BT's Oversized Phone Advertising Box
“[How has this] this godforsaken excrescence made its appearance. How in hell did BT get permission (do they need it?) to take over the pavement. The previous box (hardly less obscene — oh for the return of the classic K6) was set further back, took up less space…”
— Peter Moore
Indeed.
The Council did move the bike rack near it that made passing with a push chair impossible, but how can BT be allowed to take up ~75% of the pavement?
Comments
Glad we're not the only ones who have noticed this! We live across the road and not only is it a hideous eyesore taking up far too much space on the pavement, but it is very noisy especially at night, due to the mechanism which rotates the adverts. Who do we complain to, BT or the Council? I can't belive they didn't need permission or at least to consult local residents in order to put something of this size. All it does is make lots of noise and light and phonebox doesn't appear to work.
Lisa on 2007-06-24 18:38:05 +0000I wrote to the council when it was installed and they are investigating. They had 'advertising consent' (apparently there were no objections from residents - was there a notice put up ?) but I think they should also have requested planning permission as well as permission from landowner ie council on our behalf.
www.say-it-all.com/newsdev/admin/story.php?intro_id=2504
In fact I had already objected to an application for one in Kew, so that application will now be heard by the planning committee.
James Page (Green Party spokesman)
James Page on 2007-06-25 08:17:46 +0000I was wondering myself how odd it is that the pavement is now almost completely obstructed by this monstrosity, and looked it up on the planning website.
The application number was 07/0440/ADV and can be seen at: www.ukplanning.com/richmond/showCaseFile.do?action=show&appType=planning%20folder&appNumber=07/0440/ADV or tinyurl.com/2p2gk9
Apparently a planning notice was up for 3 weeks, from 21/Feb to 17/March - we all had opportunity to object! I never noticed the notice, and apparently neither did anyone else, so unfortunately, none of us did!
To be fair, the plan submitted does accurately show the location of the new advert, but did not show the previous/existing set-up at all; How did the planning committee simply allowed this one so easily, yet they won't support our local schools?
A number of points:
1) "Has the applicant an interest in the land?" - "Yes". Really? Do they actually own the pavement?!
2) "Will the illumination be static or intermittent?" - Static And a condition of planning - Illumination to be by fixed and constant lights. The sign is illuminated and has a motorised mechanism to change the advert every few seconds. The variation in light output as a result of changing the picture could probably be argued to be anything by constant!
3) Other planning conditions violated:
Details and samples of materials used in construction to be submitted to the planning authority and approved in writing...to ensure...does not prejudice the appearance of the locality. I'm not a planning officer, but in my opinion it does! Makes the place look like a bit of the A40 Great West Road! (whence JCDecaux come from).
Structure to be maintained in a safe condition - Well, it's causing an obstruction. And that contravenes standard condition (5) too, "No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure, or hinder the ready implementation of, any road traffic sign, ... or as to otherwise render hazardous the use of any highway..."
Ed
Ed on 2007-06-25 13:09:31 +0000I've just entered a comment about the planning application online at: forms.richmond.gov.uk/AF3/an/default.aspx/RenderForm/?F.Name=C5aG_poZZFP
Even though the status is marked "decided", the system doesn't seem to stop you from submitting a comment about it. You can also contact the planning department directly, see www.richmond.gov.uk/home/environment/planning/planning_contacts_service_and_performance.htm
Ed
Ed on 2007-06-25 13:41:49 +0000I think the reason this was not rejected by the planning committee councillors was that, with no opposition, it went through delegated poweres i.e. officers alone. I agree with Ed that it needs a complete rethink.
Trevor Whittall on 2007-06-25 13:46:47 +0000Yes Trevor is right (although the application was for advertising consent only. Shouldn't there also have been a separate planning consent application, for the structure?) That was why I was keen to object to the Kew one - otherwise it would not be heard by committee (last time I looked I was still the only one having objected, so more comments would be welcome. In fact there are applications for a dozen more in the borough.) One in Chelsea was rejected I notice.
James Page on 2007-06-26 08:44:28 +0000Ben Khosa is aware of the problem, and is a good place to send your comments (he does read these posts regularly too)
Apparently "council officers" are investigating, in particular the Highways Department to see what sort of enforcement action can be taken (notwithstanding the consent granted). A little more co-ordination internally might just help with the elevated Council Tax problem. And hasn't the Council noticed we're a stroppy bunch down here in St Margarets? Always worth thinking carefully about decisions that affect local people
Anyhow, for those of you who want to remember how it used to look, I have posted an image from Google Earth at crossing.jiglu.com/knowledge/entries/the-phone-box
Nigel on 2007-06-26 13:46:28 +0000This new sign is an eyesore, and needs to be removed as soon as possible. This sign is something out of a science fiction film, where the 'machines' have defeated the 'humans'. Who's bright idea was this technological monstrosity ??? It has no place in St. Margarets.
