http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "Huge advertising boards get go-ahead for main road" en Thu, 21 May 2026 18:35:21 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-243535 Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:10:49 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 243535@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I queried this with the council regarding moving images on the Seafield Rd ones and was informed a variation of consent conditions had been applied for and granted to allow showing moving images. Boiling a frog... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-243524 Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:33:08 +0000 crowriver 243524@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"in the hope that no one will notice."</p> <p>Sadly for the advertisers, mostly no-one will, as they're all too busy checking Farcebook on their phones, eating cornflakes, etc. while remaining "in control" of their motor vehicles... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-243519 Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:27:33 +0000 neddie 243519@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I noticed this morning that the digital hoarding at Sainsburys Gorgie ("Murrayfield") had 6 of the 7 adverts showing moving images (and most were video, rather than moving text/graphics).</p> <p>Yet, I'm sure there were some constraints on the planning permission for this hoarding that said that no more than 1 "video" advert should be shown and no more than one additional advert with moving text/graphics.</p> <p>It seems the advertising company are slowly eroding their compliance with the rules, in the hope that no one will notice. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-230484 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 17:36:35 +0000 chdot 230484@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Mistake?... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-230479 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:56:19 +0000 acsimpson 230479@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>They aren't as big as I thought they were going to be.</em>"</p> <p>Their not as big as JC Decaux thought either. If I understood correctly there was a mistake in the planning permission which meant they started building 12x3 boards. It was only once they had started that the mistake noticed and the 6x3 ones put in place instead. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-230477 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:21:40 +0000 chdot 230477@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Quite!</p> <p>Almost like insult advertising. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-230476 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:17:27 +0000 Brunts23 230476@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Not after closing the previous one last year! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-230422 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:29:09 +0000 chdot 230422@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I wasn't looking for a new bank account."</p> <p>Don't suppose BofS is planning to open a <em>branch</em> in Roseburn - might be what locals want rather than a billboard advertising account options. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-230421 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:20:22 +0000 HankChief 230421@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>In my defense, I was head down trying to get to the tandem to kiddies sports club on time with tired legs. </p> <p>I wasn't looking for a new bank account. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-230418 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:03:31 +0000 Stickman 230418@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>I managed to go through yesterday with noticing them though</em></p> <p>There is a slight bit of devilment in me that was hoping they would be the full length of the waste ground. They aren't as big as I thought they were going to be. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-230414 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:50:28 +0000 chdot 230414@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Maybe some people will now avoid 'modernised' Roseburn. </p> <p>That's not a dig at anyone. </p> <p>It's just sad that there is a system that allows anything so crass to be erected on random bits of waste land. </p> <p>I wonder if anyone 'local' actually wants them. </p> <p>I presume the flats and businesses nearby were notified in the normal Planning way. </p> <p>Were topdeck passengers consulted?</p> <p>Well maintained planting spelling out Welcome to Roseburn would be a better form of advertising. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-230409 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:41:23 +0000 chdot 230409@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I managed to go through yesterday with noticing them though."</p> <p>Obviously you don't spend enough time in Roseburn...</p> <p>Perhaps they are for people cycling across the bridge. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-230407 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:55:21 +0000 HankChief 230407@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Roseburn hoardings have landed. </p> <p><a href="http://www.murrayfieldcc.org.uk/news/news_detail/567">http://www.murrayfieldcc.org.uk/news/news_detail/567</a></p> <p>I managed to go through yesterday with noticing them though... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-214449 Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:30:07 +0000 kaputnik 214449@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Noticed workmen clearing the site of the two planned for Roseburn opposite the Tesco this morning. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-214382 Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:40:27 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 214382@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Had a quick look tonight. About 6 different ads cycling through. Just the one that was animated (a Virgin Media ad). Changes every 8 seconds. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-214358 Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:49:35 +0000 Morningsider 214358@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Report it here:</p> <p><a href="https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/forms/form/25/en/report_a_possible_breach_of_planning_controls" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/forms/form/25/en/report_a_possible_breach_of_planning_controls</a></p> <p>Under Application Number: 14/02013/ADV</p> <p>Stating that there has been a breach of conditions 3 and 4, which state:</p> <p>3. Advertisements shall be static images only.</p> <p>4. The frequency of the change in the advertisement display shall be no greater than every 15 seconds.</p> <p>Of course, planning enforcement is a discretionary power that is normally only pursued if it is in the public interest. So I wouldn't get your hopes up about anything actually happening. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160&page=2#post-214356 Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:38:56 +0000 Klaxon 214356@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Having complained in the past about brightness and moving images on the one on Leith Walk, I'm pretty sure that planning breaches of this nature must be reported directly to planning and not via Fix my street.