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

[James Barber]

The Planning Application for a "temporary" 10m x 7m (32.5' x 22.75') advertising hoarding (for 1 year) comes before the Dulwich Community Council Planning committee this Thursday 24 November at 7pm - which will be at St.Barnabas Church (The Lounge), 40 Calton Avenue, SE21 7DG.

IF you think such a large advertising hoarding facing SW is a good or bad idea do come along and tell councillors why they should grant or refuse this application.

The report is on page 57 of this report -

And you can view the scheme at - 11-AP-2953

The applicant is effectively Greene King who own this pub (via Capital Pubs) and 2,000+ other pubs.

[Otta]

Like the way you've made clear it's the big corporate machine there.

[James Barber]

Hi Otta,

I have a big appreciation of Greene King having drunk many a pint of Green King IPA and Abbott as a teenager.

But I do think it an important issue whether residents want a 10m x 7m advertising hoarding on Lordship Lane - and temporary has a risk...

[Otta]

I agree, it just made me laugh that's all.

Part of me wants to see it, just out of twisted curiosity. I do think it will look really bad though.

[Sue]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The Planning Application for a "temporary" 10m x

> 7m (32.5' x 22.75') advertising hoarding (for 1

> year) comes before the Dulwich Community Council

> Planning committee this Thursday 24 November at

> 7pm - which will be at St.Barnabas Church (The

> Lounge), 40 Calton Avenue, SE21 7DG.

>

xxxxxxx

I would have liked to have come to this meeting (and objected to the hoarding) but unfortunately I've got a prior commitment. Is there any way I can put my views to the planning committee by email?

[James Barber]

Hi sue,

Yes, you can whatever your view - for or against.

If you email the planning officer [email protected] and copy the planning officer most likely to present the officer report on the night [email protected]. Plus worth copying the chair person [email protected].

[Sue]

Thanks James, I will do that now.

[DaveR]

Having had a look at the docs it is apparent that the plan that is now being considered is for a hoarding without lights, and with a surround that reproduces the facade of the building. The recommendation is that permission is granted for 12 months only.

One question I would have for the applicant is what they intend to do if the application is refused i.e. would you cover the scaffolding with something especially ugly (out of spite) or not cover it at all, or cover the whole lot with something that matches the facade of the building (which clearly could be done and would be the most aesthetically pleasing outcome IMHO)

[Sue]

I have just scanned through those documents, and I see that the application is recommended for approval, as follows:

"The proposed non-illuminated advertisement will be for a temporary 12 month period only, and is not considered to create material harm to the amenity of the host building or the wider streetscene. It is considered that the amended scheme has overcome the previous reason for refusal.

The proposal would therefore not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and accordingly the application is recommended for approval on this basis."

I don't understand, if it is not to be illuminated, why the documents contain a description of and pictures of proposed lighting, nor why there is a reference to "no moving components or flashing lights?

[Sue]

DaveR Wrote:

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

or cover the whole lot with

> something that matches the facade of the building

> (which clearly could be done and would be the most

> aesthetically pleasing outcome IMHO)

xxxxxxx

Yes agreed, they do that with houses on the Grand Canal in Venice, not that Lordship Lane is quite in the same league :))

I have just sent the following email to Fennel Mason, copying in as suggested by James. Incidentally, I notice there are only three responses from residents given in the documentation - I would have thought they would have had more objections than that!

Dear Fennel

Due to a prior commitment I am unfortunately unable to attend the Dulwich Community Council Planning Committee meeting on Thursday 24 November.

I would like to object to the proposal to erect a large advertisement on the side of the Bishop pub in Lordship Lane during renovation works.

As Southwark's Core Strategy states, Lordship Lane is a very attractive place to visit and shop. It also says "We will continue to protect the interesting character of this popular street."

