Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Environment alert! Southwark Council are allowing JC deCaux (huge street advertising company) to erect stand alone 3m x1m illuminated advertising panels for a term of 5 years on sites all over Southwark. Each one has to be presented on the council's website planning pages. Then everyone has an opportunity to check them out. I noticed one was proposed for the pavement opposite Nigel Rd, made it known to others in the area, we sent in objections and it was refused. However, another one proposed for outside 24 Peckham Rye,(Lane)next to Nigel Rd has now appeared. If you care about the environment, please go to Southwark Council website (Planning Register)and look at the proposal, ref. no. 11-AP-4185, or phone planning officer Amy Lester 02075255452 for details. If you agree with me that it's unnecessary, ugly and inappropriate for this site, please object! The consultation deadline is 11th February. Where might the next one be...?


Correction: the proposed panel is in fact outside the Halifax Building Society at 24 Rye Lane. Where the council has recently improved the road and pavements. A panel there is still unnecessary, unattractive and in the way.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/21762-100-advertising-panels/
Share on other sites

I think this is about aesthetic pollution, not physical pollution. The government doesn't have any taste, nor do they require local authorities to have any. [This is outwith planning issues covering listed or otherwise protected areas, where it is not so much an issue of taste as of fixed rules about preservation of an area's style, however tasteful or not it is.]
Unfortunately, when local authorties are having their budgets cut they have to go to other forms of money making. This will be bringing in money which they need. I'm not saying they should all be allowed, and location is everything, but personally I think an advertisment stand along Rye Lane (a commerical shopping street) is not a massive problem.

Cardiffgirl Wrote:

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

> Unfortunately, when local authorties are having

> their budgets cut they have to go to other forms

> of money making. This will be bringing in money

> which they need. I'm not saying they should all be

> allowed, and location is everything, but

> personally I think an advertisment stand along Rye

> Lane (a commerical shopping street) is not a

> massive problem.



Putting one of these signs on the pavement immediately outside of a row of Georgian houses might be offensive to some (I'd be screaming) but on Rye Lane I'm hard pressed to see how they could bring down the tone. Something shiny and modern might actually suggest a potential for economic recovery.

It maybe a commercial shopping street to you, but it's home to me and the op


We work hard on what happens around us in Co-op house.



Wrote:

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

> Unfortunately, when local authorties are having

> their budgets cut they have to go to other forms

> of money making. This will be bringing in money

> which they need. I'm not saying they should all be

> allowed, and location is everything, but

> personally I think an advertisment stand along Rye

> Lane (a commerical shopping street) is not a

> massive problem.

From memory the 100 x9' advertising things will bring in collectively ?80,000 per annum.

Othe forumites in the trade have stted to me that this represents a fraction of the income.


So I object to them aesthetically but it also appears rubbish deal for Southwark.

Agreed. Just because Rye Lane is less than aesthetically pleasing in places doesn't mean we should actively make it worse. We should be constantly looking for opportunities to improve aesthetics.


There is far too much pointless street furniture in Britain's towns and cities, and certainly too much advertising relentlessly bombarding us.


James - any ideas on how this can be tackled effectively beyond large amounts of cemtex?

Yes - I understand Rye Lane for some is their home and of course you want to keep it nice. However, when determining whether an advertisment stand is acceptable you have to look at the character of the site as a whole. Rye Lane is a commercial street characterised by illuminated signs. It would be a difficult argument to say that the proposed signs are inappropriate to the charcater and appearance of the area?


I imagine each proposal will be considered on its merit - and apologies for what may have seemed like a flippant comment but I personally do not think that the character of Rye Lane will be made worse for the installation of an advertisment sign.


?80,000 may not be much in the context of Southwark Council's budget as a whole, however, every little helps surely?

If you read English Heritage's report, you will see that Rye Lane has both historic and architectural merit.


I would hope that, rather than continue to desecrate this street with yet more lumionous monstrosities advertising pointless geegaws that no one needs, the council would begin to look at restoring the Lane to its former glories.


A journey of a 1000 miles begins by stopping these hideous neon disfigurements.


Why does everything have to be so god damn ugly all the time?

The proposed redevelopment of the Peckham Rye Station seems on the order of what transformed Herne Hill so full marks there.

I'm not sure a few lit hoardings are going to make or break an area.

Not getting a good deal... not having any idea how to research and negotiate professionally not knowing how to make timely linked up decisions that minimize waste and maximize output (I'm sure Southwark is not unique but we live here) this observation of the council appointments and decision making and decision makers (irregardless of party in power I'd hazard a quess) must change now.