MALCOLM on 2007-07-01 16:11:37 +0000At least I'm not alone! When I first moved to St Margarets, some 25 years ago, I was quite impressed with what I felt was the council's concern to keep the place looking decent. It even published a series of design guidelines for shops, street furniture, extensions etc, which I quoted from when a signage project came up at college. Whither, I wonder, have these guidelines been consigned... Reading through the various planning documents referred to by Ed, I am struck by the only two which give any intimation of what BT was foisting upon us, the "photo-montage" and "montage" - the first shows a similar 'excrescence' positioned on pavements several yards wider than ours, the second a closeup of said excrescence, but with no hint of size, positioning etc. This is obfuscation -- almost deliberate deception -- at its most basic -- why did the council not demand a realistic 'montage'? -- they're a doddle to put together, and shouldn't be beyond a BT consultant engineer's capabilities: I've got graphics students producing them all the time.
Peter on 2007-07-02 08:59:57 +0000My heart bleeds.....you can always cross the road or walk around it, unless you are 10ft wide...in whcih case this wouldn't be possible. Oh yes - noise - compared to being on a flightpath and cars on the road it must be terrible...Where was I? Ah yes - the big one....compared to famine, poverty, war, diseasse and the fact that over 70% of the world's population has never heard a dialling tone consider yourselves lucky to have one in the first place. Hopefully that has put things in perspective for you all.
Shirley Rogers on 2007-07-13 13:39:18 +0000Shirley - Are you suggesting that we can't worry about all of these things? It is not a matter of perspective, so much as juggling all of the things that make life irritating.
Planes are nuisance (but they were here when I moved in 11 years ago), and cars are a pain (ditto). But this is new, our elected council approved it, and we need to make sure that foolish planning decisions are followed up - Today the advertising box, tomorrow yellow lines defacing the pavement of Richmond Bridge (oh, sorry, they've done that as well)
And without being too trite, there will be over 3.35 billion mobile phone users worldwide by the edn of the year - 50% of the world population, including children. What is scary and worthy of worry is that we can get people mobile phones, but not clean water.
Nigel on 2007-07-16 12:31:51 +0000Anyway it's now gone ! Well the advert part of it has, there is still a 3 ft obstruction on the pavement. We wait to see what will appear, a tardis perhaps ??
Rob W on 2007-07-20 00:31:56 +0000C**p, of the highest order. I rest my case!
Tricia Evans on 2007-07-20 10:41:03 +0000The old box (or a reasonable facsimile) is restored.
Nigel on 2007-07-30 11:03:52 +0000Hurrah! We returned from holiday early Sunday morning, to find that great things have happened whilst we were away:
1) A letter waiting on the doormat told of planning refusal on the Koblers Bakery. 2) A stroll in to St. Margarets [on what became a glorious day] reveals the automatic sign has reverted to a call box; 3) Armstrongs Butchers will opening on Monday (today)! 4) Our road is not going to be part of Trigg's ridiculous CPZ plan;
Now all we need is a real bakery back!
Ed on 2007-08-06 23:23:49 +0000They've done the same in Whitton (also Richmond council) I wrote complaining about the one at the end of my road and Chris Tankard (Team Leader Development Control) wrote back saying a planning notice had been posted for 3 weeks, funny though how neither I nor any of my neighbours noticed it and I walk past the site at least twice a day. I put this to him and he said he had nothing further to add about the posting of a planning notice. Great! NOT. On 19th July he promised to update me following discussions with BT but has not come back to me and not responded to my emails. Can someone remind me again who pays their wages?
Also, small piece on page 5 of The London Paper today saying 5 London boroughs have refused the new BT phone box ad hoardings - shame Richmond council isn't one of them.
Paul Hampartsoumian on 2007-10-15 22:02:34 +0000We now have these dreadful things in Staines, Ashford and Shepperton.
Are people aware that BT pay no rent for these sites?
In my view they are a dangerous and unsightly disgrace.
How do we get rid of them?
brian ashton on 2008-10-22 19:53:24 +0000Did you know there is a planning application for something similar at 40 Crown Rd - Provision of Combined Public Telephone Kiosk and ATM - 08/3362/FUL
Maeve Good on 2008-10-25 14:22:05 +0000I notice Dec 2014 that the phone box has been reinstated - congratulations
Do you have any information as to how this was achieved?
There are current proposals to convert phone boxes at Hampton Court and Richmond Green.
Laurence Bain on 2014-12-04 12:28:46 +0000Add a comment