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

[karter]

I bought a commercial property a few years ago with an advertising board by Maiden on the side of the building. It caused structural problems and was a friggin nightmare to get rid of because of the contract. If this goes ahead on The Bishop it will be temporary as Sjack says as it will be on the scaffolding. If the advertising banner is safe and protecting people from falling building materials then i have no objections to it. Long as it doesn't distract drivers. That spot is dangerous enough.:)-D

[Loz]

Willard Wrote:

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

> maxxi Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Would this really have looked better covered with ads?

>

> Would it have looked any worse?

Yes.

[DulwichFox]

The Advertising hoarding is for 'ICELAND's' :))

[Jeremy]

Scaffolding looks awful anyway, I really don't see how this would make it look any worse. There are things in life worth fighting for, but I'm surprised anyone thinks this is one of them.

[Willard]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Scaffolding looks awful anyway, I really don't see

> how this would make it look any worse. There are

> things in life worth fighting for, but I'm

> surprised anyone thinks this is one of them.

At last. Thank you Karter and Jeremy, can't believe how worked up people are getting over some scaffolding. Weeping Jesus...

[Sue]

Willard Wrote:

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

> At last. Thank you Karter and Jeremy, can't

> believe how worked up people are getting over some

> scaffolding. Weeping Jesus...

xxxxxx

I don't think anybody's getting "worked up over some scaffolding".

I think a number of people are objecting to a large and hideous illuminated advertising billboard on two sides of a building in a prominent position in Lordship Lane.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[rbrtdngl]

I think that sounds about right!

[Loz]

Willard Wrote:

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

> Jeremy Wrote:

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

> > Scaffolding looks awful anyway, I really don't see how this would make it look any worse. There are

> > things in life worth fighting for, but I'm surprised anyone thinks this is one of them.

> At last. Thank you Karter and Jeremy, can't believe how worked up people are getting over some

> scaffolding. Weeping Jesus...

But you seem to be equally worked up, Willard. You just happen to be worked up in favour of it. Now Jeremy can question us getting worked up against the advertising hoarding, but who on earth gets worked up in favour of advertising hoarding??

[katie1997]

Loz, you forgot to add 'Weeping Jesus....'

[DJKillaQueen]

I think the only opposition that is likely to be effective is that which can prove an 'unsuitability' for the site of the hoarding. A hoarding in itself is not physically detrimental to a building and a temporary one is unlikely to succeed with complaints of 'spoiling view'. I would personally do some research. Demonstrate that hoardings are not common in the area and where they do exist look at the reasons why those locations were considered suitable and draw upon differences on the positions of those hoardings and this application.

James...be careful of posting on a thread where you sit on the planning committee. That in itself is a conflict of interest.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> James...be careful of posting on a thread where

> you sit on the planning committee. That in itself

> is a conflict of interest.

xxxxxxx

That's why he was careful to point out that he couldn't express an opinion

[DJKillaQueen]

But he did though.....

'The revenue from such a position may be sufficient. For the scaffolding to remain for some considerable time. Also it might set a precidence for a permanent hoarding'

...could be argued to be coaching the opposition. That comment would be enough to get him in hot water if the applicants complain on the grounds of undue influence.

[Sue]

I took that as just stating facts, not taking a position.

[Willard]

I'm not worked up or in favour of advertising hoardings. The "weeping Jesus" sign off from my previous post was meant as tongue in cheek, but fair enough you can't always judge tone on a forum.

What I am in favour of is the right of a business to subsidise it's building costs by putting up an advert on it's scaffolding, providing it doesn't interfere with the quality of life of individuals or other businesses. For the record, I don't drink in the Bishop and I don't know the owner.

As DJKQ has pointed out, a temporary hoarding is not physically detrimental to a building. A temporary hoarding is also not detrimental to the look of temporary scaffolding. Saying you don't think it will look nice isn't going to cut the mustard with the council. If it's not doing any harm, and it saves someone a few quid, and it creates work for a design team, creates work for the company that prints it, creates work for the guy who puts it up, good luck to them.

