Forum Topic

Planning application 2021/3877 - RPFC advertising screens

I would like to draw your attention to the above planning application entitled: "Removal of existing LED advertisement displays and erection of a single, double-sided LED Digital Screen 6m x 4m".  Comments on should be made by 24 September 2021.The Barnes Towers/Barnes Landmark currently consists of three screens.  While one screen could be an improvement, there is no explanation on the application as to why this change is proposed.  There is a discrepancy on the size of the screen between the application form (Height: 10.7 x Width: 4 x Depth: 0.66 meter(s) and the document containing Statement of Community Involvement (4m wide by 6m high).The proposal is for the screen to have moving images (the current ones are static).  This is contrary to conditions set for the three screens, namely:- Sequential change:  Any sequential change between advertisements will take place over a period no greater than one second and sequential advertisements will not change more than once every ten seconds. To ensure the signs do not have any adverse effect on the amenity on the area, or highway safety, in accordance with DMS 8;  and- Method of illumination:   The illumination of the signs hereby approved shall be by static illumination only and shall not display any moving – or apparently moving, images. To ensure the signs do not have any adverse effect on the amenity in the area, or highway safety, in accordance with policy DMS8.What is more, the application appears to be in contradiction of the terms set out in the Wandsworth Environmental Sustainability Strategy (WESS). Finally, in the Statement of Community InvolvementExecutive SummaryOn 20 April 2021, at 6pm, local residents and interest groups were invited to attend an online public consultation via Zoom video link, to be informed of the proposal for the new advertising screen.  All attendees were invited to provide comments by completing a survey form. [Number of attendees is unknown.]……4 - Public consultation feedback and analysisThere are 5 questions on the form.  All the questions had the same amount of responsesTotal responses:  Yes – 1 No – 0 Maybe - 0Percentage of responses:  100%I gave always disliked those screens along RPFC, I will not deny it.  But this planning application is full of contradictions. It would be very helpful if you could comment on this PA on the Wandsworth website. Thank you for your time.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1363d42 Comments

Good morning Nick,Following on from my initial response, I think it is important to expand on it a bit.Much is made of the Community Benefit provided by Rosslyn Park - and the submission from the Club  accompanying the planning application provides some information but this 'community' has never been quantified.Wandsworth Borough Council failed at the outset  to establish any  specific  targets or precise objectives  for the community programme and the Councils monitoring of that programme has been cursory to say the least. Lest we forget  -  one of the main reasons for the existence of the screens was to generate funds to support the purchase of a £1m artificial pitch (another snub for environmental considerations) to primarily benefit the Rosslyn Park first team - their matches and their training sessions.And it looks like the source of  that funding is down to a number of bond holders and that their investment was delivering an advantageous return – although it would seem that no accounts have been filed on behalf of the Club since 2018.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1356d

Michael posted some articles about light pollution. I'm not in favour of light pollution either and I don't think anyone should be encouraged to have lights on at night for a non-productive reason, be it advertising coke or trying to make a mediocre bridge look attractive. If your objection was only to these screens being on in the hours of darkness, I would agree with you.As regards distraction and safety, the research on that is studied closely by the folks who develop the standards. I wouldn't want to second guess their judgement.

Michael Winstanley ● 1357d

Well Michael, I invite you to read the articles mentioned by Michael Ixer.There is extensive research on both sides as it were.  Unfortunately, as the Americans say:  "Money talks".

Ivonne Holliday ● 1357d

It's not a moving image is it. That rather defeats the idea that movement is some defining thing which makes a sign either distracting or not. In reality, there are guidelines for signage which the authorities spend a lot of time and research developing. It is right therefore that the knowledge and expertise thereby gained is applied, rather than some random individual's personal prejudice as to what sort of signs they want to see on a local road.

Michael Winstanley ● 1359d

Hello Barbara,Try this:Try reading and understanding this sign at Grays, Essex while slowing down from 30 mph, negotiating a right hand turn on a busy road and avoiding kamikaze pedestrians!    https://flic.kr/p/2mkm6oG

Ivonne Holliday ● 1359d

Ivonne, I have looked at Michael's pictures I see a squirrel, you might be looking somewhere else. Yes Ivonne, I do drive also had a car last couple of years I haven't. As no point me driving shopping then not being able to park outside. The other half takes me for a large shop on a Saturday or when ever.

Barbara Stevens ● 1359d

Good morning Barbara,Do you drive at all, Barbara?  I also invite you to read Michael Ixer's Random Picture of today.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1359d

One might also expect an experienced driver to keep her eyes on the road :-) I suspect in practice one would notice a video whilst driving as one should be on the lookout for any movement on the periphery of one's vision - after all, it could be a child about to run into the road - but if it was a video thern a good, experienced driver would discount an advertising screen?

Michael Ixer ● 1361d

Yes Ivonne, if you happen to be the passenger in a vehicle, but surely an experienced driver would keep his eye's on the road and the vehicle in front. Or a cyclist darting in front of you.

