The London Eye, Queen's Walk

Section 1 – Site Location Map

Section 2 – Application Summary

Location The London Eye, The Queen’s Walk, London,

Ward Bishops

Proposal Display of illuminated and non-illuminated signage to the London Eye Application and surrounding associated structures including the London Eye Control Cabin, ticket kiosks, balustrades, safety barriers and existing signage monoliths.

Applicant Merlin Entertainments (The London Eye Company Ltd)

Agent Miss Hannah Whitney Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners 14 Regent’s Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL

Date valid 25 November 2010

Case Officer Mr Richard McFerran

Application 10/04094/ADV Reference

Recommendation(s) ISSUE SPLIT DECISION

Constraints Conservation Area Environment Agency Flood Zone (Dec 2006) Local Plan Area Green Chains Site of Metro’ Nature Cons Imp’ Thames Strat View – Westminster Pier to St Paul Thames Policy Area Waterloo Visitor Management Area

Advert Publication 24 th December 2010 Date

Site Notice posted 24 th December 2010 on

Section 3 – Officer Report

1. Summary of Main Issues

1.1 The impact of the advertisements upon the appearance of the London Eye, the Grade II listed County Hall and the visual amenities of the South Bank Conservation Area;

1.2 The impact of the advertisements upon strategic/important views;

1.3 The impact of the advertisements upon the amenities of local residents and;

1.4 Transport and highway safety implications.

2.0 Site Description

2.1 The application site includes part of the River Thames, part of Queens Walk, part of Jubilee Gardens and parts of the ground floor of County Hall.

2.2 The site features the London Eye, which is a 135m high observation wheel located on the western side of the site. The structure was constructed on piled platforms within the River Thames and is accessed from Queens Walk. It was opened in 2000 and has become one of the most important landmarks in London and, is a major tourist attraction welcoming an average of 3.5 million visitors per year.

2.3 The large number of visitors to the site has lead to the installation and provision of a significant degree of freestanding directional signs, retail kiosks and visitor management facilities in the immediate vicinity of the London Eye. The London Eye management company occupies the north-western part of County Hall. These premises currently provide the public ticket hall, toilets, coffee bar, retail areas and administrative functions, which support the London Eye.

2.4 Queen’s Walk, also known as Riverside Walk is the main pedestrian thoroughfare, which runs along the southern bank of the River Thames. It is situated between the main western elevation of County Hall and the London Eye.

2.5 The site is located within the South Bank Conservation Area, which is described as a nationally important collection of 20 th Century buildings and is on the opposite bank of the River Thames from the Westminster World Heritage Site. County Hall, which makes a considerable contribution to the overall character and appearance of the conservation area is a Grade II* listed building. It is noted that the London Eye structure is not listed.

3.0 Planning History

3.1 DC/96/1246/RWS/17711 - Construction, for use during a period of five years, of a 152 metre diameter wheel (The Millennium Wheel) with support structures, boarding platform and river dolphins together with associated landscaping and works; change of use of part of the ground floor, basement and sub-basement floors of County Hall to areas for ancillary administration, offices, ticketing, retail, showroom, display areas, provision for public exhibition/entertainment, all as shown on the accompanying plans. Application Permitted – 01/05/1998.

3.2 01/03315/FUL - Retention of London Eye (the Millennium Wheel) with associated boarding platform, alterations to Thames embankment wall and minor alterations to boarding platform and restraint towers. Retention of London Eye support infrastructure including modified pre- boarding area (removable queue barriers), tension base glass screen with minor alterations, existing CCTV and proposed new CCTV cameras, existing radio mast and existing underground electricity substation. Change of use of ground, basement and sub basement floors of County Hall to provide London Eye ancillary and support services including expanded public toilets, exhibition and display areas, hospitality, offices, storage areas and circulation areas. Revised steps and ramp arrangements to County Hall bridge. Application Permitted - 05.07.2002.

