Forum Topic

Lucozade sign gone

After all those years fighting to get the historic M4 Lucozade sign replaced, the despicable scum at JCDecaux have now ripped it down and replaced it with one of those dreadful digital posters. Hounslow Council had originally blocked the change, as reported here http://nnet-server.com/server/common/hounscoun323.htm but apparently JCDecaux appealed and won - on condition that the new sign replicated the old. However, today's report say it is advertising wretched Mercedes instead http://www.brentfordtw8.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conlucozade001.htm

Bryan Betts ● 3508d34 Comments

The Evening Standard have just noticed the sign has changed!http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/iconic-neon-lucozade-sign-by-m4-turned-into-digital-billboard-a3448006.html

Reg Ghosh ● 3122d

But the original planning consent was specifically for the location of a Heritage Illuminated Advertisment. There was no advert on the site prior to that.

Raymond Havelock ● 3400d

I'm not sure what the outcome was of the investigation earlier this year but reading between the lines (the Leader writing to the Inspectorate to express the Council's dismay etc.) I believe the Council reached the same conclusion I did, i.e. it was powerless to insist on the signage only displaying Lucozade adverts.

Adam Beamish ● 3400d

Two current rolling ads on the site are not for Lucozade!

Reg Ghosh ● 3400d

I seem to remember the original sign was stored at the museum at Gunnersbury. I suppose Hounslow could require Decaux to have the original restored if they've managed to lose the "replacement".

Hazel Dakers ● 3504d

Great stuff!

Vanessa Smith ● 3505d

I was on Paul Ross, BBC Radio London this morning. Not sure what sense I made at 06:50 but gave it a go.

Mike Paterson ● 3505d

Have Tweeted the Beeb and e-mailed ITV London News!

Vanessa Smith ● 3505d

Well this seems to have been taken up on the radio, one of my sons reported Toby Anstiss asking where the hell the sign had gone on his programme. My tweet has been re-tweeted umpteen times and there's a petition too, plus people are e-mailing Decauxs and also Tweeting, we can but try and we should, what about contacting the BBC and ITV London News programmes?

Vanessa Smith ● 3505d

Neither in respect of the replacement sign, LBH refused the advertisement consent application but it was then allowed on appeal by the Inspectorate.

Adam Beamish ● 3505d

Apologies if I have missed it but was this a delegated decision by Officers regarding the planning permission or a case of councillors taking their eye off the ball on their own turf (again)?

Paul Fisher ● 3505d

It would seem, then, reading Adam's posts, that bringing JCDecaux into line by rulings and legal means is too much to hope for, that they are acting within the ruling (just), if not its spirit. I did not know, either, that interspersing was permitted, hence the Mercedes guff. JCDecaux are playing the long game while all of us have lives to be getting on with. It seems unlikely that they can me shamed into being good neighbours on this issue.

Mike Paterson ● 3505d

So what would people define as Hounslow's finest moments? For this or any previous council. You may have to think back.I can't think of anything myself.

Kath Richardson ● 3505d

"but not one of Hounslow's finest moments IMHO."I think it would be fair to say they (the finest moments) have been pretty non-existent, this council seems to have a unique knack of shooting themselves firmly in the foot over and over.

Vanessa Smith ● 3506d

Indeed, looking again at the supporting docs submitted with the application it does expressly state that the display will change remotely at regular intervals.To be honest personally I've got little sympathy for the Council in this particular regard, as this is the only site I know of where the Council allowed (by granting an application afew years back) a building to be extended by an entire storey, completely out of keeping with the rest of the parade, purely to enable the Lucozade advert to be installed on the western elevation (and thereby allowing another advert display on the eastern elevation).  Meanwhile the actual internal floorspace created by the extension has always remained vacant.Obviously in the grander scheme of schemes it's small fry, but not one of Hounslow's finest moments IMHO.

Adam Beamish ● 3506d

I suspect they will keep the rotation going which seems to fit what the Planning Inspectorate called for.

Neil Chippendale ● 3506d

When I passed at 5pm tonight, travelling east, it was advertising Lucozade.

Barry Jacques ● 3507d

I have raised it with the professional planners (and so has Steve Curran) because there are two statements in the Inspector's ruling which are worth testing. One was referred to above and certainly seems to me to call for the original sign to be replicated (albeit I think the Inspector says it can be interspersed with other stuff). The other is about intensity of light though I have no idea whether the sign is >300 candela at night, 600 daytime but it seems very bright indeed to me.I'm far from confident in the legal possibilities (Adam's professional judgment certainly doesn't increase my hope) but we should certainly get the professionals to consider, but in the meantime tweet, sign petitions (there's one running but not many signatures when I signed), write to UK CEO Jean-Francois Decaux, etc

Guy Lambert ● 3507d

I wonder if everybody who did write in regarding the initial planning application was contacted again when it went to Appeal? It would be interesting to hear from those that did.

Philippa Bond ● 3507d

Not towards you Adam, as I think you're good at what you do.  I was being disgusted with the company that took the sign down and your quote was rather a nice one to use.

Lorne Gifford ● 3507d

Lorne, with respect you're not reading/digesting the content of my posts, and to be honest it rather irritates me when I take the trouble to try and explain from a professional viewpoint and Joe Bloggs takes a condescending tone towards me.

