# Huge billboard goes up on Coldharbour Lane without planning permission and  car wash shenanigans



## editor (Feb 11, 2011)

There appears to be a hefty billboard being constructed on Coldharbour Lane outside the Barrier Block, but there hasn't been any of the usual planning notices pinned up anywhere. 

Don't they need to do that first?

They may as well affix a 'Gentleman's Toilet' sign to it too because that's exactly what it's going to be used for for the day drinkers/betting shop/My Fathers Place clientèle.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 15, 2011)

I think you do need planning permission. Might check it up if have time.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> I think you do need planning permission. Might check it up if have time.


At the moment it's still a rather peculiar random selection of steel girders at rather unusual angles, but the workman said that it was going to be a billboard.

They got rid of the last one because people were using the space under it for nefarious activity/toilet and this looks in an even more stupid location.


----------



## colacubes (Feb 15, 2011)

editor said:


> At the moment it's still a rather peculiar random selection of steel girders at rather unusual angles, but the workman said that it was going to be a billboard.
> 
> They got rid of the last one because people were using the space under it for nefarious activity/toilet and this looks in an even more stupid location.



I'd call the council.  They put a massive one up above Iceland a few years back which I think was taken down due to a lack of planning permission.  It certainly was put on the advertising version of the naughty step for some reason!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 16, 2011)

Lambeth Council got done for this kind of thing a few years ago....they stuck a big dot matrix display board on the side of the Town Hall.....
a) No planning permish
b) Listed building


----------



## Voley (Feb 16, 2011)

Ah, Lambeth Council. They're really quite special aren't they?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 16, 2011)

Very.


----------



## Voley (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm wondering if that dot matrix thingy that fell foul of the planning laws was on the very building that housed the planning department. That'd be Lambeth's style.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2011)

I couldn't get through to the planning department (10 mins on hold was enough), but I've posted up a piece that will hopefully get some attention.

http://www.urban75.org/blog/coldharbour-lane-brixton-sw9-big-ugly-billboard-goes-up-is-it-legal/


----------



## Kanda (Feb 17, 2011)

My old flatmates actually got off the sofa and donned the hiviz jackets and done this yesterday lunchtime:






Simple, silly, but made me laugh. It's at top of Brixton Hill.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 17, 2011)

I almost want it to be an advert for Starbucks to see the reaction


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I almost want it to be an advert for Starbucks to see the reaction


----------



## Badgers (Feb 17, 2011)

Calmer than I expected


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2011)

It's 100% planning permission free.


----------



## longdog (Feb 17, 2011)

I used to work in outdoor advertising and it was standard procedure to erect hoardings _without_ planning permission. The thinking behind it was that if there were objections the company would apply for permission, appeal the almost inevitable refusal and wait until the very last minute before complying with the enforcement notice and removing the hoarding for reuse elsewhere (most of the hoarding is reusable and as you will have seen they're quite quick to erect). By dragging their heels as much as possible they could probably get a year of 'sales' out of the site and a 48 sheet hoarding in a good location is quite lucrative.

What caused us the most problems was vandalism. There's a good chance the advertising agency that books the site will inspect the site every so often and if the advert has been subverted or just plain vandalised the owner of the hoarding has two choices... Re-post the advert or forego that month's fee. Either way costs them money.

Not that I'm suggesting you get out there with the paint and 4" brush of course


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2011)

This is the size of the beast:






In my world, illegal billboards would immediately become the property of the community who could choose to either demolish it or deface it as they chose, just for the lolz.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 17, 2011)

You don't even need a ladder to criminally damage that one.

What's the betting it gets an advert for the Samaritans or something.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2011)

It won't be a lot of fun for the people living directly opposite to have that billboard in their face 24/7.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 17, 2011)

I hope it's for The Guardian lol. or some smartphone stuff. Lol.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2011)

How hard are they to pull down?


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> I hope it's for The Guardian lol. or some smartphone stuff. Lol.


Why's that funny?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2011)

editor said:
			
		

> Why's that funny?


 
Because it would show you and all your Brixton friends up as liberals. Why else?


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Because it would show you and all your Brixton friends up as liberals. Why else?


I don't care what's on the billboard. I just want shot of the fucking ugly, intrusive thing.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 17, 2011)

Perhaps it's going to publicise that new Spearmint Rhino coming to Brixton!


----------



## TruXta (Feb 17, 2011)

Fap fap fap. Take your one-man circle-jerk elsewhere please with sugar on top?


----------



## RaverDrew (Feb 17, 2011)

My guess is a happy-clappy Christian Ministry offering miracles, healing and deliverance.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Perhaps it's going to publicise that new Spearmint Rhino coming to Brixton!


Your weak, unfunny, Grade Z trolling is making you look like a tired, flabby, out of shape boxer who should have retired for good years ago. 

A condition of you returning here was that you'd stop trolling and contribute something meaningful, but all we're getting is the same waaaaay-past-its-sell-by-date tosh about beans, racist and liberals and all the other stuff that no one else gives a fuck about any more.

I've actually bothered to defend you against the mods who wanted you kicked off ages ago but even I have my limits.

So here's how it's going to be. From now on, you keep out of the Brixton forum and if you start up any more of your painfully outdated and pointlessly disruptive antics on any other forum, then I'm afraid your time here is permanently over.

If you wish to discuss any aspect of this post, take it to the feedback forum. *Any further posts in the Brixton forum will result in a ban.*


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 17, 2011)

You could ask this guy from the top of Brixton Hill to make a contribution.













> A big empty billboard next to a busy road. What more could one ask for to lift the spirits on a dark and grey morning? After a bit of manic brainstorming and stencil cutting we had everything ready to rock. I was convinced that time was of the essence and that the boards would probably have new adverts on by the time we got back to them but it would appear the Gods were on our side. We donned our hi-vis jackets and set to work. I think this probably sums up the struggle to get out during the winter months when it's really just not as fun as summer time...
> 
> Payment (of sorts) came via the loud cackling laughter we received from a car waiting at the lights behind us when we took the stencil down. It's things like that make it all worth while!
> 
> ...


----------



## Kanda (Feb 18, 2011)

Yup, posted that earlier, my old flatmates


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2011)

Don't get it.


----------



## Kanda (Feb 18, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Don't get it.


 
The billboard on Brixton Hill?


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2011)

Yeah.

oh wait is it the bit about getting out of the house in winter. ok.


----------



## Kanda (Feb 18, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Yeah.
> 
> oh wait is it the bit about getting out of the house in winter. ok.


 
They can be lazy fuckers. Possibly a bit of an in joke as a lot of people up this way would get it.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2011)

so can I.  sofa always wins.


----------



## Kanda (Feb 18, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> so can I.  sofa always wins.


 
You work for a living and take a salary.. they 'do their art' for a living.....  sofa = bad


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Feb 18, 2011)

Just looking at this site on GoogleStreetView (which can be misleading). Is there not room for a row of houses in front of the barrier block?


----------



## editor (Feb 18, 2011)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Just looking at this site on GoogleStreetView (which can be misleading). Is there not room for a row of houses in front of the barrier block?


If they fancy being built on contaminated ex-petrol station land and have the Barrier Block looming up right behind them, yes. A park would be nicer.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Feb 18, 2011)

editor said:


> If they fancy being built on contaminated ex-petrol station land and have the Barrier Block looming up right behind them, yes. A park would be nicer.


 
You live there and I don't, but would a park not get filled with the same people who are going to piss up the billboard? 

Contaminated land is an issue for sure, but if it can't be cleaned up for housing it certainly won't be any good for a park surely?


----------



## RaverDrew (Feb 18, 2011)

editor said:


> If they fancy being built on contaminated ex-petrol station land and have the Barrier Block looming up right behind them, yes. A park would be nicer.


 
A vegan cup cake shop would really brighten up the area I reckon.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 19, 2011)

editor said:


> *Any further posts in the Brixton forum will result in a ban.*



Not before time. I've got no problem with Ern in the rest of the boards, but he only comes into the Brixton forum to troll. He should have been banned from here ages ago.


----------



## RaverDrew (Feb 19, 2011)

nimby thread


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 19, 2011)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> You live there and I don't, but would a park not get filled with the same people who are going to piss up the billboard?
> 
> Contaminated land is an issue for sure, but if it can't be cleaned up for housing it certainly won't be any good for a park surely?



There were proposal to build housing there by Housing Association. They went bust. 

There is a case to be had that building there to replace the demolished street shops and housing would improve that corner of CHL. It would replace the streetscape that was demolished.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 19, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> nimby thread


 
Its not nimby imo to complain about businesses sticking two fingers up at local communities to make a profit.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 19, 2011)

Are billboards flammable?


----------



## RaverDrew (Feb 20, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Its not nimby imo to complain about businesses sticking two fingers up at local communities to make a profit.


 
Banning ern from the Brixton forum is similar to the popo using dispersal orders in Brixton town centre. Stinky nimbyism.


----------



## editor (Feb 20, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> Banning ern from the Brixton forum is similar to the popo using dispersal orders in Brixton town centre. Stinky nimbyism.


I think you need to take a good look through his recent posts before unfurling your freedom-fighting "Justice For Poor Ern!" banner.

We have been very, very fair, but if you have an objection, please post it in the feedback forum (or PM a mod) rather than disrupt this thread.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 21, 2011)

editor said:


> If they fancy being built on contaminated ex-petrol station land and have the Barrier Block looming up right behind them, yes. A park would be nicer.


 
I was looking at this tonight.
I reckon it would be perfect for an earthsheltered single storey retail/office/studio/leisure development.
This would provide active frontages in the street whilst providing a park level with the roadway (or is it parking?) above.
Whilst I was lost in my thoughts a bloke from BrixtonGreen jumped me with a flyer about redeveloping  the nearby strip on Somerleyton.


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I was looking at this tonight.
> I reckon it would be perfect for an earthsheltered single storey retail/office/studio/leisure development.
> This would provide active frontages in the street whilst providing a park level with the roadway (or is it parking?) above.
> Whilst I was lost in my thoughts a bloke from BrixtonGreen jumped me with a flyer about redeveloping  the nearby strip on Somerleyton.


Thing is, the development across the road offering spaces for retail/office/studio/leisure developments has remained empty since it was built, so I don't think there's much of a demand right now.

And, of course, the huge plot of land that used to house Cooltan some 100m further down the road remains flattened and derelict, as it has been for years on end.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 22, 2011)

True. But no doubt the vacant land and general antisocial feel from the galvanised security and warning signs is having an extra negative effect on the ready units.  Not exactly the image anyone looking to hire new large offices is going to be after. Also, wouldn't be surprised if there is an intention to create a marketing history showing a lack of demand for the retail and getting permission to turn it into housing which is more profitable.

There is definitely demand for studio spaces - waiting lists everywhere.

What about an indoor skating rink?


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2011)

Rushy said:


> True. But no doubt the vacant land and general antisocial feel from the galvanised security and warning signs is having an extra negative effect on the ready units.  Not exactly the image anyone looking to hire new large offices is going to be after. Also, wouldn't be surprised if there is an intention to create a marketing history showing a lack of demand for the retail and getting permission to turn it into housing which is more profitable.
> 
> There is definitely demand for studio spaces - waiting lists everywhere.
> 
> What about an indoor skating rink?


It took over five years for the one new block to be built and even that was after the original company went bust and the council nearly ordered the thing to be demolished because it had strayed so far from the original plans. Anything that attracts loads of shoppers/visitors is a no-no because there's no parking spaces nearby - and there's also a school nearby.