3.3 01/03317/FUL - Temporary planning permission until 31 January 2010 for the following retained and proposed elements: Retention of existing retail kiosks with minor alterations; Retention of chairs, tables, gas heaters and replacement of existing canopies with new retractable canopies; Installation of new retractable canopies over BA London Eye pre-boarding area. Application Permitted - 05.07.2002.

3.4 01/03319/LB - Retention of alterations to listed embankment wall to allow retention of the BA London Eye. Application Permitted - 05.07.2002.

3.5 01/03320/LB - Retention of existing alterations and proposed new internal alterations to the sub-basement, basement and ground floors of County Hall to provide ancillary facilities for the BA London Eye. Application Permitted - 05.07.2002.

3.6 03/03575/DET - Approval of details of the stairs and ramp to County Hall pursuant to condition 21 of planning permission ref: 01/03315/FUL for the retention of the London Eye. Application Permitted - 12.02.2004.

3.7 04/02647/LB - Internal alterations to the sub-basement, basement and ground floors of County Hall to enable the existing functions ancillary to the BA London Eye to be reorganized. Application Permitted - 26.10.2004.

3.8 05/02821/FUL - Security enhancements including addition of new barriers and screens to the boarding platform, enlargement of existing stainless steel mesh gates to maintenance platform and application of stainless steel mesh cladding to staircases, bridges and platforms. Application Permitted - 31.05.2006.

3.9 07/04567/FUL - Installation of a new shop front to the existing Millennium Pier Ticket Kiosk located to the north of the London Eye. Application Permitted - 09.01.2008.

3.10 07/05029/FUL - Erection of a single storey extension to south and west of the existing retail kiosk. Extension of the existing canopy and installation of glazed frameless louvres at roof level. Application Permitted - 11.02.2008.

3.11 09/03803/ADV - Display of 6 internally illuminated free standing information signs to replace existing information signs. Application Permitted - 29.01.2010.

4.0 Scheme Details

4.1 The current application seeks advertisement consent for the display of illuminated and non-illuminated signage to the London Eye and surrounding associated structures including the London Eye Control Cabin, ticket kiosks, balustrades, safety barriers and existing signage monoliths.

4.2 The London Eye was previously sponsored by British Airways, a deal which came to an end in 2008. The works involved with the proposed scheme generally relate to a new sponsorship arrangement with EDF Energy. Many of the alterations subject to this application therefore incorporate the EDF Energy branding and logos or reflect the corporate colours of the company.

4.3 The scheme involves a number of works to the London Eye structure itself. These include the repainting of 1 of the 32 capsules from its existing white/grey colour to an orange colour (Pantone 172) matching EDF Energy’s main corporate colour. The outer panels to the top and underside of the capsule would be repainted as would the slewing ring cowels, which keep the capsules in position whilst the wheel is turning. The glazing bars would also be repainted orange; however the clear glazed panels would not be painted.

4.4 The existing non-illuminated vinyl adverts to the windows of the 32 capsules of the London Eye would be replaced with the new logo and branding. The replacement vinyl advertisements would match the dimensions of the existing vinyl advertisements with a width of 1.6m and a height of 0.7m. The vinyl graphics would be fixed to the interior of the glazed panels.

4.5 The scheme also includes the repainting of the large stabilisers which are located at the bottom of the wheel. The stabilisers would be repainted orange from their existing red colour, again to match EDF Energy’s main corporate colour.

4.6 The proposals include a series of other works at ground level such as the introduction of new central panels within the 6 previously approved free standing directional signs. The new panels would be of a similar grey colour to the existing signs but would feature the new London Eye logo and EDF Energy branding. The existing ‘landscape’ LCD screens which have a width of 0.5m and a height of 0.3m would be replaced with ‘portrait’ screens, which would feature sequential images/messages relaying information to visitors to the site. The proposed screens would have a height of 0.7m and a width of 0.4. Only the screens and information at the top of the sign would be internally illuminated whilst the London Eye logo and associated branding would remain non-illuminated.