Some people are arguing that we are bombarded with advertising left, right and centre. Let's not forget that this website supports itself with advertsing. No one seems to be complaining about that.

[Loz]

I'd have more sympathy if it was not illuminated. That would make it more the same as normal scaffolding.

There is nothing wrong with advertising, but it shouldn't be intrusive. The EDF is a good example - the advertising is there, but it blends in with the environment. This hoarding will stick out like a well-lit sore thumb.

[DaveR]

"What I am in favour of is the right of a business to subsidise it's building costs by putting up an advert on it's scaffolding, providing it doesn't interfere with the quality of life of individuals or other businesses"

This is kind of meaningless - the whole point of the planning process is to identify when a proposed change interferes with quality of life of people in the neighbourhood (at least as perceived by the local authority in its local plan) and then decide whether, on balance, it should go ahead.

"Saying you don't think it will look nice isn't going to cut the mustard with the council"

This isn't true either. Southwark's strategy for Lordship Lane is to 'protect the interesting character' and 'attractive shopfronts' - see the relevant doc here:

Southwark core strategy

In fact, the only basis on which to assess it is visual impact - there is no commercial or other benefit to the community, although there obviously is to the business. FWIW I can see that regular advertising hoardings might look better than scaffolding, but I'd rather have scaffolding than a massive illuminated billboard. Just my view, but it's no less valid than any other I reckon.

[Sue]

Thanks for that, DaveR, that's very interesting information, particularly the bit about Southwark's strategy for Lordship Lane.

[Chener Books]

Willard Wrote:

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

> >

> Saying you don't think it will look nice isn't going to cut the mustard with the council.

So you didn't read the council's grounds for rejecting the first application.

John K

[Loz]

Interestingly, the first application was for an illuminated hoarding measuring 11m x 8m. This was dismissed on the grounds of "appearance, scale, height, location and illumination would result in an incongruous and obtrusive element within the street-scene, and have a materially harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area."

The new application is for an illuminated hoarding measuring 10m x 7m. That they could even consider the new proposal to be materially different to the first application seems unlikely.

[Sue]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Interestingly, the first application was for an

> illuminated hoarding measuring 11m x 8m. This was

> dismissed on the grounds of "appearance, scale,

> height, location and illumination would result in

> an incongruous and obtrusive element within the

> street-scene, and have a materially harmful effect

> on the visual amenity of the area."

>

> The new application is for an illuminated hoarding

> measuring 10m x 7m. That they could even consider

> the new proposal to be materially different to the

> first application seems unlikely.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Very refreshing to read that somebody at the council has some sense, and hopefully yes, the new proposal will be rejected on the same grounds as the first application.

Fingers crossed.

[Jeremy]

Willard Wrote:

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

> What I am in favour of is the right of a business

> to subsidise it's building costs by putting up an

> advert on it's scaffolding

While I am not opposed to the advertising (as previously stated), I don't think we should twist this by saying that they are subsidising their costs. They are a profitable business, I'm sure they are already more than able to cover the costs of whatever work they are doing - be it maintainence or development. This is about making money. But then, that's what all businesses do (or at least try to do).

[maria]

I live a few doors down a d haven't received any info on this. Thanks for flagging this. I guess it does depend on how long the proposed refurb takes place. Scott who owns the bishop uses the forum so I am sure will soon comment on this?

[Bellenden Belle]

The Bishop has recently been sold to Greene King Pubs as part of the Capital chain so Scott may not wish to comment - I imagine it depends on what involvement he continues to have.

[Marmora Man]

This is going to be temporary.

Scaffolding generally looks awful.

A little colour and, I hope, humour from a temporary advertising hoarding will add to the gaiety of life.

For the moaners and whingers - give over, far worse happens at sea.

[Chener Books]

The revised documents are now on Southwark's web-site.

No application yet, although one may not be required, for the works to the building that require this scaffolding.

John K