Excuse the facetious title (any excuse to incorporate a Beatles number), but this is a significant development, not only for my area of London but also highlighting the, at times, uncomfortable relationship that planning and consenting regimes have with the concept of nuisance.
That is a topic too long to debate in this post, but the papers linked below do highlight both the need to engage with the planning system, and the range of options that local planning authorities have to mitigate the impacts of development.
Interestingly in this case, the developer requested that a separate s106 agreement be assigned to the advertisement controls that LLDC wished to impose, with a separate agreement for the more standard "development" controls. We can speculate on the motives for that particular request, but it is always worth remembering that planning obligations can (and should) be as flexible as the development requires, and not just the standard approach that everyone seems to adhere to.
I doubt that this is end of the debate around this particular development, especially given the extensive and intrusive mitigation measures offered by the developer. I will be following closely to see how this long and winding road pans out for all concerned.
It was envisaged that there would be a single section 106 agreement that would secure the mitigation required for both the planning permission and the advertisement consent. However, the applicant has requested that the obligations that relate to the use of the digital display and the associated five-year review be moved into a separate section 106 agreement that would relate to the advertisement consent only. Officers are satisfied that this is an acceptable approach..."
unknownx500