If they're going to build anything, build it on the huge vacant lot where Cooltan stood.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Feb 22, 2011)

Rushy said:


> What about an indoor skating rink?


 


Nah, you want a nice new six lane motorway through there.......

With a priority lane for 4x4 drivers


----------



## rover07 (Feb 22, 2011)

You could take it over and create a community garden.

This one on Lewes Road, Brighton lasted a year before the owners moved in and demolished it.

http://www.lewesroadcommunitygarden.org/

It had been vacant for at least 5 years before it was put to use.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 22, 2011)

The cooltan site will end up being part of a development to get the Overground station built, I reckon.


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2011)

Crispy said:


> The cooltan site will end up being part of a development to get the Overground station built, I reckon.


I saw another planning proposal notice outside for a five/seven story block.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 22, 2011)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Nah, you want a nice new six lane motorway through there.......
> 
> With a priority lane for 4x4 drivers


 
These ideas are not mutually exclusive. I'm imagining an ice rink with a priority lane for 4x4 drivers.
And perhaps a community garden in the middle.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 25, 2011)

editor said:


> Anything that attracts loads of shoppers/visitors is a no-no because there's no parking spaces nearby - and there's also a school nearby.


Well, three now. Hill Mead primary on the estate, The Olive School on Somerleyton and Evelyn Grace between Loughborough Park/Shakespeare Road.


----------



## happyshopper (Feb 25, 2011)

rover07 said:


> You could take it over and create a community garden.
> 
> This one on Lewes Road, Brighton lasted a year before the owners moved in and demolished it.
> 
> ...


 
Now it's going to be a Tesco local.


----------



## nagapie (Feb 25, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, three now. Hill Mead primary on the estate, The Olive School on Somerleyton and Evelyn Grace between Loughborough Park/Shakespeare Road.



Olive is closing down at the end of the school year. Cuts!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 25, 2011)

Well, it was going to anyway when Evelyn Grace was fully functional. It's just for the year 7s at the moment.


----------



## nagapie (Feb 25, 2011)

But Olive is/has become a special school and Evelyn Grace is mainstream. At present Olive is 50% full of kids with behaviour issues who I guess will now return to the mainstream. This also when Park Campus will stop taking KS4 from next year as the Lambeth primary PRU closes and moves there.


----------



## stevebradley (Feb 26, 2011)

I'll raise that Coldharbour billboard with the Planners and report back (will take about a fortnight for them to formally respond to me).

A pet hate of mine is people not getting planning permission, and it happens all too frequently in the borough. Grrr......


----------



## editor (Feb 26, 2011)

Cheers Steve. A few of us have already fired off complaints but it's a case of the more the merrier and if you can swing a speedier response that would be much appreciated!


----------



## chrisscottd1 (Feb 27, 2011)

*great poster on the previous  billboard by barrier*

Love it or loathe it, the barrier is an iconic structure!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 27, 2011)

chrisscottd1 said:


> Love it or loathe it, the barrier is an iconic structure!


 

Does that poster mean Editor's going to turn into a downright ugly building?


----------



## chrisscottd1 (Feb 27, 2011)

Despite apparently being a neighbour I only know the Eds function on here and couldn't possibly comment on his/her form!

Bauhaus designs are not to everyone's  taste I admit - especially in England, where we love our twiddly bits, - but the Barrier has a certain severe presence to it - or at least it did until we mucked around with the design.

There are not many buildings as readilly identifiable


----------



## chrisscottd1 (Feb 27, 2011)

oops - hit send too soon!

There are not many buildings as readily and widely identifiable as Brixton landmarks.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 27, 2011)

Barrier block is not Bauhaus style by a long shot!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 27, 2011)

chrisscottd1 said:


> Despite apparently being a neighbour I only know the Eds function on here and couldn't possibly comment on his/her form!
> 
> Bauhaus designs are not to everyone's  taste I admit - especially in England, where we love our twiddly bits, - but the Barrier has a certain* severe presence *to it - or at least it did until we mucked around with the design.
> 
> There are not many buildings as readilly identifiable


 
Yeah, that's definitely him, bans people left, right and centre


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Barrier block is not Bauhaus style by a long shot!


It's certainly an unusual looking building and quite hard to categorise. I'd put it as Modernist/neo-brutalist myself, but I'm sure others would disagree.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 27, 2011)

editor said:


> It's certainly an unusual looking building and quite hard to categorise. I'd put it as Modernist/neo-brutalist myself, but I'm sure others would disagree.


 
I've actually never seen the other side of it.  What's that look like?


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2011)

Here's how Building describe it:


> Southwyck House on the other hand is a blunder of a building that is often mistaken for Brixton prison. Known locally as the Barrier Block, it presents a daunting edifice, with early seventies, neobrutalist-inspired architecture and tiny turret windows peering out over Brixton. It was designed as part of the 1968 “box of motorways” project which, had it got off the ground, would have seen a raised six-lane motorway scythe through Brixton. The Barrier Block was designed to protect the Somerleyton estate from the inevitable pollution and traffic noise, which explains its tiny windows and unusual zig-zag design – intended to “bounce” the sound back to the ground. The road project was finally abandoned, but Brixton has been left with this ugly and impractical building...
> 
> *...Blunder
> *
> ...


I think they've rather drawn on my piece for that article, mind.


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2011)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've actually never seen the other side of it.  What's that look like?


All windows and terracing. It's a really well designed block.


----------



## chrisscottd1 (Feb 27, 2011)

In the formal sense of the architect having attended one the Bauhaus schools - no, (though when we were planning on knocking it about to add the extra security I was told by the Lambeth architects that she was taught by someone who did  - but I have never checked up on that).

I would be interested to hear why Crispy feels it emphatically not Bauhaus in influence (I am no expert in design but always interested to learn)

In the sense of the principles employed - form following function etc -the chevrons which are a feature of the CHL side are formed from the internal stair cases and project to reflect the sound of the planned motorway down. The little windows on that side are lavatory and staircase ones, again for noise protection - the living spaces have huge windows giving onto balconies separated by divisions carrying the rainwater drains.

Decorative elements being limited to functional features is a solidly Bauhaus principle.

The use of the whole block as a noise barrier likewise.


The other Bauhaus principles of:
Simplicity,Symmetry,Angularity,Abstraction,Consistency,Unity,Organization,Economy,Subtlety,Continuity,Regularity,Sharpness,Monochromaticity 

were also followed (in impact, subtle it ain’t but many of the design solutions are)

_In Dessau the Bauhaus style became more strictly functional with greater emphasis on showing the suitability of basic, unadorned materials. Bauhaus architects rejected "bourgeois" details such as cornices, eaves and decorative details._

It seems to me that it adheres to all the principles propounded by Walter Gropius and his disciples at the Bauhaus.

Of course, whether one likes it or not, or believes it to have been a successful application of those design principles is a different matter.


----------



## chrisscottd1 (Feb 27, 2011)

Minnie_the_Minx, if you are interested in what the other side looks like there is an excellent panorama on here at  http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/brixton005.html - love these - Editor responsible? Many thanks to whoever anyway.

To go back to theme of thread – the owners of the Texaco site do seem to be pushing the boundaries – quite literally, as I vaguely remember arguments over whether their ownership extended either right back to the barrier car-park wall, or as far forward as their new steel fence, let alone as far as where the front of the billboard is now. If it does not that would mean the billboard is on Council land and they are trying to gain ownership by occuption. Conversations which took place in Feb 2000 are increasingly vague in my mind, but that was minuted in a TRA meeting at that time – doesn't mean it is true but might be worth checking.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 27, 2011)

chrisscottd1 said:


> Minnie_the_Minx, if you are interested in what the other side looks like there is an excellent panorama on here at  http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/brixton005.html - love these - Editor responsible? Many thanks to whoever anyway.


 
ah yes, seen that, but it makes me dizzy as he's whizzing round so fast!


----------



## chrisscottd1 (Feb 27, 2011)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> ah yes, seen that, but it makes me dizzy as he's whizzing round so fast!


 
If you click on spinning image you can control speed with cursor - even stop it.

This thread is doing my head in - have lived on Barrier since it was built and just realized how little I really know about it (as opposed to just heard). I have tracked down one of the routes of the Bauhaus influence I had at the back of my mind and will start a new thread for it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 27, 2011)

chrisscottd1 said:


> If you click on spinning image you can control speed with cursor - even stop it.
> 
> This thread is doing my head in - have lived on Barrier since it was built and just realized how little I really know about it (as opposed to just heard). I have tracked down one of the routes of the Bauhaus influence I had at the back of my mind and will start a new thread for it.



ah right, think on my old computer I had problems with those type of videos so didn't bother to check that first on newer machine


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2011)

Oooh! The irony! The billboard now hosts a poster for a gig I'm playing at!
http://www.urban75.org/blog/illegal-coldharbour-lane-brixton-billboard-update/


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2011)

Quick update: it's still there.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jun 3, 2011)

There was a notice on it a few weeks ago saying something about them having deemed consent because it's in front of a building site. I'll have another look next time I'm passing.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> There was a notice on it a few weeks ago saying something about them having deemed consent because it's in front of a building site. I'll have another look next time I'm passing.


It was never in front of a "building site."


----------



## stevebradley (Jun 5, 2011)

As promised, I raised this billboard issue with Lambeth Planning a while back, and received the below response on 30th March. Apologies for not posting it up earlier, but I'm afraid I only come on to the site sporadically these days.

The text below is quoted verbatim, though I have edited out references to two other planning enforcement issues I raised at the same time, as they aren't relevant to this issue.

*RESPONSE FROM SENIOR PLANNING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER :*
"The advertisement hoardings on Coldharbour Lane are already the subject of an enforcement investigation.  The advertisements do not appear to have any form of consent and it appears that they have been placed on council owned land – the estates department has been notified of this and is looking into the matter in collaboration with the planning enforcement team.  Although we do not yet know who is responsible for the erection of the hoardings, we have written to a number of different parties who we believe may be involved and we have asked them to remove the hoardings.  If the advertisements are not removed, the council has the power to remove them – however, undertaking direct action in this manner will obviously be dependent on budgetary constraints".

"It should be noted that the council cannot take enforcement action solely because there is a breach of planning control – it must be considered expedient to take action"

"As part of the budget cuts, the Planning Enforcement Team has lost one full time Planning Enforcement Officer with another being reduced to part-time working only. Consequently, the excess cases have been distributed amongst the remaining team members. Officers have, therefore, had to re-prioritise their workloads accordingly. Please accept my apologies should any delays be experienced as a result and I hope that the above information is helpful".

Sounds to me like the council has a clear case here - though whether they can be fussed to do anything about it is a different question.

I was told I would receive a further update on this, but I've had to chase as one hasn't arrived. I'll post up again when I do get an update.

Thanks

Steve 
(For those who don't know, I'm a Lib Dem councillor in Lambeth - covering the northern part of Brixton in Vassall ward)


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 5, 2011)

I'm not holding my breath. There was an enforcement notice on Living Bar for taking out the original windows on a culturally important building (the old Coach and Horses) and despite people doing a lot of background work in their own time, hassling for action (eg trawling the Metroplitan archives for pictures of how it was and writing letters etc) Lambeth council (paid people, remember) did sweet FA. Twas ever thus.


----------



## laptop (Jun 5, 2011)

So did we reach a conclusion on the likely effects of being caught removing it?

It's a shame - just sometimes - that magistrates' courts don't set precedent.

I recall a case from the 80s where some people were done for criminal damage for painting out fascist grafitti on a railway bridge.

