A Guest Post by Philip Grant
Last month, I wrote a guest blog about a planning application, which seeks to remove a condition from an existing planning consent. That condition was put there for public safety reasons. You can read the details in my earlier blog here.
The Olympic Way crossing on Fulton Road, and the LED screens (“JD WE’RE BACK”)
The condition prevents moving image adverts from being shown on large LED screens fixed to the Boxpark building in Olympic Way, when vehicles are using Fulton Road. It is designed to protect pedestrians on Olympic Way, as they use the busy crossing at Fulton Road, from drivers who may be distracted by the moving images.
After I submitted my objection to that planning application, the Planning Case Officer decided that the application was invalid, because ‘the proposals appear to be unclear in terms of which screens they are referring to and which screens the Highways Assessment appears to be relating to.'
Drawing from the planning application, noted to show where moving image adverts are proposed.
Now the application has been resubmitted, and has been validated, with the original planning application number, 21/0379. The new public consultation period on the application runs until 22 April 2021, so if, like me, you are concerned that it would be unsafe to remove that condition, you can make your objection on the Brent planning website for 21/0379. There is also a related advertisement consent application at 21/0427.
One of my original concerns was that only two people (one of which was Quintain) had been consulted on this application, and no local residents. Now letters about the application have been sent to a number of addresses in the Olympic Way area, although 16 of the 23 were to various parts of floors in the Olympic Office Centre (I wonder how the Covid-19 vaccination centre there will respond!).
An extra address has been added to the formal consultees, but this is “Environmental Health – Noise Team’ at the Civic Centre (although I think the proposal is for moving images, not movies to be shown on the screens). One of the specific points made in my February objection comments was:
‘When the original application was considered, both Brent's Public Safety Manager and the Metropolitan Police submitted comments on public safety matters. It is imperative that their comments should also be sought on this application.’
Why have they been omitted from the revised list of consultees? That is a question I will not just ask in this post!