More on the Ad Banners saga- do they break planning rules?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ruth on November 8, 2008 at 22:28

I object to them on many grounds particularly all those McDonalds and Sainsburys ones. Drivers are urged to turn round and head back to Sainsburys down Green Lanes... surely this could be construed as encouraging alcohol use/abuse by drivers since they sell booze (and much cheaper than pubs and clubs) and also fags and smoking has been held up to be such a disgusting habit... If a pub put up a sign saying turnaround young man and go buy something and maybe some booze and fags, it just wouldnt be allowed. Its unfair competition apart from anything else, the aesthetics of it etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on November 12, 2008 at 19:10

IN THE council's "Setting the Record Straight" web-site, Cllr Lorna Reith, "Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Community Cohesion and Involvement", says that banners with council messaging are "deemed [to have] planning consent [but] double sided commercial banners without council messaging do not fall into this category".

It is not clear yet what this new prohibition on "double sided" commerical advertising has any bearing on Haringey's banner adverising in general. For example, does this permit single-sided banner advertising?

The distinction between single-sided advertising and doubl-sided advertising seems artificial: since you can only see one side at a time, the impact as visual pollution is the same, surely? This peculiar distinction (contortion?) seems to be a device to extricate the council from bad PR and it is doubtful that this new policy would have been established unless residents had not complained.

Haringey receives a pitfully small income (£38k p.a.) from the banner company, who are thought to sell on the advertising space for more than £200,000. The public are ripped off and Haringey demonstrate their incompetence once more when dealing with the private sector (I am not suggesting that LBH should have recieved the larger figure: I oppose this visual pollution on principle).

It's a pity that the aspect of Planning Permission did not occur to Haringey long ago: does this perhaps reflect their attitude that they are a law unto themselves until anyone complains?

In a similar way that they applied to themselves for a permanent gambling premises licence (for use by their favoured bookies, Ladbrokes, at Alexandra Palace) and then later awarded it to themselves, in a Full Licensing Committee Hearing, comprised of councillors and chaired by the pro-casino Councillor Harry Lister.

• ▶ Reply