The magistrates held that they'd _improved_ the bridge, so the prosecution could fuck off.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jun 5, 2011)

laptop said:


> So did we reach a conclusion on the likely effects of being caught removing it?
> 
> It's a shame - just sometimes - that magistrates' courts don't set precedent.
> 
> ...


 
So you're saying if someone were to burn it down, even if they were caught, it's unlikely that they would be prosecuted?


----------



## stevebradley (Jun 5, 2011)

Under the law you are allowed to cause a crime (e.g. attacking someone) to prevent the occurenec of a greater crime (i.e. that person murdering someone else).

This defence was successfully used by 'Swords into Ploughshares' peace activists in 1996 when they were taken to court by BAE for damaging Hawk aircrafts bound for the Indonesian government to use against its own people in East Timor. The judge accepted their argument that damaging the planes was preventing a greater crime from occuring.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 5, 2011)

I thought it was the jury, not the judge, that decided that.


----------



## co-op (Jun 5, 2011)

I guess it would have to be proportionate so maybe painting out the advertisers name rather than burning it down.

You could then send a photo of the de-logoed hoarding to the company being advertised and explain why you'd done it. Anyone want to do this?


----------



## laptop (Jun 5, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> So you're saying if someone were to burn it down, even if they were caught, it's unlikely that they would be prosecuted?


 
No, it's likely they'd be prosecuted - but they'd have _a chance_ in court.


----------



## stevebradley (Jun 24, 2011)

After much cajoling I've finally had a proper answer out of Lambeth's Enforcement Team on this bilboard. It reads as follows :

_"We have discussed the hoardings with the advertiser who initially claimed deemed consent rights under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 2007.  We disagree with his claim and have explained the council’s case in a meeting with him.  We gave him the opportunity to put forward a counter argument but he has failed to do so.  Although the advertiser has recently provided more material, we do not consider this sufficient. In light of the above, it is our intention to issue notices threatening the removal of the hoardings"._

I'm told the council is now working with the Estate Services provider for the land on which the hoarding is located in order to get them to physically remove it. Apparently it's looking positive so far, but discussions are still ongoing.

If I get any further updates I'll post them here. But fingers crossed that the illegal sign's days are now numbered.....


----------



## TruXta (Jun 24, 2011)

Nice work, Steve.


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2011)

Cheers for the update! Thanks, Steve.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 24, 2011)

Just in passing: there is a Fundamentalist Christian guy in Devon who has built a church without planning permission. Apparently God told him to do it.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 24, 2011)

Good work Steve. 
Hope Vassall Ward is well?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jun 25, 2011)

stevebradley said:


> After much cajoling I've finally had a proper answer out of Lambeth's Enforcement Team on this bilboard. It reads as follows :
> 
> _"We have discussed the hoardings with the advertiser who initially claimed deemed consent rights under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 2007.  We disagree with his claim and have explained the council’s case in a meeting with him.  We gave him the opportunity to put forward a counter argument but he has failed to do so.  Although the advertiser has recently provided more material, we do not consider this sufficient. In light of the above, it is our intention to issue notices threatening the removal of the hoardings"._
> 
> ...


 
Brilliant job. Well done. 

I still say we should burn it down though.


----------



## ymu (Jun 25, 2011)

Should there not be punitive charges made for doing this kind of shit without permission? The fine has to be double the commercial value of the space at least or we end up wasting shed loads of bureaucrat time chasing up cheapo advertisers. Madness.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 25, 2011)

stevebradley said:


> Under the law you are allowed to cause a crime (e.g. attacking someone) to prevent the occurenec of a greater crime (i.e. that person murdering someone else).
> 
> This defence was successfully used by 'Swords into Ploughshares' peace activists in 1996 when they were taken to court by BAE for damaging Hawk aircrafts bound for the Indonesian government to use against its own people in East Timor. The judge accepted their argument that damaging the planes was preventing a greater crime from occuring.


 


Mrs Magpie said:


> I thought it was the jury, not the judge, that decided that.


 If memory serves, it was a 'perverse verdict'. That is, one that goes against all evidence and the law.

The defence was successful, but it has no legal basis. The jury, in that instance, sympathised.


----------



## ymu (Jun 25, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> If memory serves, it was a 'perverse verdict'. That is, one that goes against all evidence and the law.
> 
> The defence was successful, but it has no legal basis. The jury, in that instance, sympathised.


 
No. It's a standard defence. The defendant has to prove that they were acting reasonably to prevent a worse crime. Trident Ploughshares were on strong ground there because nothing else would have stopped those bombers getting shipped out to kill people. They stick around to get arrested, so they command a good deal of respect from juries too.


----------



## laptop (Jun 25, 2011)

ymu said:


> No. It's a standard defence. The defendant has to prove that they were acting reasonably to prevent a worse crime. Trident Ploughshares were on strong ground there because nothing else would have stopped those bombers getting shipped out to kill people. They stick around to get arrested, so they command a good deal of respect from juries too.


 

Aye. My impression is that Ploughshares (and a more recent Greenpeace case) were _not_ perverse verdicts, but juries accepting that the action was reasonable. Though clearly lawyers in future prosecutions will try to argue otherwise.

The acquittal of Clive Ponting looks more like a perverse verdict: he had argued that he had broken the Official Secrets Act but that it was in the public interest. The judge had, following _R -v- Randall et al_ (1963), instructed the jury that the public interest is what the government says it is; and the jury said "sod that".


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 26, 2011)

That's interesting. Finally got to this. Fwiw, it revolves around an innovative  emphasis on a term within the Criminal Damage Act 1971, S5 to be exact, the phrase 'lawful excuse' to be really exact:



> *"Without lawful excuse"*
> 
> Apart from the general self-defence excuse applicable to any offence involving violent acts, section 5 of the Act sets out specific provisions in relation to criminal damage: *a defendant will have "lawful excuse" if*
> 
> ...


Leaves a lot in the hands of the jury . . . but that would seem exactly the right place.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jun 26, 2011)

I don't fully understand. Are you saying we can burn it down, as long as we think we can convince a jury that we believe it's the right thing to do?


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 26, 2011)

No, it's trickier than that:

Jaggard v Dickinson (1980) QBD


> D broke into a house when she was drunk. She thought the house belonged to her friend. If the house had belonged to her friend, _the friend would have consented_ to her entering in this way. D argued that she had a defence under the Act.
> 
> ("having a lawful excuse " if "he believed that the person . . . whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of . . . the property . . . would have so consented.").
> 
> ...


----------



## Onket (Jun 27, 2011)

ymu said:


> Should there not be punitive charges made for doing this kind of shit without permission? The fine has to be double the commercial value of the space at least or we end up wasting shed loads of bureaucrat time chasing up cheapo advertisers. Madness.


 
This^^

Even if the boards do now get taken down, they've had how many months of income from a massive hoarding that they've been charging people to use?


----------



## Onket (Jun 27, 2011)

Onket said:


> how many months ?


 
4 and a half months since the thread was started. I wonder how much they charge people to advertise there.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

Onket said:


> 4 and a half months since the thread was started. I wonder how much they charge people to advertise there.


Curiously, for a lot of the time there was nothing on the billboard. I wonder if that's because they get fined per advertisement and knew that they weren't going to get away with this one?

I've certainly learnt a lot about how these cowboys work: there was a similar-sized illegal billboard nearby that was there for at least six years so they must have made a packet out of that.


----------



## Onket (Jun 27, 2011)

Did we ever find out if the one outside the building site next to Jamm was legal? not sure if it's still there now that the flats have been finished, I've moved house so I've not been passed there in a long while.

That one wasn't far from Steve Bradbuiry the Lib Dem councillor's 'patch', so maybe he knows more.......


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

Onket said:


> Did we ever find out if the one outside the building site next to Jamm was legal? not sure if it's still there now that the flats have been finished, I've moved house so I've not been passed there in a long while.
> 
> That one wasn't far from Steve Bradbuiry the Lib Dem councillor's 'patch', so maybe he knows more.......


I think the huge one right next to JAMM is a legal one.


----------



## Onket (Jun 27, 2011)

Ouch!


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

Onket said:


> Ouch!


A while ago they had a really big illuminated Coca Cola advert up there that was really distracting. It was horrible!


----------



## Onket (Jun 27, 2011)

Ah yeah, I remember someone painting over some of it with black paint.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 27, 2011)

I'd have thought best approach would be to hang large sheets in front of the billboard with your own chosen message on. That would hardly be criminal damage and I'd imagine the billboard owner might have difficulty claiming they'd lost income from it.


----------



## Onket (Jun 27, 2011)

Difficulty proving, maybe, but not difficulty claiming it.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

Onket said:


> Ah yeah, I remember someone painting over some of it with black paint.


For the best, I reckon


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 14, 2011)

I noticed today that it's been painted brown.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2011)

Hmm. A notice appeared a while ago saying that it had to be taken down within three months, but now a new document has appeared. Would I be correct in assuming that they've now dreamt up a load of bollocks to say that they can keep the billboards up because they're there to screen a (non existent) construction site?

here's the planning application referred to in the note:



> 10/03996/FUL
> Change of use to provide a hand car wash (Sui Generis) involving the erection of a cabin, installation of gates fronting Coldharbour lane, and the provision of 3 car parking spaces.


The portacabin has been already erected (at the opposite end) and there is no construction work taking place where the fuck off massive billboard is. As it is, the billboard brings no environmental benefits whatsoever - only commercial ones to the dodgy fuckers who erected it.

Opinions please!


----------



## gabi (Aug 17, 2011)

that shit definitely belongs in the office scalding email thread. epic.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 17, 2011)

gabi said:


> that shit definitely belongs in the office scalding email thread. epic.



Awful!  I'd write a letter of complaint about the layout and letterhead of that letter!


----------



## stevebradley (Aug 18, 2011)

The last update I got from Planning on the CHL billboard was on 20th July as follows :

"With regard to the advertisement hoardings, notices were issued on Monday requesting that they are removed within two months.  I will be liaising with the asset management team to see if we can arrange removal of the hoardings if they are not removed by the advertiser".

So notices were issued on 18th July, which gives them until 18th September to have removed it. If they're not gone by then I'll chase them to take them down themselves and seek to recover the costs from the landowner.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2011)

stevebradley said:


> The last update I got from Planning on the CHL billboard was on 20th July as follows :
> 
> "With regard to the advertisement hoardings, notices were issued on Monday requesting that they are removed within two months. I will be liaising with the asset management team to see if we can arrange removal of the hoardings if they are not removed by the advertiser".
> 
> So notices were issued on 18th July, which gives them until 18th September to have removed it. If they're not gone by then I'll chase them to take them down themselves and seek to recover the costs from the landowner.


Cheers Steve. This new note is baffling though because it looks it's granting this dodgy hoarding up to three years for non existent works.

I note that adverts are now appearing on the billboard too.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

ymu said:


> Should there not be punitive charges made for doing this kind of shit without permission? The fine has to be double the commercial value of the space at least or we end up wasting shed loads of bureaucrat time chasing up cheapo advertisers. Madness.


That's a good idea.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Hmm. A notice appeared a while ago saying that it had to be taken down within three months, but now a new document has appeared. Would I be correct in assuming that they've now dreamt up a load of bollocks to say that they can keep the billboards up because they're there to screen a (non existent) construction site?
> 
> here's the planning application referred to in the note:
> 
> ...


If you look the application (for the car-wash) up on the database, it was "validated" on 29th November last year."Consultations" were begun on 14th December with a deadline for response of 4th January 2011. Permission was granted on 20th January 2011 for a period of three years.