Lordship Lane is presently relatively free of large-scale advertising, which is part of what gives it this "interesting character". Such a large and intrusive hoarding, in such a prominent location on Lordship Lane, will in my view considerably detract from that character, as well as being a distraction to drivers (particularly those coming down East Dulwich Grove, as the pub is virtually opposite its junction with Lordship Lane).

I recognise that the advertisement will no longer be illuminated (though rather puzzled that the documentation still includes a description of lighting) but am still of the opinion that an advertisement of this size is detrimental to the character of the area.

I also recognise that the proposal is for a temporary 12-month period, but am concerned that this could be the thin end of the wedge to the advertisement becoming a permanent fixture after the 12 months have elapsed. I am also concerned that it could set a precedent for similar large advertisements elsewhere on Lordship Lane, again to the considerable detriment of the area's character.

I have owned a house in East Dulwich for twenty years, and my address is xxxxxxxxxxxxx should you need to check that I am a genuine resident.

Yours sincerely

Sue xxxxxxxxxx

ETA: Those last crosses are where my surname was, not kisses :))

[James Barber]

The original application was for an 11m x 8m hoarding illuminated from the back.

I understand that this application is for 10m x 7m hoarding lit from above and slightly out with 400w halogen spotlights.

Hope that helps clarify things.

[DaveR]

The docs on Southwark's website are a bit confusing

The application is clearly the original application (it is dated in May) that appears to have been re-submitted in September. It is for an illuminated hoarding 11m x 8m.

The Officer's Report refers to an application for a 10m x 7m non-illuminated hoarding, but there is not a copy of the application there.

The original application was for external illumination, so I think James B above may be mistaken.

[Marmora Man]

Relax everyone - it's temporary and will, temporarily, add interest to a blank wall area. Why worry - don't sweat the small stuff! I hate "thin end of the wedge" arguments - they're tend to be petty, NIMBY or just plain daft.

[Sue]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> add interest to a blank wall area.

>

xxxxxx

Well, that's one way of looking at it :)

The other way is that it will make shopping in Lordship Lane just that bit less pleasant for those of us who don't like huge adverts for stuff (probably) completely unconnected with East Dulwich in our faces as we walk down the road :)

[Marmora Man]

Sue - come on. It's not going to tun Lordship Lane into downtown Tokyo is it?

[Sue]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> Sue - come on. It's not going to tun Lordship Lane

> into downtown Tokyo is it?

xxxxxx

Obviously not :))

But that's not really the point, is it?

But each to their own - I just care about the environment I live in, hence my concern at the hideous blue bins, but I can understand that other people think that a hoarding and bins are minor issues in the great scheme of things.

[Willard]

I got 99 problems but a bin ain't one.

[Sue]

Willard Wrote:

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

> I got 99 problems but a bin ain't one.

xxxxxxx

Depends on your definition of a problem, I suppose.

I wouldn't call a bin a problem either :)

[Willard]

twas supposed to be a joke Sue...(sigh, eyes roll upwards)

and yes agree with point about bins, they look bobbins, I got rid of mine.(but that's another thread)

As for hoarding, been through this before, not that bothered as it will be temporary, or as James Barber would say "temporary".

[Sue]

Willard Wrote:

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

> twas supposed to be a joke Sue...(sigh, eyes roll

> upwards)

>

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sorry, duh :-$:-$:-$

I do tend to take things literally.

Keep rolling those eyes :)

[James Barber]

Last night this advertisement consent was refused. I spoke against it as a ward councillor.

it did strike me as rather odd that a pub chain such as Greene King would need 12 months to refurbish a pub. They must have it down to a fine art with dozens of their 2,000+ pubs being refurbished at any one time.

[esme]

I complained when The Harvester put up some hideous illuminated signs a few years ago, alongside their early bird posters everywhere and they were forced to take the illuminated signs down and replace with nice wooden ones.

To be honest I find the shade of green of Green & Blue more offensive than the Foxtons sign :)

[Sue]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Last night this advertisement consent was refused.

xxxxxxxx

Excellent! Thanks for letting us know, James.