</p> <p>Forrest seem to be quite reliable in 'forgetting' the conditions applied to each display. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-214355 Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:25:23 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 214355@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I have a feeling it might change more frequently than once every 15 seconds as well, though might be wrong about that. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-214348 Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:40:03 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 214348@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>This is the Planning Application &amp; Decision:</p> <p><a href="https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&amp;keyVal=N5XO3PEWFJV00" rel="nofollow">https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&amp;keyVal=N5XO3PEWFJV00</a></p> <p>Confirms it is for static images only</p> <p>I cycled past on Saturday and noted the moving images (something for perfume with Cara Delevigne (sp) in?</p> <p>I'll probably report it here when I get the chance:</p> <p><a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20066/enforcement/550/report_work_without_planning_permission" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20066/enforcement/550/report_work_without_planning_permission</a></p> <p>Obviously, if someone was passing and got a video of it moving and sent it to the council, that would help... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-214341 Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:10:02 +0000 wingpig 214341@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'm reporting it as a massive brightly-lit distraction with the added eye-magnetism of movement, irrespective of what they have permission for. FixMyStreeting it initially, but might see if there's a specific option somewhere in the council site.</p> <p>Found a council document which mentioned that moving images may be displayed if permission was so granted but that none of the (at the time) four such displays had requested nor been granted such permission. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-214336 Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:56:58 +0000 ih 214336@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I noticed (you can't fail to notice) the moving adverts on the Seafield Road screen on Friday. They are designed to attract attention.</p> <p>Who are you reporting it to @wingpig? Do you know if the moving images are contrary to the agreement to allow the screen to be there? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-214331 Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:40:32 +0000 wingpig 214331@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Forgot to report the Seafield Road one for showing a clearly moving image last weekend... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-214310 Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:26:49 +0000 Roibeard 214310@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><img src="http://yehudamoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-03-16.gif"></p> <p><a href="http://yehudamoon.com/comic/2015-03-16/" rel="nofollow">http://yehudamoon.com/comic/2015-03-16/</a></p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-188242 Tue, 12 May 2015 15:46:34 +0000 acsimpson 188242@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>from what I can tell that is for an illuminated hoarding rather than an animated one. It will still be static and while a little distracting to drivers not as dangerous as moving images in their periphery vision would be. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-188220 Tue, 12 May 2015 13:22:16 +0000 neddie 188220@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Planning app in for another one! This time on the WAR. Not many peds on the WAR, and average vehicle occupancy 1.2, so this can only be to distract drivers...</p> <p>15/02004/ADV illuminated hoarding 3m x 6m, West Approach Rd. Deadline<br /> 15 May </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-180242 Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:19:53 +0000 kaputnik 180242@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>They've recently pulled down the advertising boards and chopped back the trees and shrubs at the old Murrayfield railway station at Roseburn (the wedge of land at the higher level opposite what is now Tesco)</p> <p>The area is going to be treated to 2 of these massive televisions. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-180223 Sun, 08 Feb 2015 22:54:13 +0000 neddie 180223@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Here's my objection to 15/00304/ADV | Erect 1 digital display advertisement hoarding at the roadside. | Advertising Station 4 Calder Road Edinburgh, submitted via planning portal at <a href="https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web" rel="nofollow">https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web</a></p> <p>Not that well written, but you're welcome to crib as required...</p> <p><em>I wish to object to the application for the following reasons:</p> <p>- the sole purpose of the advertising board is to attract attention and many people viewing the board will be driving at the time - it is therefore a dangerous driver distraction. Especially given that it is located beside a busy road.<br /> - there will be video &amp; moving images (as seen on other digital boards) which will make the driver distraction even more serious &amp; likely.<br /> - vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists will be put at risk by these boards.<br /> - it would not be considered acceptable to distract a pilot, as he/she was taking-off/landing, with such a board, even though flying is already the safest form of transport. So why is it considered acceptable to distract drivers of the most dangerous form of transport (the private motor car)?<br /> - it detracts from the amenity of the area. </em> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-178315 Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:50:01 +0000 cc 178315@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The illuminated signs are not just distracting, they're dazzling. They clearly shouldn't be allowed at all, anywhere. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-178300 Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:16:57 +0000 condor2378 178300@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Edd1e_h</p> <p><a href="https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/simpleSearchResults.do;jsessionid=9FCC0CE10567623241D3AACBAA7AFDF7?action=firstPage">Link</a> for the lazy to the application </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14160#post-178294 Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:28:57 +0000 neddie 178294@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A new planning application (15/00064/ADV) is in for a massive 6m x 3m digital illuminated hoarding near 124 Slateford Rd.</p> <p>This is beside Slateford Station. It will be visible all the way down Chesser Ave.</p> <p>I think these are massive driver distractions and will almost certainly endanger cyclists, pedestrians and all road users.</p> <p>Please object if you agree (Deadline 30th Jan) </p>