The council website says there were 12 "consultee comments" but Lambeth never publish what these comments are - presumably to avoid agro between the applicants and any opponents.  It is of course possible that some consultees were in favour of the car wash - the demon barber George for example roundly criticised me for being negative about the car wash.  People can have their car washed whilst they have their hair cut - according to him.  They could also pop into William Hill and watch the Grand National - so it's not all doom and gloom.

The application did not go before the planning committee - no committee date is given.
I would not want to be naughty and suggest the "c" word, but backhanders have been known to smooth the path for such applications in some authorities.  I think we should ask the Rachel for some transparency here in Coldharbour Ward.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 19, 2011)

CH1 said:


> If you look the application (for the car-wash) up on the database, it was "validated" on 29th November last year."Consultations" were begun on 14th December with a deadline for response of 4th January 2011. Permission was granted on 20th January 2011 for a period of three years.
> 
> The council website says there were 12 "consultee comments" but Lambeth never publish what these comments are - presumably to avoid agro between the applicants and any opponents. It is of course possible that some consultees were in favour of the car wash - the demon barber George for example roundly criticised me for being negative about the car wash. People can have their car washed whilst they have their hair cut - according to him. They could also pop into William Hill and watch the Grand National - so it's not all doom and gloom.
> 
> ...


I should add that there probably isn't an application for the advertising hoardings, but that the car-wash people are probably getting a rental on the advertising to supplement their authorised business of car-washing.

Who owns the site?  I thought I saw here in another post that it had been transferred by Lambeth Council to Ujima who are now in receivership.  Is this correct?


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2011)

And the billboard is still there, while the fucking noisy car wash evolves into a car park.


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2012)

Yep. Still there. These fuckers really can do what they like and the council does NOTHING to stop their illegal practices.


----------



## Onket (Jan 17, 2012)

Burn down the Town Hall.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 17, 2012)

editor said:


> Yep. Still there. These fuckers really can do what they like and the council does NOTHING to stop their illegal practices.


sturdy bicycle D-lock attached to the front gate perhaps?


----------



## Onket (Jan 18, 2012)

Like it.


----------



## Brix69 (Jan 20, 2012)

Strange that the coucil will get onto the planning department about the front of the Ace/Electric but do nothing about this. Love the photo with the skateboarder from the 'Cowboys Ahoy' blog.


----------



## Onket (Jan 20, 2012)

Brix69 said:


> Strange that the coucil will get onto the planning department about the front of the Ace/Electric but do nothing about this. Love the photo with the skateboarder from the 'Cowboys Ahoy' blog.



The thing came off the front of the Fridge due to high winds, not because of the council.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good moan!


----------



## Brix69 (Jan 20, 2012)

Onket said:


> The thing came off the front of the Fridge due to high winds, not because of the council.



I actually said that the council got onto the planning department, as opposed to it coming down because of the council.



Onket said:


> But don't let the facts get in the way of a good moan!



Quite.


----------



## paolo (Jan 20, 2012)

Brix69 said:


> I actually said that the council got onto the planning department, as opposed to it coming down because of the council.



I'm still not convinced it was a planning enforcement issue.


----------



## paolo (Jan 20, 2012)

editor said:


> Yep. Still there. These fuckers really can do what they like and the council does NOTHING to stop their illegal practices.



Who's advertising on there at the moment?


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2012)

paolo999 said:


> Who's advertising on there at the moment?


Big advert for Professor Green - At Your Inconvenience on one side, cant remember the other.


----------



## Onket (Jan 20, 2012)

Brix69 said:


> I actually said that the council got onto the planning department, as opposed to it coming down because of the council.



That didn't happen either.


----------



## paolo (Jan 20, 2012)

editor said:


> Big advert for Professor Green - At Your Inconvenience on one side, cant remember the other.



Local (well, London) business then.

With advertisers like that, I'd like to think letting them know there'd be a bit of negative PR coming their way if they didn't tell their marketing people to cut it out, would give them pause for thought.

The billboard company won't give a shit, but at least *some* of the advertisers (if local-ish) might. They might even be genuinely surprised where their stuff is going.

Just a thought.


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2012)

paolo999 said:


> The billboard company won't give a shit, but at least *some* of the advertisers (if local-ish) might. They might even be genuinely surprised where their stuff is going.
> 
> Just a thought.


Record companies actively support the illegal/shady billboard business. Always have.


----------



## paolo (Jan 20, 2012)

editor said:


> Record companies actively support the illegal/shady billboard business. Always have.



Oh sure - was thinking of the artist, in this case.

Or in the case of events at Jamm, say, the venue itself.

No idea if it would work, but a thought anyways.


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2012)

paolo999 said:


> Oh sure - was thinking of the artist, in this case.
> 
> Or in the case of events at Jamm, say, the venue itself.
> 
> No idea if it would work, but a thought anyways.


I know the folks at JAMM very well. I don't think they're going to be bothered. 

Time to mobilise the residents' association methinks!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 20, 2012)

editor said:


> Time to mobilise the residents' association methinks!


I hope your Residents Association is better than the one on Moorlands. The resident who has been its Chair has variously claimed that she's been looking after Princess Di's teeth picked up in the Paris underpass on behalf of Mossad, is a Doctor of Philosophy, studied Psychology at Christ Church Oxford, is Michael Mansfield's pupil and is going on an Arctic expedition with Sir Ranulph Twisleton Wykeham Fiennes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I hope your Residents Association is better than the one on Moorlands. The resident who has been its Chair has variously claimed that she's been looking after Princess Di's teeth picked up in the Paris underpass on behalf of Mossad, is a Doctor of Philosophy, studied Psychology at Christ Church Oxford, is Michael Mansfield's pupil and is going on an Arctic expedition with Sir Ranulph Twisleton Wykeham Fiennes.


at least you'll soon be rid of her then


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 20, 2012)

Sadly not. She's got a grip like a limpet.


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Sadly not. She's got a grip like a limpet.


Surely your constitution lets you vote in a new chair?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 20, 2012)

Until there is a secret ballot she'll continue to get in. I was on a committee that got rid of her by that method. She's quite intimidating to some people.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 20, 2012)

I've been raising this with MHT for years. It only needs a cardboard box and voting slips but for some reason a show of hands is considered more appropriate.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 20, 2012)

She did once post here, under her current alias. I've known her to use three different names.


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I've been raising this with MHT for years. It only needs a cardboard box and voting slips but for some reason a show of hands is considered more appropriate.


You should have a written constitution. It might be worth you chatting to our residents group because they've had similar issues in the past and managed to get things sorted.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 20, 2012)

There is a written constitution, it just doesn't contain anything about a secret ballot. I was involved for a while (years) in the residents association but it's a total head-fuck. Last meeting I went to, she'd roped in someone who'd been on a creative writing course to read parts of her dreadful unpublished novel where it was clear a dictionary had not been employed as there were some real howlers. I have no idea what it had to do with the estate as the would-be Jeffrey Archer wasn't even from the estate. I think she was trying to bore us into submission.


----------



## CH1 (May 15, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> There were proposal to build housing there by Housing Association. They went bust. There is a case to be had that building there to replace the demolished street shops and housing would improve that corner of CHL. It would replace the streetscape that was demolished.


I turned the following up accidentally on a trawl of Lambeth Planning applications. The housing association is indeed bust, and their dwellings were taken over by L & Q. I very much doubt Lambeth Council have transferred this land to anybody. There is no record at the Land Registry. Regarding enforcement they might have to sue themselves!
I have tried to ascertain from Councillor Rachel Heywood what is REALLY going on on this site - which councillors in 1998 asked to have designated as a public open space.
In my opinion Lambeth Housing is probably the ultimate owner, and they are stalling and playing games until they have a new housing scheme ready with another developer.
As one of the co-sponsors of the idea of a park to moderate the angular attractions of Southwyck House (north-side) with more tree-planting and greenery I am well cheesed of with my councillor's poor memory or stonewalling.
Anyone know how to initiate a Freedom of Information request?


----------



## CH1 (May 15, 2012)

Brixton Society is following this too!


----------



## editor (May 15, 2012)

CH1 said:


> Anyone know how to initiate a Freedom of Information request?


I think memespring's yer man.


----------



## Kanda (May 15, 2012)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_4003239


----------



## colacubes (May 15, 2012)

CH1 said:


> Anyone know how to initiate a Freedom of Information request?


 


editor said:


> I think memespring's yer man.


 
He's not on here too much at the mo but I know he'd suggest going and doing it on this website:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/


----------



## Alo Licentia! (May 15, 2012)

You can just send them an email.

foi@lambeth.gov.uk

Or write to them in fountain pen:

Tracy Phillips 
Information Compliance Advisor (Solicitor) 
Governance and Democracy 
Lambeth Town Hall (room 205) 
Brixton Hill 
SW1 1RW

They'll take at least 20 days to reply, and you'll probably have to chase them for it, but they mostly answer.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 25, 2012)

ColdharbourRocks consultation on a radical new replacement for the Car Wash site & its vile advertsing hoardings

Please use - CllrSteveReed is reading us


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2012)

So the huge billboard is still up there, standing proud as a testament to the council's uselessness and impotence, while the horrendously noisy car washing business continues to do as it pleases. 

Apparently the council gifted them a 40 year lease on the proviso that the space wasn't used for car parking.  

Great to see that they're _really_ on the ball with that one too...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 19, 2012)

editor said:


> Apparently the council gifted them a 40 year lease on the proviso that the space wasn't used for car parking.


Might be worth pointing that out to the council and your local councillors - they might be able to take action...


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Might be worth pointing that out to the council and your local councillors - they might be able to take action...


Oh, it has been pointed out. Several times.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 19, 2012)

editor said:


> Oh, it has been pointed out. Several times.


I take it no responses then?


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I take it no responses then?


Nope. I complained about the noise too, and that got bugger all response too. Perhaps they're too busy with their MasterPlan.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 19, 2012)

editor said:


> Nope. I complained about the noise too, and that got bugger all response too. Perhaps they're too busy with their MasterPlan.


Letter to MP or South London Press perhaps? That usually shakes them up enough to respond...


----------



## Winot (Nov 19, 2012)

editor said:


> Apparently the council gifted them a 40 year lease


 
At least that gives some reassurance that Lambeth aren't going to pull down the Barrier Block and redevelop the area as a giant Tesco.

Unless they are completely incompetent that is


----------



## Manter (Nov 19, 2012)

Winot said:


> At least that gives some reassurance that Lambeth aren't going to pull down the Barrier Block and redevelop the area as a giant Tesco.
> 
> Unless they are completely incompetent that is


Lambeth? Incompetent?  Surely not.....


----------



## Greebo (Nov 19, 2012)

Winot said:


> At least that gives some reassurance that Lambeth aren't going to pull down the Barrier Block and redevelop the area as a giant Tesco.
> 
> Unless they are completely incompetent that is


That's it.  We're all fucked then.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 20, 2012)

Winot said:


> At least that gives some reassurance that Lambeth aren't going to pull down the Barrier Block and redevelop the area as a giant Tesco.


 
It is more likely to mean that Lambeth will pay the people who they gifted the lease to a huge sum to give it back.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 20, 2012)

editor said:


> So the huge billboard is still up there, standing proud as a testament to the council's uselessness and impotence, while the horrendously noisy car washing business continues to do as it pleases.
> 
> Apparently the council gifted them a 40 year lease on the proviso that the space wasn't used for car parking.
> 
> ...