Barbara Stevens ● 1361d

That is fine Barbara.  I must admit that the screens do catch my eye from time to time.I wonder if you would still not see them if they were showing videos (as in ads on TV) and one or two did not catch your eye.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1361d

Ivonne, we go past the screen on a regular basis, the only time you would bother to look at it was in traffic, as the traffic lights are there. Otherwise you would just drive past.

Barbara Stevens ● 1361d

Good morning Michael,Hand in heart, will you honestly say that a video does not catch your eye more than a still picture, even if it changes constantly?  I do not know of any other advertising digital screens showing videos. Please let me know where - within a reasonable distance - and I shall go and see.I have seen some in shops of course, even in waiting rooms, but not along a road. 

Ivonne Holliday ● 1361d

Ivonne, I think you are mixing up your various objections; moving adverts next to roads are in use in many other locations without there being any noticeable increase in accident rates. It is really unlikely that planners will take any notice of such an argument.Increases in the amount of light or the length of time whichthey are on for are more valid reasons to object, along with discrepancies in the application.

Michael Winstanley ● 1362d

Michael W,You are right, the screens are already there, unfortunately.You could say that one screen could be better than 3; but that is questionable. But the planning application contains so many contradictions that it is objectionable.I am not too sure that the moving screens are more damaging to wildlife than the still ones.  But the light pollution from the LED screen(s) is enormous and  damaging to wildlife, particularly nocturnal mammals. These lights are on from 6 am to 11pm.  Winter nights are incredibly long and, at the worst of it, 7am (one hour after they are turned on) it is dark and at 3.30pm it is again dark, about 7 1/2 hs before they are turned off. Also, adverts are, by definition, eye catching - otherwise advertising would not be the multi-billion pound industry that it is.  But moving images are even more distracting, be it for drivers, cyclists or pedestrians.  Oh, if your read Michael Ixer's post (from which I plagiarized bits without permission (tut tut tut!), you would perhaps have learnt that the lighting from the LED screens is damaging to humans too.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1362d

I think the moving images comment refers to adding to the distraction of drivers.

Matt Palmer ● 1362d

I am confused by your objections Ivonne. There are already screens there. You might think there shouldn't be, but that decision has already been taken. Now they want to change them for a different kind. You might object if they are brighter, bigger or on for longer. But moving images? Is there evidence that these have a deleterious effect on wildlife more than still ones?

Michael Winstanley ● 1362d

Ivonne, your second post at the top proved nobody was really interested. Now your being answered you don't like the answers. So why not have left it we were not interested. If you just wanted to argue say nobody wants to argue with me. I lived there for years as a kid and went to school there, also lived across the road. We used to climb trees and in those days got in trouble. Went to the open air swimming pool which was fantastic, next to Rosslyn park, where the modern houses have been built. You could also say why did they build the Lennox Estate, that used to be all open land years ago, with sheep and Cows. part of the Priory, I could look out from my bedroom window. They even had Fete's over there and Dick Emery opened one of them. So one blasted sign, if that's all you have to worry about, how sad.

Barbara Stevens ● 1362d

Not Industrial, but Council.

Barbara Stevens ● 1362d

Hello Mark,As I said, those signs are more appropriate along motorways and in industrial (or trading) estates.  Not in residential areas and, even less, next to Metropolitan Open Land.I am sure many people would see them along the motorways.And URR is not a motorway.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1362d

I'm not taking side, just a side point. Are you saying that signs like this belong on industrial estates? Surely then no-one would see them, which defeats their purpose.

Mark Phillips ● 1362d

I am sorry Barbara but URR may be a main road but it certainly is not a motorway and that area is not an industrial estate.  That is where these screens should be.  And yes, the same principle applies to the screen in the corner of Charlewood Road and URR which is not an industrial area either.Barnes Common is Metropolitan Open Land (MLO) which has the same standing as the Metropolitan Green Belt. Which means that the land, and the wildlife there, are protected. Also, there were (are?) bats on the Common and no study was carried out with the original planning application for the three screens, it think in 2014.A bat study was carried out this time, but on RPFC land and not on the Common.  The area shown on the map is along the trees near Roehampton Lane.  They could hear pipistrelle bats activity but they could not see them. The survey was carried out on 30 May 2021 between 20:30 and 22:46.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1362d

Matt, for Gods sake it's a main road anyway, not a side turning, you have all the Lennox lit up and the new fancy houses next to Rosslyn Park. I wouldn't walk on the common side of the road when I was a kid when it was dark.  I had a problem once when I was coming home from working at the Hospital early evening, with some weird bloke I was just glad i never went to the bus stop on the edge of the common. In the end I walked really quick up to Dover House Rd, to get the bus. There is so much common I don't know what the problem is. Bet the birds can't see the light for the trees anyway. You might as well say the same about Charlewood Rd sighn.

Barbara Stevens ● 1362d

Are you saying we should not protect what we have Barbara?

Matt Palmer ● 1362d

Yes and also the common, Vine Road ect, goes right round to the pond, plenty of tree's and you still have Barn Elms, Putney Common, Richmond Park, plenty of room for Birds and animals. Palewell Park.

