As CARPA employs lawyer to fight against Rosslyn hoardings

Whilst residents continue to fight the new LED hoarding on the Upper Richmond Road, it appears more LED hoardings have been granted permission by Wandsworth Council.

An LED site was granted planning permission in May 2015 by Wandsworth Council which is to be erected on the A3 opposite ASDA and that the large hoarding at 304/312 Upper Richmond Road has also been given permission to convert to an LED format. The advertising agency JCDecaux have lodged an appeal to change the hoarding from landscape to a portrait format for greater impact or according to CARPA to " be even more imposing".

The hoardings outside the Rosslyn Park pitch are predicted to produce an annual income between £170,000 and £240,000 for the club.

CARPA (Campaign Against Rosslyn Park Advertising) meanwhile have continued to campaign against the hoadings. Their spokesperson said:
" At the time of writing the CARPA petition is supported by over 350 residents and we have suggested to the Council that these objections should be absolutely considered as a measurement of the level of the detrimental impact on visual amenity that the sites have had - and that the Council must take action based on them. We have employed Ms Adrienne Copithorne – a Partner at Richard Buxton Environmental & Public Law to contact the Council and explore this issue further."

CARPA ask can you spot the differences?

(BING MAPS/Streetview)

January 2016

CARPA has told this website that it
"contends that the Wandsworth Borough Council Planning Department acted beyond its remit by allowing commercial arguments to outweigh environmental ones; that the Councillors sitting on the Planning Committee were neither sufficiently experienced or qualified to interpret or consider the application correctly; that the consultation process was cynical and woefully lacking. Valid objections were cavalierly ignored and the ‘overwhelming public approval’ cited by the Council previously in the press actually came 100% from Rosslyn Park members, 50% of whom did not live in the Borough. CARPA believes that Rosslyn Park preferred to ignore the environmental implications and the SW15, SW14 and SW13 communities by opting for the most vulgar invasive way of raising funds in preference to going to its own membership for support. Further the landlord of Rosslyn Park, The Roehampton Club, acknowledged in a statement by its Chair that the Club did approve the plans but that the approval was based on misleading and inaccurate drawings. In spite of that it seems that the Roehampton Club is unwilling to do anything about it."

In a statement last December, to the members of The Roehampton Club the Chair commented on the hoardings:
“Several of you have been in touch this week to complain about the new electronic advertising hoardings at Rosslyn Park, alongside Upper Richmond Road. I agree, they’re not objects of beauty. We’re Rosslyn Park’s landlord and we’re aware of the opposition they’ve caused. The Board was shown an artist’s impression in June 2014 before the application went to Planning. They appeared benign enough and we gave our consent. But even allowing for creative license the drawing does not bear much resemblance to the real thing. We’ve checked, though, and the displays do conform in every detail with the planning specification, including making them look like rugby posts, and Rosslyn Park obtained all the necessary permissions in October 2014 after consultation with local residents. In short, there is little we can do; we cannot require them to be moved.”

The CARPA spokesperson continued:
" We have also written to every advertiser who has appeared and is currently appearing on the sites – if advertisers refuse to support them they cease to generate revenue and are so redundant. CARPA is delighted to announce that TSB have assured us they will steer clear of the sites and we continue to encourage the other advertisers to do likewise."

The council has responded to the comments regarding the planning application:
“The club applied for and obtained planning permission and advertisement consent in the normal way following the statutory consultation which generated many responses from local residents, both from those who supported the scheme and those who objected to it. These conflicting views were carefully considered and weighed up by the committee before it reached its decision, which was based purely on planning grounds as laid out in the legislation.”

January 14, 2016