Some points here:
1. the original lease was granted for a petrol station for 99 years back in 1972 or thereabouts.  Looks as though this may have been transferred to Ujima Housing in around 2002 (they were working on a proposal for a block of flats which never got final planning approval).  As has been discussed elsewhere on Urban 75b Ujima became insolvent, and its housing stock transferred to L & Q. Most likely other assets (such as the lease on this site) would have been sold off at auction.  This could be checked by FOI - but what would help is if there were a councillor able and willing to take the issue on, since all the information must be with the council's legal department.
2. A couple of months ago I mentioned - in passing as I had consulted him on another matter - this enforcement issue on the billboard to Richard Limbrick -the Enforcement officer responsible for this area.  Mr Limbrick seems willing to make all sorts of assurances about possible courses of action EXCEPT anything which required the council to go to court (costs).  He told me back at the end of September he was proposing to the parks department that they should remove the signs, since the land is council land ultimately and the signs are illegal. As you can see nothing has happened - and I doubt it will unless a councillor gets actively involved.   
3. My enquiries over the summer about any spare section 106 money from the Barratts scheme to devote to upgrading this site produced a response from Cllr Lib Peck - and I quote from this - first regarding the funds to be allocated from "The Viaduct": The Section 106 monies for the open space on Coldharbour Lane come from the development at 360-366, signed in May 2006. The agreement provided a payment of £30,000 for landscaping of the open space at the corner of Somerleyton Road and Coldharbour Lane. In 2008, Lambeth Parks proposed to use this money for a public art scheme with landscaping, the proposal was consulted on at that time, including engagement with the Moorlands Estate, pupils at Hill Mead Primary School, Evelyn Grace Academy and outreach groups at the 198 Gallery. There were six weeks of workshops for local residents in autumn 2008 with over 400 people taking part. A public artist was procured through an open competition with a Public Art Selection Panel. 
The artist is called Taslim Martin. His public artwork can be seen around the country and, in 2007 the Horniman Museum commissioned him to produce a permanent sculpture commemorating the Bicentenary of the Abolition of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The public art was clearly agreed to in a different economic climate but work is progressing on the sculpture. However, I am dismayed that the project has taken so long and have asked for a timetable to finish because I can completely understand how local residents new to the area or not particularly involved in the original project will wonder where it has come from and why it has taken so long. 
Taslim’s proposal for this commission is entitled “Twins” and takes the form of two large egg shaped metal sculptures. One will have a bright brush finish and so reflects the sky and the surrounding buildings in its surface, and the other an iron oxide finish. One of the forms will have symbols and designs etched into the surface. Each of these surface markings have been designed by the community during the workshops and outreach programme that took place in autumn 2008.
Once this project has been completed there will not be any remaining funding from this section 106 to allocate towards another project. "
As for Barratts: "Re the Brixton Square development, in 2007 a S106 agreement was signed for around £240,000 as well as 48 units of affordable housing. The S106 money has been/is being spent on parks near the development so in this case Brockwell Park, traffic management, car clubs and education, a contribution was made towards Jessop Primary School."
Nice to know our environmental improvements have been lost in the works or spent on Brockwell Park!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 21, 2012)

You'd think the s106 money would be spent locally (i.e. around that bit of Coldharbour Lane) rather than on the council's pet projects around the borough...

Who gets to decide? Councillors? Officials? (Not residents, I assume....)

Pretty bad that the best part of 30 grand has gone to an artist for a four-year project which isn't even finished, rather than keeping that area of green upkept and together.


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2012)

Great to see the council moving so fast to stop the use of this property as a car park, as per their planning regulations.  It's now moved to a 24 hour operation.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 19, 2012)

editor said:


> Great to see the council moving so fast to stop the use of this property as a car park, as per their planning regulations. It's now moved to a 24 hour operation.
> 
> View attachment 26226


Actually the illegal hoardings play a vital role is shielding this further planning contravention from prying eyes.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 19, 2012)

could the residents take back the land and keep it up in some way or other?


----------



## editor (Dec 19, 2012)

leanderman said:


> could the residents take back the land and keep it up in some way or other?


The council have generously given away a 40 year lease to these noisy fuckers. No need to consult with the residents!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2012)

editor said:


> Great to see the council moving so fast to stop the use of this property as a car park, as per their planning regulations. It's now moved to a 24 hour operation.
> 
> View attachment 26226


that's a bit of a fucked up car park


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2012)

CH1 said:


> Some points here:
> 1. the original lease was granted for a petrol station for 99 years back in 1972 or thereabouts. Looks as though this may have been transferred to Ujima Housing in around 2002 (they were working on a proposal for a block of flats which never got final planning approval). As has been discussed elsewhere on Urban 75b Ujima became insolvent, and its housing stock transferred to L & Q. Most likely other assets (such as the lease on this site) would have been sold off at auction. This could be checked by FOI - but what would help is if there were a councillor able and willing to take the issue on, since all the information must be with the council's legal department.
> 2. A couple of months ago I mentioned - in passing as I had consulted him on another matter - this enforcement issue on the billboard to Richard Limbrick -the Enforcement officer responsible for this area. Mr Limbrick seems willing to make all sorts of assurances about possible courses of action EXCEPT anything which required the council to go to court (costs). He told me back at the end of September he was proposing to the parks department that they should remove the signs, since the land is council land ultimately and the signs are illegal. As you can see nothing has happened - and I doubt it will unless a councillor gets actively involved.
> 3. My enquiries over the summer about any spare section 106 money from the Barratts scheme to devote to upgrading this site produced a response from Cllr Lib Peck - and I quote from this - first regarding the funds to be allocated from "The Viaduct": The Section 106 monies for the open space on Coldharbour Lane come from the development at 360-366, signed in May 2006. The agreement provided a payment of £30,000 for landscaping of the open space at the corner of Somerleyton Road and Coldharbour Lane. In 2008, Lambeth Parks proposed to use this money for a public art scheme with landscaping, the proposal was consulted on at that time, including engagement with the Moorlands Estate, pupils at Hill Mead Primary School, Evelyn Grace Academy and outreach groups at the 198 Gallery. There were six weeks of workshops for local residents in autumn 2008 with over 400 people taking part. A public artist was procured through an open competition with a Public Art Selection Panel.
> ...


good work


----------



## leanderman (Dec 20, 2012)

editor said:


> The council have generously given away a 40 year lease to these noisy fuckers. No need to consult with the residents!



get it revoked and start an allotment


----------



## Errol's son (Dec 20, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> that's a bit of a fucked up car park


 
Many of the cars haven't moved from November 19 till last Sunday.


----------



## editor (Dec 20, 2012)

Errol's son said:


> Many of the cars haven't moved from November 19 till last Sunday.


Although they have now decided to offer a 24 hour parking service for some. Everyone loves to hear those big metal gates clanking at 5am!


----------



## CH1 (Jan 5, 2013)

I hadn't checked the billboards lately, but now I see they are promoting their 24hr car-parking "from £39.99 per week". This is a total piss-take. Nothing seems to change in Lambeth. I recall Heather Rabbatts, former star Lambeth Council Chief Exec whose party piece was appearing on Newsnight etc. saying, "When I came into office getting things done in Lambeth was like pulling a lever with nothing connected at the other end" Plus ça change.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2013)

I thought that using the place as a car park was explicitly forbidden in their contract?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 5, 2013)

...I've heard whisperings it's used at night by prostitutes, but don't know if that's true. However, there certainly seem to be less discarded condoms in gardens and alleyways than there were.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 5, 2013)

editor said:


> I thought that using the place as a car park was explicitly forbidden in their contract?


Not sure - but the present planning permission is for a car wash with 3 parking places. The original 1972 planning permission as a garage banned display and sale of vehicles, not parking. What the lease has to say we don't know.
The permitted hours of operation are 8 am - 7 pm Monday to Saturday and 9 am - 6 pm on Sundays.

In the property history it says that Planning Enforcement Notices S10 and S11 were served on 18th July 2011 with a compliance date of 18th September 2011 regarding errection of a twin billboard [Unauthorised advertisement P3]. Case officer Richard Limbrick.
Unconnected levers - or is there some other reason preventing any action? It's a pity that Lambeth's Planning Applications database does not have copies of these enforcement documents. Almost as if they did not exist!


----------



## cuppa tee (Jan 6, 2013)

Plenty of reviewers here think its a carpark.............. https://www.parkatmyhouse.com/profile/alizurum/?rating=5


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 6, 2013)

CH1 said:


> In the property history it says that Planning Enforcement Notices S10 and S11 were served on 18th July 2011 with a compliance date of 18th September 2011 regarding errection of a twin billboard [Unauthorised advertisement P3]. Case officer Richard Limbrick.
> Unconnected levers - or is there some other reason preventing any action? It's a pity that Lambeth's Planning Applications database does not have copies of these enforcement documents. Almost as if they did not exist!


Thing is, every enforcement notice I know of has never been chased up eg Living Bar got an enforcement notice to replace the original windows they ripped out, but the horrible MDF ones they put in are still there, years and years and years later.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 7, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Plenty of reviewers here think its a carpark.............. https://www.parkatmyhouse.com/profile/alizurum/?rating=5


Great, let's shop 'em.....


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Plenty of reviewers here think its a carpark.............. https://www.parkatmyhouse.com/profile/alizurum/?rating=5


I'm fucking fed up with all the goings-on in that space. Whoever is in charge just takes the piss completely and the council do fuck all every time.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jan 7, 2013)

If you've complained and appealed and the useless fuckers (lambeth) have done nothing, then it's here next the local government ombusman.

http://www.lgo.org.uk/

I suspect though you'll have to have already wasted more life than you can be bothered with to actually get to the stage where they may be ruled against and then knowing lambeth they'd probably ignore that for a while.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 7, 2013)

editor said:


> View attachment 25214



I wouldn't want to park my car overnight directly under a block of flats. 

Too tempting a target.


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2013)

I think there's someone living in that massive camper vehicle too.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jan 7, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm fucking fed up with all the goings-on in that space. Whoever is in charge just takes the piss competency's and the council do fuck all every time.


I always knew a dislike button would improve Facebook ........ https://www.facebook.com/pages/LookingForCarPark/179392525529310?ref=ts&fref=ts


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2013)

This is adding insult to injury. Currently on the ugly illegal billboard outside the Barrier Block is the aforementioned advert for the illegal parking scheme, now supplemented by an advert for a high fashion yuppie rag.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 30, 2013)

Our hassling of the council has illicited this response:



> Thank you for your email regarding the unauthorised use of part of the site as a car park, the unauthorised advertisement hoardings in front of the site and details of leases/contracts. Correspondence and information in relation to enforcement investigations of this nature are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by virtue of s30 and s31 of the Act because the material relates to investigations conducted by the council and law enforcement. Notwithstanding this, I can provide the following updates in relation to the site and your enquiries.
> *Car Park*
> Thank you for the information provided with respect to the car park operating at the site including the web link. We have been looking into the car park use on this part of the site, and it appears that there is no express planning permission for the use and we can find no other evidence to suggest it is lawful. As such, we have notified the leaseholder (Broadboards Ltd - see below) and asked them to cease the use, remove the vehicles from the land, and secure the site to prevent any further unauthorised use. We are also sending warning letters to the council’s lessees (Coldharbour Lane Property Limited – see below). *The operators will have the right to apply for planning permission for the change of use of this part of the site to a car park. If the use does not cease as requested the council will consider the expediency of formal action to secure the cessation of the use.*
> *Advertisement Hoardings*
> ...


editor


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2013)

It's fucking pathetic. Useless spineless council.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 30, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Our hassling of the council has illicited this response _*RESPONSE*_


Congratulations on getting that out of them and in writing. Who exactly were you supposed to contact directly for further updates? Someone in the legal department?
By issuing a sub-lease for 15 years it would appear that Coldharbour Lane Property have no intention of developing the site properly in the near future. Unless Broadboards Ltd is a related company - or unless it is a dodge for CHL Properties to escape legal responsibility for the illegal activities.
Good work old boy.  More ammunition for lobbying.


