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

[Sue]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> Do you mean the gents toilet Sue or are you

> sticking with 'gents'?

xxxxxxx

Good point :))

Not wishing to upset any former customers of the Foresters, I'll go with the toilet option :))

[Sue]

Are we sure this is just going to be temporary?

And that it will actually disappear once the refurbishment is completed?

If so I'm less inclined to be (6) but I cynically suspect that once people have got used to it being there it could become a permanent feature .....

[StraferJack]

trizza & willard - exactly

it'll be fine and we'll miss it when it's gone* and bitching about how the Foresters under Greene King is rubbish

*well maybe not miss it, but given some of the eyesores in the area it's no big deal

[StraferJack]

" is just going to be temporary? "

can someone show me somewhere in London that has something like that permanently?? I'd say it's temporary

[david_carnell]

to alleviate the cost of the scaffolding for future refurbishment

This is pseduo-bollocks. It's to make money. Let's be honest about it shall we rather than obsfuscate with mealy mouthed phrases like this.

And I'm all for covering scaffolding whilst building works are taking place. Why it can't be a plain coloured board or sheet is the question?

I have enough advertising everywhere as it is, I don't want to encourage more of it just because it's temporary. It's a ruddy eyesore.

[Willard]

Loz Wrote:

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

> 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.

No, Nimbys are people who don't want the facility, especially NOT in their 'back yard', ie neighbourhood, community.

People getting all hot under the collar about temporary advertising on temporary scaffolding? Pretty sad in my book.

You need to have some sort of safety mesh over the scaffold anyway because its on the main road, who gives a f**k what colour it is or what's written on it. It's temporary, while the scaffold is there. Get some perspective people.

[Sue]

Willard Wrote:

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

> You need to have some sort of safety mesh over the

> scaffold anyway because its on the main road, who

> gives a f**k what colour it is or what's written

> on it. It's temporary, while the scaffold is

> there. Get some perspective people.

xxxxxxxxx

Well I care.

Safety mesh is a totally different thing to some huge and hideous advertising billboard on two sides of a prominent building in East Dulwich's main street.

As somebody already said, we're surrounded by enough f*****g advertising in public places already.

And we don't as yet know how "temporary" it will be.

[Willard]

Sue, it will be up as long as the scaffolding is up, ie as short a time as possible as scaffolding is not cheap.

How about a nice Abercrombie ad campaign for you?

Possible Billboard?

[Sue]

Blimey :))

[Willard]

;-)

[PipD]

How about using it to name and shame, like this?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23981237-cctv-images-of-riot-yobs-beamed-onto-giant-screen.do

Could include suspicious people on buses, noisy cats, urinating footballers....

Btw I?m not being serious before anyone sends this to the Guardian ;-)

[katie1997]

trizza Wrote:

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

> 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?

I bloody well hope not!! *cringe*

[Loz]

Just looked the application up on the Southwark site - the application was refused.

Good.

[ratty]

It's fooking horrible. But then so is the Bishop, so they kind of deserve each other!

[AlexC]

ratty Wrote:

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

> It's fooking horrible. But then so is the Bishop,

> so they kind of deserve each other!

What, pray tell, is wrong with the Bishop?

[James Barber]

If you have a view tell council planning officers.

I have to remain neutral If I'm to sit on the planning committee that will decide this application. I have asked for it to be called in so that if officers were minded to grant permission under their delegated powers it will be decided by local councillors.

But the more people that express a view to council officials as given in the original post the more material the committee will have to consider.

[david_carnell]

James

Whilst remaining neutral, could you give a method of doing so. Is it possible without the planning application being online yet?

Thanks

David

[ratty]

AlexC Wrote:

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

> ratty Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It's fooking horrible. But then so is the

> Bishop,

> > so they kind of deserve each other!

>

> What, pray tell, is wrong with the Bishop?

It's just not for me. Don't like the beer, don't like the clientelle most of the time, really don't like the prices. I just really like Neil but that's about it!

Oh and I don;t like draft wine!

[StraferJack]

did everyone see loz's post?

"Just looked the application up on the Southwark site - the application was refused."

[david_carnell]

I think that was the original application rather than the new one, no?

[ironjawcannon]

Hideous!

[ianr]

There's no point in doing anything until the application and associated papers are on-line. There'll then be a period of at least three weeks for making written representations, after careful consideration and, I hope, discussion: it's important to think carefully about the factors which the planning department can, or can not, take into account.

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> I think that was the original application rather

> than the new one, no?

Damn - DC is correct. The old one, 11/AP/1705 was rejected. The new one, 11-AP-2953, is not yet on the Southwark planning site.

Back to the barricades, people...

[kford]

How about something like this:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=cool+billboard&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1255&bih=635&tbm=isch&tbnid=FLj2dx6nWDelXM:&imgrefurl=http://www.unfinishedman.com/worlds-most-creative-advertisements-and-billboards/&docid=HsGclg6zmIoVbM&w=500&h=664&ei=tWN7TvP1AfD54QTHwZm9Dw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=182&page=3&tbnh=159&tbnw=112&start=34&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:34&tx=50&ty=50

[david_carnell]

Loz Wrote:

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

> david_carnell Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I think that was the original application

> rather

> > than the new one, no?

>

> Damn - DC is correct. The old one, 11/AP/1705 was

> rejected. The new one, 11-AP-2953, is not yet on

> the Southwark planning site.

>

> Back to the barricades, people...

The definition of a pyrrhic victory.