Cardiffgirl Wrote:

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

> ?80,000 may not be much in the context of Southwark Council's budget as a whole, however,

> every little helps surely?


It would just about pay for the next dodgy CPZ consultation!!


(sorry... couldn't help myself)

It's not in Rye Lane. There is some confusion in the planning register too- It's called 'Peckham Rye.' Written on the wall above the parade of shops next to the White Horse pub and Nigel Rd. It's where the road opens out towards Rye Common, and has recently had extraneous street furniture removed from it, road improvements, and conservation area status conferred.

We are trying to improve it, not extend the brash commerce of Rye Lane proper.

Are we really becoming so immune to in your face advertising like this that we don't care if it's there or not, never mind where it's put? Aren't bus shelters and massive sides of buildings enough?

I find the whole principle of these panels an affront.


Correction: The different names plus an error on google maps (the photo is not of 24 Rye Lane) led to the assumption that the panel would be placed as described above; however, it will be in Rye Lane outside the Halifax Building Society. Where council money has improved pavements and roads recently.

It would still be clutter, unnecessary, in the way and could be a screen as there is a cash dispenser there.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Agreed.



Peckham and Peckham rye are awfull places anyway. I'm sure if it was big posters offering parent and toddler coffee mornings there would be no obstruction by the typical easy Dulwich resident.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Agreed.



Peckham and Peckham rye are awfull places anyway. I'm sure if it was big posters offering parent and toddler coffee mornings there would be no obstruction by the typical easy Dulwich resident.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I don’t think Reform will withstand the heat of any election.  Finding enough people to stand will be bad enough. Finding credible ones quite a bid tougher  I think yes this government is lacking in a long term plan and has not had a good first year. Today the least.   but the speed with which this was dealt with is a notable shift compared to last 14 years where months would drag by and we would constantly be told to draw a line under  if Labour called an election tomorrow, there is not a single party that could present a better alternative with any credibility. And that’s a low bar Reform are dangerous lunatics but more worrying is the descent of the Tories into the same swamp i also worry that England voters have contracted some melodrama virus after the Tories where we had 5 PMs in almost as many years  it’s ok for governments to be unpopular without needing to have an election every 1-2 years      
    • Well, I made £50 out of it and Alice owes me another bullseye, so I had a good day Clearly the thread has moved on, but just a final few words on Rayner (from me, at least). If she hadn't gone like this (with a chance to revive her career at some point in the future) there's plenty of other stuff loaded up and ready to be fired at her about the motivation, finances and machinations of her move down South. It's not pretty reading. Tawdry doesn't come close. I was born in Ashton Hospital and grew up in Tameside, I've got a lot of friends and family who weren't as lucky as me and didn't make it out, some close to her constituency party, and there's been a lot of bad feeling around 'Our Ange' for a long time. My favourite quote was: 'She should fuck off back to Stockport.' And that was from a party member. The writing was on the wall for her. Moving from Ashton (majority c6.5k, large Pakistani minority, but predominantly white working class and targeted by both the Independent Alliance and Reform) to Hove (majority c20k, neither of these issues with the electorate) was a pretty cynical move, and she's fucked it royally. 'The Honourable Member for Hove and Portslade' will be sleeping a lot easier in their bed tonight. This thread was never supposed to about Labour bashing, and I'm not sure it is. It's definitely descended into 'Whataboutery', and that seems to be the problem, in my mind at least, with British politics. It's playground stuff, he said/she said, blame-game bollocks. Watch PMQs and ask yourself if you'd accept this sort of behaviour amongst toddlers, let alone in an elected parliament. One thing that does stand out is the opposition to Reform across the board, and yet we seem to be sleepwalking towards a likely scenario where Farage could head up a minority Reform government. I've 'followed' politics since the late Seventies - mainly because the BBC News came on right after 'Roobard and Custard' or 'The Magic Roundabout' - and I can't remember an era where both major parties are so bereft of leadership, direction or ideas. There's a certain irony that we'll all be getting a test text on Sunday to warn us of an impending 'National Emergency'. Seems quite prescient.
    • But not old enough to remember the highest unemployment rate, inflation and interest rates in history in the early eighties under the Tories? A rather selective memory you have. There has never been a four-day week: it was a three-day week imposed by the Conservative government under the Blasted Heath.
    • I see that there was a government consultation started in July 2024, a response, and then a revision to the National Planning Policy Framework, and then to the Green Belt guidance in February 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt .  It includes the updates but doesn't give the nescient much clue of what was materially changed. There will probably be some good, and less good, summaries to be found. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...