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2013)

They;re really taking the fucking piss now and using it as some sort of dumping ground for building rubble as well as an all night car parking space.


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2013)

I've complained to the council again.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 23, 2013)

just start lobbing house bricks out your window.  a few smashed cars will soon see them on their way.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 23, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> just start lobbing house bricks out your window. a few smashed cars will soon see them on their way.


 
Seems obvious that the lease should be taken away and handed to the residents to do with as they see fit.

It's scandalous that the site was granted away in the first place.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Apr 23, 2013)

rubble = rodents
when we had loads of problems with rubbish being not cleared regularly and random stuff dumped opposite my old flat in LJ, the council did nothing until I said i'd seen rats. Then they were all over it, cleaned it up, forced the owners of the flats to pay for increased pick ups


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2013)

shakespearegirl said:


> rubble = rodents


Seeing as the billboard provides shade for the local street drinkers/eaters, it means that the grass area is covered in discarded food, bones and bottles, with nearby walls used as toilets. It's fucking minging.


----------



## laptop (Apr 23, 2013)

editor said:


> Seeing as the billboard provides shade for the local street drinkers/eaters, it means that the grass area is covered in discarded food, bones and bottles, with nearby walls used as toilets. It's fucking minging.


 
If the police went to the council and told them the billboard was an anti-social behaviour problem, then maybe, just maybe, that'd boot them into action.

If, that is, you want the street drinkers moved on...


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2013)

laptop said:


> If the police went to the council and told them the billboard was an anti-social behaviour problem, then maybe, just maybe, that'd boot them into action.
> 
> If, that is, you want the street drinkers moved on...


It's supposed to be a non-drinking zone. LOL.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Apr 24, 2013)

editor said:


> They;re really taking the fucking piss now and using it as some sort of dumping ground for building rubble as well as an all night car parking space.
> 
> View attachment 31771


 
E-mail the pick to environmental health concerning an illegal dump and ask for enforcement.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Apr 24, 2013)

Environmental health is your best bet.. Don't you get a lot of kids walking past now on the way to the Academy? 

`potential headline in the South London Press of rat bites schoolchild should be enough to spring environmental health into action


----------



## urbanspaceman (Apr 24, 2013)

Editor - have you contacted any of the Councillors for Coldharbour Ward ?

Donatus Anyanwu
Rachel Heywood
Matthew Parr

Of the three, I have only had dealings with Rachel Heywood, in which she has been constructive and responsive. Based on experience of lobbying the council about the Central Square and Operations Stillwater, I would suggest that:

1) Individual complaints are not taken very seriously by our representatives. But there is a noticeable leveraging effect: as more people complain, the attention paid by councillors, MPs, AMs, etc. grows not linearly, but geometrically.

2) Our representatives don't like bad publicity. Press stories generate action

3) Our representatives take the opinion of the Police seriously.

Which suggests:

a) a co-ordinated campaign to contact the Councillors. Email is convenient, and providing a template to people is helpful, although everybody should be encouraged to make their own personal adjustments to any such form letter. U75 itself is the best platform for this sort of citizen organisation that anyone could ask for. Photographs are also particularly eloquent and persuasive, and should be included.

b) Brixton Blog and Brixton Bugle could be approached  to run as suitably well-illustrated story. The hooks: i) how telling of Lambeth Council's true lethargic attitude to the people of Brixton that the site in question has languished in this state of squalor for years, at the very geographical dead centre (the heart) of Coldharbour Ward, neglected by the Council and Coldharbour ward councillors, ii) how ironic that the site is directly adjacent to the much-vaunted Somerlyton Road redevelopment, which is going to look pretty lame with this eyesore next to it, iii) Lambeth's own map labels the site as "Coldharbour Lane Open Space", but giving it a pretty name diesn't make it so (cf: Peachtree:  http://i.imgur.com/JIS1Y.jpg )

c) the Police produce monthly crime reports. Does anyone have a copy of the stats for this location ? If law breaking is observed, including street drinking, it should be reported to the Coldharbour Safer Neighbourhood team. Keep a record and copy to the Councillors. The Police like a quiet life: one thing they really don't want to deal with is constant enquiries from local politicians.

d) if there is a rodent or infestation problem, then obviously it's a public health issue and Lambeth must act immediately. Pics ?

e) progressive escalation. Start with councillors, then progress to GLA member Val Shawcross - she is a big hitter, and remarkably engaged and effective, but it's best not to take her time up until other avenues are exhausted. Tessa Jowell MP is rumoured to be stepping down at the next election, so it's not clear how much engagement can be expected from her.

So: a dedicated thread for a U75 campaign ? I think that Urbanauts, suitably self-organised, could exert pressure on the State quite effectively.

rheywood@lambeth.gov.uk
mparr1@lambeth.gov.uk
DAnyanwu@lambeth.gov.uk

http://www.valshawcross.com/home.html

http://content.met.police.uk/Team/Lambeth/Coldharbour

https://secure.met.police.uk/saferneighbourhoods/index_sn.php?rid=2396

http://www.coldharbourlabour.com/

Search for the Google doc: ColdharbourWardMap.pdf


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2013)

Cheers urbanspaceman for that detailed reply. I'm going to get letter writing next week. 

Meanwhile, they're currently busy dropping off more shit at their new dump, while the car parking fit to bursting.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Apr 25, 2013)

That looks like fly-tipping, which is illegal, and so represents another line of attack.

Editor - why not ask for the support of the U75 community to generate a community campaign ? I don't know whether you are thinking of just writing a letter yourself, but messages from many people are far more persuasive. I suggest that you mobilise the U75 community that you have built over all these years - hence a dedicated "clear up the Coldharbour Lane Open Space (sic)" campaign thread.


----------



## editor (May 13, 2013)

Had no response to any of the emails but here's the current state of play of this increasingly _multi-purpose_ site.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 13, 2013)

Just a reminder that the billboard is supposed to be gone by 25 May - see post #189.

12 days and counting......until someone thinks about going down there with an axe and taking direct action....


----------



## editor (May 13, 2013)

It seems that my email fired off to multiple councillors along with a copy of the photo above and a link to this thread has garnered a speedy reaction. And fair play to Rachel Heywood, she seems genuinely interested in sorting this out. 

I've suggested (again) that the garage be removed and the Southwyk House green space extended to cover it. With a fast-growing local population, the extra green space is much needed and could be put to good community use (e.g. nature trail, old folk's exercise park etc etc).


----------



## editor (May 13, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Just a reminder that the billboard is supposed to be gone by 25 May - see post #189.
> 
> 12 days and counting......until someone thinks about going down there with an axe and taking direct action....


If the billboard goes, it will expose all the dodgy activities behind it!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 13, 2013)

that is a great graphic above


----------



## editor (May 30, 2013)

Oh it's looking particularly splendid today.






So that's another photo or two to forward to the councillors.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 30, 2013)

have you tried to help their collection by chucking bricks out the window yet?


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 30, 2013)

oooh bad parsing.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 30, 2013)

> *Authorisation was granted to issue notices under s225 and s255A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in mid February and the advertiser was given a final opportunity to remove the adverts at the end of last month. The formal notices were then issued under the provisions of s225 and s255A on 25 March 2013. If the advertisements are not removed within the two month compliance period, we will work with the Valuation and Asset Management Team to secure their removal.*


 
Well the two month compliance period was over on 25 May so the Council now have the power to remove the billboard - which I expect they will be doing forthwith, yes?


----------



## editor (May 30, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Well the two month compliance period was over on 25 May so the Council now how the power to remove the billboard - which I expect they will be doing forthwith, yes?


 
Oh most definitely. No question about it.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 30, 2013)

Having said that, a quick email to the council has just elicited two speedy responses. One of the councillors said "thanks for the reminder" and chased it up, whilst Planning Enforcement say they are "making arrangements with the Valuation & Asset Management Team for its removal."

I've got an axe and a couple of saws - I'd more than happy to pop down and give them a hand....


----------



## editor (May 30, 2013)

Rachel Heywood is the only one to bothering to reply to my mail, as usual.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 30, 2013)

editor said:


> Rachel Heywood is the only one to bothering to reply to my mail, as usual.


Yeah but don't let that mean you go soft on her...her doublespeak over Carlton Mansions is dispicable.


----------



## editor (May 30, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yeah but don't let that mean you go soft on her...her doublespeak over Carlton Mansions is dispicable.


I'm not going soft on anyone!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 30, 2013)

Good


----------



## leanderman (May 30, 2013)

It's an outrage that any form of lease was granted in the first place. It should be rescinded so you can have an outdoor gym and community garden or something.


----------



## Rushy (May 31, 2013)

Dulw





leanderman said:


> It's an outrage that any form of lease was granted in the first place. It should be rescinded so you can have an outdoor gym and community garden or something.


Dulwich Park is full of outdoor gym machines. They look good and have been pretty busy whenever I have run past.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 31, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Dulw
> Dulwich Park is full of outdoor gym machines. They look good and have been pretty busy whenever I have run past.


Yeah there are also lots in Burgess Park now too. Some are pretty decent.

CH1 had a great idea of turning that bit of land into Brixton's version of Muscle Beach on Venice Beach in LA 







I reckon it's a great idea. The SLP covered it too.






http://coldharbourrocks.wordpress.com


----------



## leanderman (May 31, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Dulw
> Dulwich Park is full of outdoor gym machines. They look good and have been pretty busy whenever I have run past.



Good way of mixing cardio with resistance training but, if I break a run, I fear I won't get going again.


----------



## Gramsci (May 31, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Well the two month compliance period was over on 25 May so the Council now have the power to remove the billboard - which I expect they will be doing forthwith, yes?


 
Also have they put in for retrospective planning permission for using part of the site as a car park? As the previous post #189 said the officers expected them to do that. Or enforcement action would be taken.



> The operators will have the right to apply for planning permission for the change of use of this part of the site to a car park. If the use does not cease as requested the council will consider the expediency of formal action to secure the cessation of the use.


----------



## CH1 (May 31, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Also have they put in for retrospective planning permission for using part of the site as a car park? As the previous post #189 said the officers expected them to do that. Or enforcement action would be taken.


Having just re-read #189 it raises as many questions as answers.
Broadboards Limited (supposedly the owners of a 15 year sub-lease on the car park) are listed on various company information sites as an "advertising agency". Looks like their core business is putting up massive advertising hoardings to hide scrap yards/car parks!
Surely Lambeth must have some control over who leases their property - and who it is sub-leased to - never mind planning permission.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 1, 2013)

Whole place should be shut down (yawn)


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Having just re-read #189 it raises as many questions as answers.
> Broadboards Limited (supposedly the owners of a 15 year sub-lease on the car park) are listed on various company information sites as an "advertising agency". Looks like their core business is putting up massive advertising hoardings to hide scrap yards/car parks!
> Surely Lambeth must have some control over who leases their property - and who it is sub-leased to - never mind planning permission.


 
It gets curiouser and curiouser.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

Some bloke is doing some banging and drilling on the billboard right now.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jul 16, 2013)

editor said:


> Some bloke is doing some banging and drilling on the billboard right now.


 
Fitting an extension?


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

19sixtysix said:


> Fitting an extension?


 
Well, this is odd. He's cut out a big square from the top and his mate seems to be holding it against the railings inside like it'll make a nice sign.  

Can anyone guess what they're up to and why they're doing it at 10pm?