4.7 There would be no alterations to the dimensions of the existing monolith signage other than the replacement of the existing advert boards in the monolith signage structure with new boards carrying the EDF Energy logos.

4.8 A smaller monolith sign adjacent to the boarding platform would also be replaced with the new logo and branding. The dimensions of the sign would remain the same as the existing as would the internal illumination.

4.9 In terms of the boarding platform, which allows access to the London Eye from Queen’s Walk, the works would include replacing the vinyl graphics to the balustrades, which form part of the queue management system. The replacement vinyl graphics would feature the new logo and branding and would include a series of ‘energy lines’ reflecting the corporate colours of EDF Energy. These vinyl graphics would also include information relating to EDF Energy’s involvement with sustainable energy programmes and the London 2012 Olympics. The vinyl graphics would be non-illuminated.

4.10 A series of plasma video screens would also be installed within the boarding platform area relaying information to visitors. One plasma screen would be adjacent to the entrance to the queue, one would be at the end where visitors board the London Eye, four would be positioned at the northern end of the queue and three at the southern end. The plasma screens would be 52” screens.

4.11 The existing signage to the fast track ticket kiosk would also be replaced. As part of the proposals, the existing signage would be replaced with individual aluminium lettering, which would read ‘Fast Track Tickets’ and would have a width of 2.5m and a depth of 0.3m. An aluminium signage band would also be placed around the structure. It would feature 0.2m high dark blue lettering which would read ‘London Eye/River Cruise, Madame Tussauds, London Dungeon, London Aquarium, Annual Pass’. The lettering would be repeated four times around the entire kiosk structure. Vinyl graphics including the new logo and branding would be applied to the existing glass entrance doors to the kiosk. None of the signage to the kiosk structure would be illuminated.

4.12 The new London Eye logo and associated EDF Energy graphics branding would also be installed on the roof of the canopy structure, which is located on a pier to the western side of the London Eye. The canopy affords protection for visitors who leave the London Eye and board boats for cruises along the River Thames. The overall width of the entire graphics to be applied to the canopy would be approximately 64m. The canopy structure measures 72m in width with a height of 3.6m. The advertisement would be non-illuminated.

4.13 The works to County Hall would include the installation of a vinyl graphic to the exterior of the glass panel above the main entrance doors replacing the existing vinyl graphic. The proposed vinyl graphic would have the same dimensions as the existing with the only differences being change from a grey background to a cream background and the addition of the new London Eye logo and branding. The sign would remain non-illuminated.

4.14 The final element of the scheme would be the installation of a blue coloured band and ‘energy lines’ in EDF Energy corporate colours to the existing glass balustrade to the ramp and bridge to the side entrance of County Hall. The blue band would fade to nothing and would include directional information for disabled visitors. This element of the signage would also be non-illuminated.

4.15 It should be noted that at the time of writing this report, the majority of the works relating to this application including the repainting of the capsule, the alterations to the freestanding directional signs, the installation of screens within the boarding area and the application of vinyl graphics had already been carried out.

5.0 Consultation Responses

5.1 An advertisement was placed in the South London press on the 24 th December 2010 and a number of site notices were displayed in the vicinity of the site on the same date.

5.2 The following Groups / Amenity Societies were also notified of the application:

• Association of Waterloo Groups • Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall Forum • Lambeth Estates Residents Association • South Bank Employers Group • Waterloo Community Development Group • Lambeth Estates Residents Association • South Bank Management Company Ltd

5.3 The following neighbouring properties (including sub-addresses) were consulted on the application:

• County Hall Riverside Building – Café A, McDonalds, Saatchi Gallery, London Eye, Kamikaze, Shinos, UMTV Studios, Premier Inn, Namco Station, Four Regions Restaurant, British Record Industry Trust, Marriott Hotel, Dali Universe, Café Manga, County Hall Restaurant Limited, Aquarium.

• County Hall Residents – North and East Blocks (All Flats).

• Belvedere Road – No. 3 (C-K).

• Chicheley Street – Slug and Lettuce and Nos. 1, 3, 7.

