Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Ersan Video Corner
Hi all.
Has anyone else noticed how horrific the images are on a constant loop being beamed out of the windows of Ersan & Co opposite the Salisbury?
When it was first being refurbished, it was a mystery as to what it was going to be, then as the 'PERSONAL INJURY, 'ACCIDENT CLAIMS' and 'MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE' banners were unveiled it became clear that it is a ambulance chaser megamart.
So what right? These [sort of firms*] have to be based somewhere.
My gripe is that they show videos on a constant loop of all of the worst things which can happen. There is one video in particular which features an awful car accident where a car crosses into the oncoming lane and is obliterated by a truck. I have been in a couple of car accidents, and they are no joke, and it struck me that this is particularly inappropriate footage to be broadcasting to the general public 24 hours a day.
Also the monitors seem to be beaming these out at about a million lumens, they illuminate the whole street, thankfully my bedroom is not on the street side or I would need blackout curtains.
Who can I complain to? (Besides you lot...)
*edited by site admin
Tags for Forum Posts: ersan
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Protheroe O'Shea on
-
Is it illegal to stick paper over their windows each night?
-
Permalink Reply by Geoff on
-
The distance from the window doesn't make a jot of difference - it is no less visible than it was in its original location. It is still intrusive and utterly unsuitable for the Green Lanes - or any other - locality.
-
Permalink Reply by ChrisTofer on
-
Maybe so, but you can bet this firm is going to play on technicalities...
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
BTW, here's the application they made this year and one from 2007 by KFH.
-
Permalink Reply by Rebecca on
-
I note that the assessment and decision text states there is no detriment to the 'outlook' for residents or neighbouring properties and that the 'size, colour and texture' of the changes must be consistent with the existing building. In my non-technical opinion, massive video screens broadcasting horrible imagery and large purple signage contravene both of these. I lodged a complaint against the screens originally. I will lodge another.
-
Permalink Reply by Abi on
-
Yes, I'd hope also that multiple complaints is indicative enough of a 'detriment' for it to count as such in this context...
And I've never seen such a form of promotion before (anywhere, come to think of it) so claiming that the screens fit in with the rest of the street is obviously a non-starter.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I think the area to the front is part of the property. We can but hope that the trees grown tall enough to block out the whole damn thing.
-
-
You'd need an entire Monty Python-style shrubbery to make any sort of a difference, though.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
THIS is disappointing especially when one considers the wide public relief that a new occupant would not be a betting shop. One knew what to expect with a betting shop.
There had been higher expectations of a law firm moving in.
It seems they may be meeting the letter of the law, but not the spirit.
It seems a pity that on a prime site the only companies able to pay the rent are either betting shops and accident solicitors.
-
-
Just spoke to the officer in charge: from the council's point of view, the fact that they've moved the screen(s) a meter back from the window means they've officially complied and there's nothing they can do.
We're stuck with these ugly displays for good, now. The GLA really shouldn't have bothered with this whole redevelopment business: nasty Green Lanes is here to stay, thanks to businesses like Ersan...
-
-
I completely agree with you that there is a lack of regulations enforcement all over the board, and the screens are simply one of the most obvious examples of that. We're in zone 2 and with enough business variety and strict planning control this could be such a lovely area. But unfortunately, thanks to rogue businesses and sloppy planning control, that's not going to be the case anytime soon. That's the simple point I was trying to make...
-
-
Yeah, I don't really understand this idea that just because no action has been taken in other cases, it shouldn't be taken against other, particularly bad offences. That's really defeatist and leads nowhere helpful.
I'm still just not entirely convinced that what they have done is indeed legal, because I can't believe other businesses wouldn't do the same if it were. They can't be the first to have had this idea so how come it's not going on elsewhere? I've never seen this done before.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