Adam Beamish ● 3507d

I Tweeted Decaux yesterday telling them what I thought of their standards and others are re-tweeting that too. Whether or not the court of public opinion can prevail remains to be seen, but at least we should give it a go.

Vanessa Smith ● 3507d

Advertising regulations and laws are not 'notoriously difficult to interpret', at least not if the local council said 'replace it with a modern version of the same thing'.To me, that is 'so notoriously simple that even an advertising or bill-board company' cannot claim to have misinterpreted it!I looked at the JC Decaux webite, and they have a whole section all about social responsibility.  Nice words, obviously written by someone in marketing that thinks talking-the-talk in some way replaces walking-the-walk.I wrote them an email telling them what I think of them.

Lorne Gifford ● 3507d

So it would have been very handy had Hounslow in the form of local councillors had perhaps alerted the masses to the possibility of the sign going? At least that might have given public opinion a chance to let Decaux's know just what they were suggesting wasn't too popular, to say the least!

Vanessa Smith ● 3507d

I presume you meant to write "doesn't do this" Neil, but the issue is that whatever the text of the decision notice says, the planning process has no control over whether an advertisement being displayed is for a soft drink or a motor vehicle, because that in itself has no bearing upon whether a display is acceptable in visual amenity or highway safety terms (the only two considerations that can be taken into account when determining an advertisement consent application/appeal).  By allowing the appeal, the Inspector concluded that a digital display was acceptable.  As I said earlier, the advertisement regulations are notoriously complicated, and I may be incorrect, but my thoughts on this at this stage are that from a legal perspective the Council is unable to take formal action, and ultimately it may come down to whether JC Decaux are prepared to ignore public sentiment or not.Philippa - it remains the case that for planning (and advertisement) appeals anyone who submitted a representation during the determination of the application is notified of any subsequent appeal and invited to make further comments should they wish to do so (with their original representations also being provided to the Inspector).

Adam Beamish ● 3507d

According to the ES The Planning Inspector’s ruling said that the replacement sign should be allowed on the basis that it “replace and replicate the existing ‘Lucozade’ sign in a modern format”.Surely the present sign does do this.

Neil Chippendale ● 3507d

I thought that when something went to Appeal that the original objectors had to be notified - or is that just another  part of what is supposed to be a democratic process that has disappeared?

Philippa Bond ● 3507d

Reported in tonight's ES " Replace our lost Lucazade sign"

Rima Jones ● 3507d

To be honest it's a nature of the business, at least IMHO - the revenue advertisements generate is staggering.  As an aside I'll add that the planning manager at Decaux's Brentford office (think he's still there, he certainly was at the time of this appeal) was my predecessor at Hounslow Council.  I was once offered a similar role with a rival company, and turned it down because I didn't find the idea of dealing with advertisements all the time very exciting.Back to the specific issue though, my immediate reaction is that I'm not sure the Council can do much.  Advertisement applications fall under an entirely separate set of regulations to planning applications, and in this particular case the Inspector didn't impose any conditions upon the allowing of the appeal relating to the specific nature of the display.  It is accurate to say that generally speaking conditions other than the standard conditions set out within the regulations (none of which relate to the specific nature of the display) are rarely imposed upon advertisement consent applications, but the regulations do enable conditions to be imposed regulating the display.  However, whilst the advert regs are something of a speciality of mine, even I will acknowledge that the regulations are not straightforward.What is clear however is that there are no conditions imposed on the allowing of the appeal relating to the specific nature of the display, so to me, if the dimensions of the advertisement are the same as the advertisement allowed on appeal, then the Council has no control over the specific content of the advertisement.

Adam Beamish ● 3508d

JC Decaux have donned tin hats and are ignoring everything, hoping to weather the storm, so we must keep at them. The extraordinary and hard to credit thing is that they are Brentford-based in the UK. One could understand (a bit) if their office were elsewhere, but no. They show contempt for their own neighbours.

Mike Paterson ● 3508d

I've Tweeted JC Decaux - the more publicity the better especially as they reckon they're experts in advertising marketing, this is as bad a mistake as they could possibly make!

Vanessa Smith ● 3508d

I think it also shows the lack of imagination that some marketing people have.  The original sign was iconic and I always looked at it when I drive by daily.  The new LED sign is bland and the same as every other along the stretch of the elevated section and I don't look at it

Matthew Taylor ● 3508d

It also brings into question the role of local planning decisions which can be, and often are, overridden by the Planning Inspectorate. It simply isn't any good the government prattling on about 'localism' and saying - as they have to people questioning the boom in basement building - that councils have the powers they need! They clearly don't!

Vanessa Smith ● 3508d

Don't blame Mercedes, it's all JC Decaux. But Mercedes, as a local company should withdraw their advertising. Guy Lambert is on the case from the council. I think this was done some time before Christmas hols as reported. I definitely noticed it prior to 8 December. I must take some credit for wider distribution of this story since my blog post on Saturday took 13,000 hits (cf daily average of around 300) and caused significant Twitter rally. Today Mirror Online are using my picture, unacknowledged. It's all in a good cause, of course, but naughty of them. You can read my thing here:https://londonhistorians.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/farewell-lucozade/

Mike Paterson ● 3508d