Barbara Stevens ● 1362d

Yes, I know the club very well and my son used to play there in the U7s.But the issue we are discussing is planning and not the financial situation of the Club.  By the way, we have asked them many times about the amount of monies that the screens contribute to the Club.  That question was never answered and not very clearly mentioned in their financial statements either.The reasons to object to this planning application (which I have by the way) are based on environmental damage and more precisely, on light pollution and the damage to wildlife, among others.If the environment continues to be damaged, the will be not Club and/or no people to go to it.  For the proposed screen to show moving images is total madness.Of course, if this screen is not given planning permission, the three existing screens, with static images, will remain as they have been given deemed consent which means they will be there for perpetuity.  The Club will not lose out.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1362d

A sensible objection then might be one which asked that they not be on between say 6pm and 11pm in the winter. Lights in the daytime are not "light pollution" nor, at that intensity, do they have any effect on wildlife.This would recognise the competing demands made on the location, both from good causes, your own concern for the well-being of local wildlife and all the benefits which the club contributes to the local community (many of which Mr Gulliford has laid out in his post).

Michael Winstanley ● 1362d

The only thing that would be depressing is if anyone objected to this.We have one of the best semi professional rugby clubs in the UK that plays on this Pitch. Rosslyn Park RFC. This club employs a large number of people. The pitch provides numerous kids, 1000's, from all backgrounds the opportunity to play a variety of sports during the week and weekend. This includes handicapped and disadvantaged children etc etcThe money from the advertising screens helps to maintain the pitch and the facilities, without it the club wouldnt survive. Although this has been explained before on this forum, years back.One of my son's football teams train on the pitch on a Wednesday as an example. My three kids go and watch the rugby on saturday. I prefer them being out and about as opposed to playing on computer games and eating crisps.My brothers children are part of the mini rugby set up. I understand circa 200 kids play rugby on Sundays. There is a womens netball team that play on the pitches.There is a cross fit gym behind the pitch for people to excercise and stay healthy.There is hockey played on the pitch.There is a kids nursery in the clubhouse during the weekIf you want it taken down or altered or you want this rejected then you can lose the rugby club and have 1000's more children sitting on sofas all week eating Mc Donalds, playing no sport and getting unhealthy. If you need more clarification of activities ongoing at the club I can get this provided.

Nick Gulliford ● 1362d

The issue is that it is turned off at 11pm.  This time is particularly relevant during winter months, when the days are so short - or nights are very long.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1362d

Ivonne, you said affecting wildlife as much as the midday sun.

Barbara Stevens ● 1362d

There's quite a bit of research on this and light pollution does have a deleterious effect on wildlife. If the sign in question is turned off overnight it probably isn't an issues.https://britastro.org/dark-skies/cfds_environment.php?topic=wildlifeIt's not considered particularly good for humans either!https://britastro.org/dark-skies/cfds_issues.php?topic=health

Michael Ixer ● 1362d

I am afraid I do not follow....You say you have lots of Sparrows at the end of your garden and the sun would be on them all day when it's out.....If I interpret it correctly, you are talking about sun shining during the day.LED lights shine like midday sun at night. More so in winter nights that are so long.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1362d

Ivonne, I have hundreds of Sparrows in a bush at the end of my garden and the sun would be on them all day when it's out. I have plenty of water, with them all splashing about, lovely to watch.

Barbara Stevens ● 1362d

No Barbara.  LED light does affect wildlife.  "Bright LED lights with white and bluish hues are capable of affecting local wildlife “as much as the midday sun,”https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/bright-led-lights-can-affect-wildlife-as-much-as-midday-sun-scientists-warn-166498

Ivonne Holliday ● 1362d

There not actually facing the common, more the motorists. There are lights anyway on all night and the common is so dense now, I wouldn't think it would make much difference, also with the lights from Barnes Station. I'm sure the wild Life are used to it by now, if they didn't like it they would go somewhere else.

Barbara Stevens ● 1362d

I just checked, they are 6am-11pm

Matt Palmer ● 1362d

they are currently on all night aren't they?

Matt Palmer ● 1362d

Is it going to be on at night then?

Michael Winstanley ● 1362d

Good morning Ed,I am not too sure what the power consumption is, but this article (which I have just found) gives an idea on this.https://www.scenic.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/EXCERPT_The_Basics_of_Digital_Signage_and_Energy_Consumption1.pdfThe issue of revenue for RPFC has been difficult to work out, even when looking at their financial statements.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1362d

Good morning Matt,Yes, light pollution plus affecting the wildlife in the common.  Also, the common is Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) which should not be "interfered" with.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1362d

On the plus side it will only be visible (assuming it is not solar powered) if we have electricity.I wonder what the power consumption is? They are normally very high nites. Is there a case it doesn't meet the WBC climate emergency measures??On the other side I assume it brings in revenue for the club. It would be interesting to know how much etc.And patio heaters are still legal. Strange thing this climate emergency...

Ed Robinson ● 1363d

Actually I am and i'll comment on the application tomorrow.Why does it go against the terms of the WESS Ivonne? lights on the common etc?

Matt Palmer ● 1363d

Is everybody really not interested about this?Very depressing indeed.Then I must say my apologies for adding a thread that is irrelevant to PutneySW15.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1363d