents would have little say in what it was advertising.

Nein, danke.

[StraferJack]

can we not get it erected over the police station instead?

[katie1997]

Unless its garishly advertising the nearest W------- or the Guardian, then I'm firmly against it ;p

(And I love the faded, shabby charm that is Lordship Lane as it is. Haven't noticed it becoming any more commercialised recently unless I'm missing something.)

[Townleygreen]

I think this proposal is horrible. I am totally against the idea. Unless it is 1m x 1m maybe.

[SaveShambo]

Bl**dy Awful

[ianr]

> Is the mock-up to scale John?

I believe it is. I've downloaded all the documents from the previous application. They're at http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9540494.

The application itself was, though not stated explicitly, from blowUP media UK Ltd, whose corporate website is here. The picture John's uploaded is, I think, the one from their "Design and Access statement". A version of the picture, from the "Photographs and photomontages 2011-07-16" document, with 8m and 11m scale marks, is attached. Remember too that the sign was to be illuminated.

I note that the consultation process invited opinions, apart from the required Statutory and Internal Consultees, from only 34 'neighbours'. If such a sign had gone up there, I'd have thought it, even if temporary, a spoiling and pollution of my neighbourhood, a drastic changing of its character for the worse; and I live half a mile away.

The Design and Access statement [PDF 1,474kB] includes:

"In order to generate revenue to alleviate the cost of the scaffolding for future refurbishment, the owner has entered into a formal agreement with blowUP media to seek the necessary planning consent for the display of advertisement as outlined in the following pages."

...

"Whilst the building is undergoing the refurbishment works, the banner will certainly constitute a great advantage to the visual amenity; it will conceal an unsightly scaffold, add colour and interest to the street scene, and provide information to visitors and passers-by."

Who is the owner of the Forester/Bishop?

[cidered]

Foresters arms? is the bishop no more?

[Sue]

cidered Wrote:

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

> Foresters arms? is the bishop no more?

xxxxxx

The Bishop was previously called the Foresters Arms - and a very vile pub it was too :))

Unless you like the kind of place where you squelch over the squirly carpet and can smell the gents from wherever you're sitting :))

[Alan Medic]

Do you mean the gents toilet Sue or are you sticking with 'gents'?

[Willard]

Temporary measure. Hides ugly scaffolding during refurb. What's the problem nimby's?

[EMR]

How do we go about opposing this planning proposal?

[Loz]

Nimbys are people that want the facility, but not in their 'back yard'. I don't want it, nor would I wish that hideous thing on anyone.

[trizza]

So it appears the purpose of the signage is to hide grotty scaffolding (which is hardly Michelangelo is it) and it's temporary. I really can't see the big issue with this.

Would people support it if Waitrose agreed to advertise on it?

[ibilly99]

http://www.phuckpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/oh_hell_no_cat.jpg