9' tall pavement advertising hoardings

[James Barber]

Southwark Council has signed a deal with JCDecaux UK Ltd to allow 90 x 2.746m (9foot) tall x 1.472m (4'9") wide free standing pavement advertising hoardings.

The plan is they'll be illuminated 24/7, 6 sheet rotating with the first application for one outside East Dulwich station - 11-AP-3314 - heaven only know what the carbon footprint will be.

If you think this is a great or bad idea please do tell the planning officer [email protected].

[alice]

how much money does southwark get from this deal?

[Sue]

alice Wrote:

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

> how much money does southwark get from this deal?

xxxxxxx

My first thought too.

If they've already signed the contract, is there any point in approaching the planning officer? how many of these are they going to be putting up?

I don't have huge objections to one outside the station (though I might do if I lived opposite it) but I'm not too keen if they're going to be all down Lordship Lane.

[Jeremy]

If it provides a decent income which Southwark can spend on public services, then it sounds like a good idea to me.

[PeckhamRose]

Depends what they advertise. Personally I don't think you can have enough advertising for Kindles or BT Infinity which no-one round here can get even if they wanted it.

[StraferJack]

31st dec for infinity in dulwich apparently. Which is off topic I know but in case PR was interested

[Otta]

It's not like the area outside of East Dulwich Station is one of natural beauty. As has been said, if it generates cash, which can be fed back in to the community, then great.

[DulwichFox]

Southwark Council has signed a deal with JCDecaux UK Ltd to allow 90 x 2.746m (9foot) tall x 1.472m (4'9") wide free standing pavement advertising hoardings.

Was not long ago Southwark Council (not sure which party) was threatening to procecute people

who put up posters on lamp posts for Lost Pets..

Fox

[Loz]

They're all over the bus stop anyway in that area. And there is a full sized billboard on the other side of the street.

Besides, if they can make enough money from advertising, maybe they won't need to put the CPZ in...! B)

[Nero]

I agree with Otta. If that part of SE2@ were a post-mythical Shangri-La of a spot, then I'd object. If Southwark Council can get some money from it, fair enough. As long as they're kept working and not left to rot if the deal goes south it's fine by me.

[Huguenot]

It sounds like one of these:

http://www.jcdecaux.co.uk/assets/static/site_products6sheets_overview_4col.jpg

Councils often swap them with other street furniture - i.e. you get 6 sheets if we get new bus stops.

Might be useful to find out what the quid pro quo is?

[James Barber]

But surely your point Nero is that we should make the area around the station more attractive not give up!

[StraferJack]

It's a railway bridge - I'm not sure I know anywhere which has an area near a railway bridge that's nice. Or even "nicer". It is what it is

And the hoardings are definitely not going to make it worse

[Huguenot]

90 scrolling 6 sheets with four faces each across Southwark.

I reckon they might get 200 quid per 6 sheet 'face' per month in ad revenue - so that's around 900k per year in revenue.

Southwark might get 60% - so that would be around 500k per year, probably netting 10k per year from the location outside ED station.

Quite an important budget contribution.

[James Barber]

From memory JCDecaux will be giving Southwark Council ?80,000 pa.

Sounds a very profitable line of business.

[Huguenot]

That sounds low.

The typical 6 sheet sales period is 2 weeks. i.e. they sell them at 2 weeks at a time. In Southwark that contract says 90 boxes with 4 faces in each - so 360 faces in total.

360 6 sheet faces means that Southwark are only getting 8.50 per face per two weeks.

Typically the sales rate of an 'average' 6 sheet nationslly (e.g could be in a low income suburban town) would be 60 per two weeks.

A premium London 6 sheet should get 100 quid plus per two weeks.

So if I were a premium London council I'd want more than 8.5% of that revenue unless JC Decaux were bringing something else to the table.

[kford]

They sound a bit bigger than six-sheets.

[Penguin68]

Remember that Southwark is just letting out pavement space - out of the weekly rent that JC Decaux are getting must come:

Depreciated cost of equipment, maintenance and cleaning

Cost of putting up and taking down posters

Marketing costs and admin costs, inc. travel to the poster sites (often 30-40% of total costs)

Site Rentals (to Southwark etc.)

So on a revenue per face of ?100 a fortnight Southwark would be picking up 8.5% - with no on-costs etc. I don't think that's bad - when Decaux have to provide and maintain the equipment, sell the advertising space etc. etc. They are, I think, bringing everything to the party save pavement space - already for Southwark a sunk and written down cost.

[Nero]

James, I understand the need to keep unnecessary street furniture (as they say) to a minimum, but as long as the equipment is placed so as not to obstruct pedestrian flow and is kept clear of tagging etc, it doesn't bother me. What does bother me - and you might be able to help - is the inability of the council to remove those plastic-sheathed, yellow planning permission signs that adorn many of our lampposts. If the council puts them up, they should really take them down after the three week period is up. (I remove them once the closing date has passed, when they are often faded and filled with dirty rainwater, like grim, gothic saline bags.)

[DJKillaQueen]

Good point Nero.

I don't have an objection to the hoardings either. They are almost certainly going to be placed where lots of people congregate...i.e. shopping areas, stations and bus stops and won't look out of place at all. And in these times of cuts any private revenue that the council can attract should be seriously considered.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Personally, I hate all these backlit signs and advertising hoardings. Everyone has to be more visually arresting than the next. It's a visually assaulting arms race which has no end game. Light pollution is a serious problem, and as James points out, pretty unsound environmentally.

[DrinkingBuddy]

Sorry, I know this is off topic, but given it was mentioned earlier in the thread, Infinity is already available in ED. I had mine installed about 1 month a go. I get 37Mb.

[James Barber]

Continuing the off topic - all BT Exchanges serving Southwark are due to have inifinity by the end of December.

[computedshorty]

I wonder if the Council think of the area of pavement taken up by these obstuctions to the detriment of the less able pedestians?

The less able using any kind of walking aid has to rely on the able to give space for them to get past. A mobile Bugy or wheel chair needs far more space.

If you put yourself in the place of a BLIND person, approaching the pictured advertising stand you will realise that a Blind person using a stick to probe ahead will pass below the main obstuction and posibly come into contact with a very prominent corner of the board.

I know that any thing placed on a pavement or road belongs to the person or organisation that placed it there, any accident caused by those persons obstuctions are liable by law to compensate the aggrieved.

Has the Council considdered that the financial gain from those who advertise, can be at the detriment of those who will claim for accidents caused?

Yes any claim is settled by the insurers but, but once a claim is proven then the insurer will increase the Policy to include this.

Making you the resident a little more added to your Council Tax.