Mind you, the less there is of that billboard, the happier I am.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

So, the other bloke has just stuck up two warning signs on the fences inside the car wash and has taken pictures of them in situ.


----------



## Manter (Jul 16, 2013)

are they allowed to do it at 10pm?  Doesn't that count as antisocial noise?


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

Manter said:


> are they allowed to do it at 10pm? Doesn't that count as antisocial noise?


It smells _veh_ dodgy.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 16, 2013)

Eh?


----------



## Manter (Jul 16, 2013)

editor said:


> It smells _veh_ dodgy.


its def a bit weird....


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 16, 2013)

If you're very lucky they'll be nicking it for scrap.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 16, 2013)

Direct action?


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

Manter said:


> are they allowed to do it at 10pm? Doesn't that count as antisocial noise?


Happy to put up with the noise if it gets rid of that fucking billboard, but I can't work out why they've parked their van inside the car wash gates or why his chum has been taking pictures of the warning signs he's just put up.


----------



## Manter (Jul 16, 2013)

editor said:


> Happy to put up with the noise if it gets rid of that fucking billboard, but I can't work out why they've inside their van inside the car wash gates or why his chum has been taking pictures of the warning signs he's just put up.


I'm not sure I can help you with that one.  Unless it says something like 'caution asbestos' so nothing can be moved?!


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> If you're very lucky they'll be nicking it for scrap.


If that is the case, they're _extraordinarily_ casual about it. He sat down for a fag and a chat earlier on (or maybe he was waiting for it to get dark).


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 16, 2013)

Maybe they'll replace the missing panel with a flashing neon sign.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

There's one bloke banging away at the billboard with what appears to be very few tools. while his mate ambles around. If he is trying to nick it he's going to take an awful long time.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Perhaps you could setup some stop motion photography and we can all watch the results tomorrow. It'll be like a low rent Queen concert video.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

skyscraper101 said:


> Perhaps you could setup some stop motion photography and we can all watch the results tomorrow. It'll be like a low rent Queen concert video.


At the rate this fella's going it'll be a long, long movie. His mate has settled down in a chair, which is nice.


----------



## Yelkcub (Jul 16, 2013)

editor said:


> At the rate this fella's going it'll be a long, long movie. His mate has settled down in a chair, which is nice.



It's the lot who were at The Angel doing living art, is it?


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

Yelkcub said:


> It's the lot who were at The Angel doing living art, is it?


I did wonder if it was a performance piece, but there's no Edwardian dandies and fops prancing about.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

Another little square on the top of the opposite side has just been taken out.
It sure seems an odd way to take down a billboard.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

In a priceless development, a cop van went by just as a big flappy bit of metal came crashing down on to the pavement, so now they've all come out for a look.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

Bang bang.


Bang bang crash!

'Ello, what's that?


'ello, 'ello, 'ello.


----------



## laptop (Jul 16, 2013)

They want the sheets of metal to build a dope-farming cabinet?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 16, 2013)

This is better than ....


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 16, 2013)

You should pop out to see which bits they've removed. It's frustrating looking at it from this side.


----------



## shygirl (Jul 16, 2013)

Hurry up, give us more!


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

shygirl said:


> Hurry up, give us more!


Well, the cops have left and they're still here, but they haven't started banging yet.


----------



## Manter (Jul 16, 2013)

I am now mildly obsessed with this billboard....


----------



## Manter (Jul 16, 2013)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> This is better than ....


Listening to your neighbours have sex?


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

They're still here but there's no more banging going on.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 16, 2013)

Maybe it's a live action edition of Catchphrase? Is there a guy dressed in a huge yellow boxy outfit playing out an everyday common saying in the foreground?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 16, 2013)

Look at the low-light performance of that OM-D though. You should get Olympus to sponsor billboard-related photography activities.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2013)

I've no idea what was going on, but I imagine it might be easy for someone to exploit the semi-legal nature of the billboard and the confusion surrounding who owns the land.

Are the materials in billboards actually worth anything?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 17, 2013)

No wonder Lambeth got into such a mess over Rushcroft road when they can allow such a long-running farce in a prime spot


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Here's how it looks today in its semi-pulled down state. Looking good as always.


----------



## colacubes (Jul 17, 2013)

That looks, err, lovely.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 17, 2013)

Is it aluminium?


----------



## Manter (Jul 17, 2013)

oooh, the semi-derelict detailing really adds something


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Manter said:


> oooh, the semi-derelict detailing really adds something


We now - finally - have the art installation outside the block that was promised by the council some five years ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2013)

it looks like something they spent five minutes over and is therefore bound for turner prize stardom.

it is a searing indictment of today's culture of ephemera expressed in a collage of torn music flyposters.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

I wonder if the bloke will sneak back in tonight and finish off the job. I hope so.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 17, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Is it aluminium?


If it is it's worth 50p per kilo as scrap. Not much of a payday for what was taken last night. If it's low grade steel it's even less.  Two guys with a newish van must have something other than scrap value in mind. But what? Could it be that the council have finally got their act together and made the owners take it down?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 17, 2013)

It's obviously kosher or the cops would've been stopped it I'd have thought.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 17, 2013)

Looks like galvanised steel sheet to me.

I could use some galvanised steel sheet.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Looks like galvanised steel sheet to me.
> 
> I could use some galvanised steel sheet.


Feel free to pop over tonight and help yourself. 

That seems to be the way things are done around here.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

skyscraper101 said:


> It's obviously kosher or the cops would've been stopped it I'd have thought.


Well, they did stop them last night.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Could it be that the council have finally got their act together and made the owners take it down?


At 10pm, with just one bloke doing the work?


----------



## Frumious B. (Jul 17, 2013)

If it's the owner or his staff doing the work they might prefer not to do it in the heat of the day.


----------



## Manter (Jul 17, 2013)

wonder if, by starting to take it down, they have just complicated any enforcement action?  You know how if you can show a court you've started to try and comply they have to give you more time?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Well, they did stop them last night.


 
But they were allowed to carry on after they have a poke about no?


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

skyscraper101 said:


> But they were allowed to carry on after they have a poke about no?


Nope. They scuttled off home straight after and haven't been back since.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> If it's the owner or his staff doing the work they might prefer not to do it in the heat of the day.


Given the rate he was working at and the fact that there was only one of them, I'd say it would have taken him till about 5 or 6 am to finish, at least.

Much as I want to see the back of the thing, it's a residential area and folks would have started complaining seeing as he was making a right racket.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Nope. They scuttled off home straight after and haven't been back since.


 
But if the police just let them go they must've convinced them that they weren't damaging someone elses property. Seems odd that they'd just remove a couple of panels and then disappear though I agree.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2013)

skyscraper101 said:


> But if the police just let them go they must've convinced them that they weren't damaging someone elses property. Seems odd that they'd just remove a couple of panels and then disappear though I agree.


Seeing as even the council have trouble working out who owns that land/billboard and have been powerless to do anything about its illegal existence, perhaps it was the same story for the cops?


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

Timber! There goes the shitty sign.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

So there may be big holes left in the dodgy, half-dismantled billboard after the late night cowboy operation failed, but some enterprising local entrepreneur has used the hole to wedge in a flier.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

It's all go today! Considering the methodical way this thing was put up, and they way these two guys are banging away at the billboard in a bit of a random fashion, I'd say these guys haven't done it before.

They haven't put up any safety barriers in front of the barrier, so there's a pretty good chance a passer by may get hit when they bang a panel off.

Still, if it gets rid of the eyesore....


----------



## Crispy (Jul 31, 2013)

Or if he slips and falls and gores himself on the fence!


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 31, 2013)

Dude leaning with his back to the car appears to be a lookout.

Are they using a shopping trolley for their materials?


----------



## Manter (Jul 31, 2013)

I have a really unhealthy obsession with this billboard


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

They've stopped to have a little think about what they're doing. 

Sure beats the TV tonight.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> I have a really unhealthy obsession with this billboard



This thread is where it's at.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

They're still thinking about it. They're fully kitted out for the job though: one small ladder, and two hammers. And a screwdriver. Oh, and a shopping trolley. 
No safety gear needed.


----------



## Manter (Jul 31, 2013)

there's a lot of junk and rubble there- is it theirs too?


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> there's a lot of junk and rubble there- is it theirs too?


 
They've been using that area as a dumping ground for rubble for months. Normally it's piled really high.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

Looks like just knocking out those two panels was all they could manage for the day.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 31, 2013)

The pace of change where this billboard is concerned is infuriatingly slow.


----------



## Manter (Jul 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Looks like just knocking out those two panels was all they could manage for the day.


Just shows a lack of commitment if you ask me


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

skyscraper101 said:


> The pace of change where this billboard is concerned is infuriatingly slow.


 
It reminds me a bit of the nearby Part Worn Res saga:

















More: http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/tyres.html


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 31, 2013)

editor said:


> I couldn't get through to the planning department (10 mins on hold was enough), but I've posted up a piece that will hopefully get some attention.
> 
> http://www.urban75.org/blog/coldharbour-lane-brixton-sw9-big-ugly-billboard-goes-up-is-it-legal/


 

When you said 'huge', I thought you meant something like this:






That sign goes against all city ordinances, but the land it's situated on.... is owned by an aboriginal band. And they said ok.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> When you said 'huge', I thought you meant something like this:


It's still pretty huge for a residential street.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 1, 2013)

They've recently declared all those large digital LED billboards _illegal_ in Los Angeles. I don't really know what the problem is with them. The ones round by my old place in Shepherds Bush were well cool and much more futuristic looking than the old paper stylee ones. Probably more environmentally friendly too.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 1, 2013)

Manter said:


> I have a really unhealthy obsession with this billboard


I was wondering if I could get it to aligh with the illegal immigrant hand yourself in poster, and the German nazi war criminal hand yourself in poster thread for a juxtaposition thread treat


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2013)

They're hard at work banging away on the billboard now and have upgraded their operation now that they have two stepladders and two highly trained operatives on the go (and no safety gear natch).

Have to say they do seem a little cagey. They saw my camera and all scuttled off for a bit. I feel like I should shout out the window, "No, carry on! I want to see the back of the thing "


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2013)

editor said:


> View attachment 38224


 
Phwoar!

They don't much care for Elfan Safety do they!


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2013)

He's not trying to saw the top of the main wood support with a domestic hand saw. I'm actually a little concerned, both for him and for passers by.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2013)

You've got to give him credit for the 'balancing with bollocks over pointy fence and pile of bricks, while holding onto possibly rotten wooden spar' gig though.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 1, 2013)

don't be, if he manages to impale himself you're in a prime position to get a few saleable shots


----------



## Crispy (Aug 1, 2013)

It can't cost much to hire a 3m scaffold tower for a day, surely?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 1, 2013)

Crispy said:


> It can't cost much to hire a 3m scaffold tower for a day, surely?


 
Probably more than it costs to pay someone skint to risk their neck (or bollocks) though.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2013)

Crispy said:


> It can't cost much to hire a 3m scaffold tower for a day, surely?


 
Any cost is too much for these guys. Who can forget their innovative and economy-minded method of constructing a sign?







http://www.urban75.org/blog/cowboys-ahoy-shoddy-workmanship-on-coldharbour-lane-brixton/


----------



## colacubes (Aug 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Any cost is too much for these guys. Who can forget their innovative and economy-minded method of constructing a sign?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Badgers (Aug 1, 2013)

Perhaps the rickety ugly billboard is coming down. Only to be replaced by a much larger lit up one? The sort that rotates adverts and such?


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Perhaps the rickety ugly billboard is coming down. Only to be replaced by a much larger lit up one? The sort that rotates adverts and such?


