The Battersea Society: Planning Committee submission The Battersea Society website 

Planning Committee Submission

Submission to Wandsworth Borough Council
Added on: 17 March 2018 at 11:11:26

Inlink Advertising Pillar – 2018/0455

The Battersea Society objects to this application to add yet further visual clutter to a busy street and to the fact that this, one of 75 sites proposed for Wandsworth, appears to be part of a roll out of sites already agreed.  As the Design and Access statement notes: 

“This application is part of wider scheme of InLink implementation across the LBW. Twenty sites have already been granted planning permission by the Council following the submission of twenty-seven application in October 2017. This application is one of a further five site submitted as a second tranche. This follows extensive pre-application engagement with the LPA through a planning performance agreement”.

We find it surprising that the full implications of such a major change to the streetscape have not been the subject of a paper to Councillors nor consultation with any organisation such as Wandsworth Living Streets. We are not aware of any Equalities Impact Assessment having taken place.  These lighted structures are more prominently placed on the pavement near to the roadway than the phoneboxes which, in some instances, they replace. They are noisy as, despite the applicant stating that “filters on the screens reflect light reducing the need for high power, noisy cooling systems” the noise from Inlinks already installed is noticeable. 

We note that “We have taken the approach of restricting general web browsing; instead we are providing key, transactional applications to help residents, visitors, and city workers go about their day.”  This appears to be similar to the information available at bus stops or wayfinding pillars.  We are sympathetic to “those without mobile phones, those on limited plans, and whose mobile batteries are dead and need to make a quick call” but these needs are insufficient for us to support this or other applications. 

In conclusion, we do not agree that these advertising pillars are a way of “Improving the streetscape with smart city technology” but will rather be an obtrusive blot on the streetscape.  This, and all future applications, should be rejected.

To see full details of this application and other comments, or to make your own views known please click here