• York Road – Downstream Building Shell Centre, Lloyds Bank and No. 10.

5.4 The Council received one letter of objection and one letter of support in response to the above consultations. The letter of objection comes from the occupant of a neighbouring property who believes that the extended commercialisation of the site is incompatible with the adjacent listed buildings, residential properties and hotels. It will result in increased levels of light pollution and attract increased numbers of visitors to the site further spoiling the Queens Walk and riverside area.

5.5 The Council’s Conservation and Design Team were consulted on the proposals. They have provided the following comments:

This application relates to a sensitive and prominent site in the South Bank conservation area, directly outside the Grade II* listed County Hall and opposite the World Heritage site of Westminster. The London Eye has been sponsored by British Airways for many years and will now be sponsored by EDF energy. This has resulted in the need for re-branding to take place, mainly in the form of changing the colour of the existing branding on the site, all of which is acceptable.

With regards to the renewal of the signage on the disabled ramp, as discussed during our pre-application site visit, we would prefer this to be minimised. The screen signage on the monoliths leading up to the London Eye have been in place for a while now and it has been shown that their impact is not harmful to the area. The proposed new screens are therefore acceptable. The loading platform will have the existing Wordsworth poem brought forward and a printed vinyl decal applied to the existing glass. The impact of this is likely to be minimal. New screens are also proposed for the viewing platform. Having been on site, it is evident that these will be tucked out of view of the general public and again, their impact will be minimal.

An existing canopy will also be branded with the EDF logo. Having seen the additional information requested, we are satisfied that visibility of the branding will be minimal and there is unlikely to be harm caused to the conservation area or significant views.

One of the capsules will be painted orange as part of the proposal. This work has already been carried out and there is undoubtedly an adverse impact on the London Eye’s unified composition. The bright orange capsule immediately draws the eye and results in disruption to the symmetry of the circular structure. In views of the impact on other important landmarks in the area, the orange capsule stands out as an anomaly in the landscape. The London Eye is an iconic building in an internationally recognised setting and our concern is that the changes are out of keeping with both the host building and the character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area and its significant views.

We cannot support this part of the proposal due to its conflict with saved policies 37 and 47 of the UDP.

5.6 English Heritage were also consulted on the proposed scheme due to the sensitive nature of the site and its proximity to adjacent listed buildings. They have considered the application and do not wish to offer any comments.

5.7 The Council’s Transport Planning Team were consulted on the proposals. They have raised no objections subject to a condition that the proposed signs must not flash, strobe or direct any light towards the public highway.

5.8 Transport for London were consulted on the scheme. They have raised no objections.

5.9 City of Westminster Council were consulted on the scheme. They have raised no objections.

6.0 Planning Considerations

6.1 Relevant Policies

6.1.1 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 require local planning authorities to exercise their powers under the Regulations in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account any material provisions of the development plan and any other relevant factors.

6.1.2 PPG19: Outdoor Advertisement Control (March 1992) is a relevant factor, and it should be noted that paragraph 98 of Circular 03/2007 states that “Where there is a conflict between adopted policies and the advice in PPG19, the PPG advice takes precedence”.

6.1.3 Circular 03/2007, which provides guidance on the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, is a relevant factor, and it should be noted that paragraph 2 of Circular 03/2007 states that “The Annex of PPG19 has been replaced by Appendix E to this Circular” (this appendix gives the criteria for deciding applications and appeals involving poster-sites).

6.1.4 The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (‘consolidated with Alterations since 2004’ published in February 2008), the Lambeth Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011), and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’. Material considerations include national planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.

The London Plan (2008)

6.1.5 The London Plan was consolidated in February 2008 and now includes alterations that have been made since it was adopted in February 2004. The London Plan is the Mayor’s development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings with the London region.

6.1.6 It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve London’s diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.