 
Judging by the way this one's coming down, such a new billboard will be made of Meccano and sticky back plastic.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Any cost is too much for these guys. Who can forget their innovative and economy-minded method of constructing a sign?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Stone henge of our times


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2013)

editor said:


> View attachment 38203
> 
> View attachment 38204
> 
> ...


 
"Banging a panel off" sounds like a euphemism for something...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2013)

Manter said:


> Just shows a lack of commitment if you ask me


 
It seems to me they're trying to remove the "board" part of the billboard without dismantling the framework (which they probably want to leave until last, what with them only having one ladder, two hammers and a shopping trolley to do the job with!).


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2013)

The job is done (sort of). Who needs health and safety!


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 1, 2013)

This is the gentrification of Brixton in action.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Aug 1, 2013)

longdog said:


> I used to work in outdoor advertising and it was standard procedure to erect hoardings _without_ planning permission. The thinking behind it was that if there were objections the company would apply for permission, appeal the almost inevitable refusal and wait until the very last minute before complying with the enforcement notice and removing the hoarding for reuse elsewhere (most of the hoarding is reusable and as you will have seen they're quite quick to erect). By dragging their heels as much as possible they could probably get a year of 'sales' out of the site and a 48 sheet hoarding in a good location is quite lucrative.
> 
> What caused us the most problems was vandalism. There's a good chance the advertising agency that books the site will inspect the site every so often and if the advert has been subverted or just plain vandalised the owner of the hoarding has two choices... Re-post the advert or forego that month's fee. Either way costs them money.
> 
> Not that I'm suggesting you get out there with the paint and 4" brush of course


 
Possibly the gas axe or industrial 9" angle grinder mike be better idea


----------



## Manter (Aug 2, 2013)

Did the shopping trolley ever get used? I have to know...


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Any cost is too much for these guys. Who can forget their innovative and economy-minded method of constructing a sign?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I actually quite like that.

They're using the van to pivot the sign around the apex.What they've done is to thoughtfully place a blanket on the top of the van to stop the wood from damaging the roof during the maneuver. Unfortunately, Einstein and his mates didn't dial-in the fact that when they start reversing the van, the blanket will get pushed along the roof by the sign, thus eventually bringing the roof of the van into direct contact with the hardware and causing the geezer in the red jumper to slap a facepalm!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Perhaps the rickety ugly billboard is coming down. Only to be replaced by a much larger lit up one? The sort that rotates adverts and such?


They'll be advertising spanish omelettes on it


----------



## isvicthere? (Aug 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Banging a panel off" sounds like a euphemism for something...


 
Euphemism thread, that-a-way..........


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 4, 2013)

Woo-hoo, the billboard is finally gone


----------



## Crispy (Aug 4, 2013)

2 years, 5 months, 27 days


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 5, 2013)

Brixton is changing!


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2013)

An update if anyone is interested: the huge live-in vehicle has now been moved to a new position (and one of the sides extended), presumably to take it away from the open toilet by the fence used by the street drinkers.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 12, 2013)

still remains resolutely unbricked


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 12, 2013)

People living in that motorhome thing? A group of travellers perhaps?


----------



## Manter (Sep 12, 2013)

What a mess


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> People living in that motorhome thing? A group of travellers perhaps?


I only ever see one bloke on crutches coming in and out of the thing.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 12, 2013)

It's probably illegal to live there, you could always report him to the council.


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> It's probably illegal to live there, you could always report him to the council.


They've know exactly what has been going on around this site. They're the fuckers that granted such a long lease to this bunch of cowboys.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 12, 2013)

editor said:


> They've know exactly what has been going on around this site. They're the fuckers that granted such a long lease to this bunch of cowboys.



I wonder whether there are terms in the lease that they have broken, and could be evicted for.


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I wonder whether there are terms in the lease that they have broken, and could be evicted for.


Given the council's excessively casual response to the billboard (which replaced another illegal billboard that had been there for years) I'm not sure they give much of a fuck.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 12, 2013)

editor said:


> Given the council's excessively casual response to the billboard (which replaced another illegal billboard that had been there for years) I'm not sure they give much of a fuck.



Their approach to everything is casual, except evictions and parking issues.


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Their approach to everything is casual, except evictions and parking issues.


Well yes. They can certainly pull out all the stops when it comes to evictions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> It's probably illegal to live there, you could always report him to the council.



Very likely to be illegal.  For a start, it's on unremediated land that used to house a petrol station, so wouldn't meet the relevant standards for a hard-standing park-up.  I also doubt it's licenced as a park-up, either.


----------



## Pinggoombah (Sep 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Very likely to be illegal.  For a start, it's on unremediated land that used to house a petrol station, so wouldn't meet the relevant standards for a hard-standing park-up.  I also doubt it's licenced as a park-up, either.



Your concern for his welfare is touching.

What exactly are _baby-eating-anarchist_'s requirements for an acceptable place to live in Brixton? You think it okay to squat in a council owned property, or commercial premises, but you don't approve of hard working people living in a trailer.

This thread stinks of hypocrisy. Shame on you.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 13, 2013)

editor said:


> Given the council's excessively casual response to the billboard (which replaced another illegal billboard that had been there for years) I'm not sure they give much of a fuck.



Tell them you're considering using the space as a pop-up cocktail bar except the vehicles are in the way. They'll have them shifted in no time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2013)

Pinggoombah said:


> Your concern for his welfare is touching.



Given that I'm aware of the issues pursuant to living on land contaminated with hydrocarbons, my concern is genuine.



> What exactly are _baby-eating-anarchist_'s requirements for an acceptable place to live in Brixton?



You realise that the "baby-eating anarchists" tag was one given to Urban75 by a tabloid journo, not an appelation that the site's members gave themselves, don't you?

You think it okay to squat in a council owned property, or commercial premises, but you don't approve of hard working people living in a trailer.[/quote]

I don't approve or disapprove, neither is implied in my point about the nature of the land he's parked on.




> This thread stinks of hypocrisy. Shame on you.



It only smells of hypocrisy because you've constructed an anile "argument" that attributes hypocrisy where none exists.

Try again, and this time please try harder, but without the self-righteous prattle, eh?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2013)

Well, that's them told.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Very likely to be illegal.  For a start, it's on unremediated land that used to house a petrol station, so wouldn't meet the relevant standards for a hard-standing park-up.  I also doubt it's licenced as a park-up, either.


I think the land is probably OK. Didn't they dig the tanks out years ago - at the time that Ujima were negotiating to put housing on the site.
The parking up is definitely not OK - previous planning permissions make that clear.
Actually I feel a planning application coming on. That might well explain the disappearance of the advertising hoardings and the (albeit slight) tidying up.
You can't tell me that a property company with directors based in Stanmore has a mission to provide a car-wash in Coldharbour Lane indefinitely - especially in this toppy property market.


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2022)

Oh hang on, It looks like they're trying to sneak one in again. The story continues!


----------



## CH1 (Jul 29, 2022)

Maybe our regeneration team are softening us up for some Genesis yuppy flats? 
Brixton embraces community in new vision - see me and Gramsci on main Brixton thread.
If you recall 9 years back the bill-boards were removed as a result of a "peace treaty" between the land owner, Doug \Black the Lambeth planner and the Lambeth enforcement officer, whose names escapes me.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2022)

And sure enough, a new illegal billboard has emerged.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 10, 2022)

What would happen if someone pasted over the lot with something that said "Illegal Billboard erected". 
I assume nobody could do anything to stop you even if it was done in broad daylight.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 10, 2022)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> What would happen if someone pasted over the lot with something that said "Illegal Billboard erected".
> I assume nobody could do anything to stop you even if it was done in broad daylight.


Maybe along with the land owner's name and phone number


----------



## ChrisSouth (Aug 10, 2022)

editor said:


> And sure enough, a new illegal billboard has emerged.
> 
> View attachment 336805


Have you reported it to the council?


----------



## co-op (Aug 10, 2022)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> What would happen if someone pasted over the lot with something that said "Illegal Billboard erected".
> I assume nobody could do anything to stop you even if it was done in broad daylight.



 

I'd assume you would be at an elevated risk of getting your head kicked in, but maybe things have changed?

Back in the days when political flyposting was a thing my experience was that no one cared that much, even the cops if you were discrete, but fucking woe betide you if you pasted stuff over the commercial-illegal boys posters (usually music-related stuff). A not-at-all-friendly warning was usually fast arriving. They all seemed to overlap with door security at music venues, not easy-going types at all.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2022)

ChrisSouth said:


> Have you reported it to the council?



I finally have after going around in multiple loops from different email addresses/forms. 

If anyone else wants to have a go, it's here: Report the breaking of planning rules (breach of planning control)


----------



## co-op (Aug 10, 2022)

editor said:


> I finally have after going around in multiple loops from different email addresses/forms.
> 
> If anyone else wants to have a go, it's here: Report the breaking of planning rules (breach of planning control)



Well done, it's a massive pain in the arse but it prevents these boards becoming established by longevity and then getting retrospective planning permissions which is the general aim of the people who put them up, they can sell them on to Clear Channel or whoever for big money.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2022)

co-op said:


> Well done, it's a massive pain in the arse but it prevents these boards becoming established by longevity and then getting retrospective planning permissions which is the general aim of the people who put them up, they can sell them on to Clear Channel or whoever for big money.


I didn't work my arse off to provide ad-free online environments for nearly thirty years to find shitty ads being shoved up outside my block!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 10, 2022)

Might also be worth dropping a line to the Brixton Society to see if they would be willing to make an objection/enforcement request.


----------



## co-op (Aug 10, 2022)

I just had a search on these boards because I thought I'd posted about this before and it turns out I mis-remembered and had had a PM convo about it, anyway just for anyone's interest this is a letter I got way back in 2006 or close to that date from Lambeth Council - it does show that there is some point in reporting these things




> Dear Mr ******,
> Thank you for your email. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding. As you can appreciate we are underresourced and are dealing with a large number of alleged unauthorised hoardngs as well as our caseload of over 1,500 planning enforcement cases. In order for the Council to take any action against inappropriate advertisement hoardings they have to be satisfied on the criminal test (i.e. beyond reasonable
> doubt) that the hoarding is illegal and does not benefit from any type ofdeemed or express consent. The Council can not take any action against such hoardings if they are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. In relation to the hoardings outlined I an provide the following updates:
> 139 South Lambeth Road
> ...


----------



## co-op (Aug 10, 2022)

As you might have guessed I used to live just off Wandsworth Rd


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2022)

Lambeth said they're looking into this, the Brixton Society have taken an interest and I've dropped Adblock Lambeth a line.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 26, 2022)

Now we are no longer the 2nd most important member of the European Union - but in the queue to be the 52nd most important member of the United States, how about some cultural adjustment?

For your delectation here is an example from the West Coast. Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board have determined that the Pink Elephant neon advertising signs for a carwash chain will be listed. These signs were designed by Seattle's Queen of Neon, Beatrice Haverfield.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Aug 26, 2022)

Do you know anyone with a chain saw? Is it criminal damage if its illegally erected?


----------



## editor (Aug 26, 2022)

19sixtysix said:


> Do you know anyone with a chain saw? Is it criminal damage if its illegally erected?


I'm just hoping that the sun's beams will reflect off the Barrier Block and focus on the billboard and set the thing ablaze.


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2022)

I forgot to mention: it was taken down two weeks ago


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 7, 2022)

Good! 
Though I was hoping for a more dramatic update.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 7, 2022)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Good!
> Though I was hoping for a more dramatic update.


What like a huge new 1984 style billboard - "Big Truss is Watching You!"?


----------