6.1.7 The key polices of the plan considered relevant in this case are:

Policy 4B.1: Design principles for a compact city Policy 4B.8: Respect local context and communities Policy 4B.18: Assessing development impact on designated views

The Lambeth LDF Core Strategy (January 2011)

6.1.8 The key polices of the plan considered relevant in this case are:

Policy S1: Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment

London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’

6.1.9 The key polices of the plan considered relevant in this case are:

Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 37: Shopfronts and Advertisements Policy 43: The River Thames Policy Area – Urban Design Policy 45: Listed Buildings Policy 47: Conservation Areas

6.2 A total of three site visits were undertaken on 9/12/2010, 22/12/2010 and 27/01/2011.

6.3 Amenity

Policy Overview

6.3.1 Paragraph 3 (2) (a) of the Regulations states that factors relevant to amenity include the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest.

6.3.2 Paragraph 22 of PPG19 deals with conservation areas, and states that it is reasonable to expect that more exacting standards of advertisement control will prevail in conservation areas.

6.3.3 Paragraph 23 of PPG19 expands upon the above, and states the following:

“Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides that where an area is designated as a conservation area "... special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area" in the exercise of any of the provisions of the Planning Acts. This includes the control of outdoor advertisements. LPAs will therefore need to bear this provision in mind when considering any advertisement application in a conservation area”.

6.3.4 Paragraph 24 of PPG19 deals with listed buildings, and states that special care is essential to ensure that any advertisement displayed on, or close to, a listed building or scheduled monument does not detract from the integrity of the building's design, historical character or structure, and does not spoil or compromise its setting.

6.3.5 Policy 4B.18 of the London Plan (2008) states that boroughs should assess development proposals where they fall within the assessment areas of designated views against general principles of good design. Boroughs should normally refuse development within landmark background and lateral assessment areas, which fails to preserve or enhance the ability to recognise and appreciate landmark buildings. Boroughs should also refuse developments in front and middle ground assessment areas that are overly intrusive, unsightly or prominent to the detriment of the view as a whole.

6.3.6 Policy S9 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will improve and maintain the quality of the built environment and its liveability, in order to sustain stable communities, by protecting strategic views, including those that affect the outstanding universal value and setting of the Westminster World Heritage Site.

6.3.7 Policy 37 (c) of the Council’s adopted UDP deals with advertisements and signage on buildings, and states the following:

“Advertisements and Signage on Buildings – Advertisements and signage should respect the scale of the buildings on which they are displayed, together with the surroundings. (i) They should not block views or windows and should not be located in front of buildings unless these screen active building work. Displays above fascia level should not diminish from the architectural quality of the building. (ii) Advertisements should not detract from public or highway safety. (iii) Advertising is generally out of place in any predominantly residential locality and will not be permitted.

(iv) In commercial areas, any display must be in scale with a particular building and must not cut across any architectural features. (v) A display must not be unduly dominant and the most important criterion will be the overall visual effect upon the entirety of the building and its surroundings. (vi) Advertisements should not detract from the special character of listed buildings or conservation areas or detract from their setting.”

6.3.8 Policy 37 (g) of the Council’s adopted UDP deals with advertisements on footways, and states that advertisements on footways (including private forecourts) will be resisted where they add to street clutter and/or inhibit pedestrian access. They are not permitted in areas of heavy pedestrian flow or within conservation areas, within the vicinity of listed buildings, or where they would obscure views of attractive shops or intrude into predominantly residential areas.

6.3.9 Policy 43 (i) deals with urban design within the River Thames policy area. It states that development should create or enhance views or vistas of the river and/or local and strategic views of landmark buildings (including on the opposite bank) in particular the Palace of Westminster/Westminster Abbey World Heritage Site, the London Eye and Thames Bridges.

6.3.10 Policy 45 (f) deals with the setting of listed buildings, and states that development which adversely affects the setting of a listed building, or significant views of a listed building, will be refused.

6.3.11 Policy 47 (a) deals with development in conservation areas, and states that development proposals in a conservation area should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

6.3.12 Policy 47 (g) deals with development adjacent to conservation areas, and states that development outside conservation areas should not harm the setting of the area or harm views into or from the area.

6.3.13 This application seeks advertisement consent for the display of illuminated and non-illuminated signage to the London Eye and surrounding associated structures including the London Eye Control Cabin, ticket kiosks, balustrades, safety barriers and existing signage monoliths.

Advertisements on the London Eye Structure

6.3.14 The works to the London Eye structure include the repainting of 1 of its 32 capsules from its existing white/grey to a bright orange (Pantone 172) to match the new sponsor’s (EDF Energy) main corporate colour. A detailed outline of the works is provided in paragraphs 4.3-4.5 above. Noting the comments from the Council’s Conservation Officer, it is considered that this element of the scheme is unacceptable due to the harmful impact upon the appearance of the London Eye structure itself in particular, and the visual amenity of the wider area, in general.

6.3.15 The London Eye is considered to be an iconic symbol of London, recognised both nationally and internationally. The success of the structure is considered to be grounded in the ‘visitor experience’, its prominent riverside location in Central London and its design, which has been widely praised since its construction in 1999. The structure has a relatively simple design, which is characterised by its strong sense of symmetry, clean lines and lightweight colouring, which has allowed the wheel to integrate successfully with its surroundings whilst not appearing as an overly dominant addition to the skyline.

6.3.16 The repainting of one of the capsules, which has already been carried out, is considered to disrupt the symmetry of the circular structure and undermine the distinct uniformity, which is shared between all of the capsules. The bright orange colouring is considered to be at odds with the lightweight (white/grey) colouring to the capsules on the remainder of the wheel thereby harming the aesthetic value of the entire architectural composition of the wheel.

6.3.17 The overly dominant orange colour applied to the under side, the top side, the glazing bars of the capsule and the slewing ring cowels, and the size of the capsule as a whole, immediately draws the eye to it and is a highly visible addition to the wheel structure as a whole, particularly when viewed from the relatively close proximity of Queens Walk. Furthermore, the rotation of the wheel up to a maximum height of 135m means that the now largely orange capsule is visible within distant views including sensitive locations within the Borough and across London including the Westminster World Heritage Site on the opposite side of the River Thames.

6.3.18 Given the size and height of the capsule when it rotates to the maximum height of the wheel, the proposed colour scheme would have a detrimental impact on strategic views as identified within the London Plan and the adopted UDP, including views of the London Eye, linear views from Westminster Pier to St Pauls Cathedral, and river prospects including the South Bank, Westminster Bridge and Waterloo Bridge.

6.3.19 The London Eye is considered to make a significant contribution to the South Bank Conservation Area in which it is sited, as well as the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed building at County Hall. It is considered that the application of colour to one of the capsules has failed to protect or enhance the character and appearance of the South Bank Conservation Area and to harm the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed building and therefore harm visual amenity.

6.3.20 The repainting of the capsule from its original white/grey colour scheme to a distinctive orange colour is also in breach of the terms of planning permission ref: 01/03315/FUL which was for the retention of the London Eye for an extended period of 25 years. In particular the orange colour applied to one of the capsules is considered to be contrary to Condition 7 of the above permission which stated:

No advertisements shall be displayed on the London Eye, County Hall or in the immediate area without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority.

6.3.21 The reason for imposing this condition was to safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the area generally. The applicant has stated within a supporting document dated 25/11/2010 and a letter dated 04/03/2011, that they consider the repainting works to the capsule not to require advertisement consent as such works benefit from permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 2, Class C of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). In support of this claim they have provided an appeal decision ref: APP/X/97/U3935/002857 which is dated 16/07/1998. The issues raised by this appeal decision will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs.

6.3.22 Officers acknowledged that the repainting of an unlisted building such as the London Eye does not normally require planning or advertisement consent, no matter the colour. However, in this context, the Council considers the repainting of one of the capsules in the corporate and brand orange colour to be an explicit part of the wider ‘EDF Energy’ advertisement scheme, and as such its display requires advertisement consent and therefore has been included in the consideration of this application.

6.3.23 When viewed on its own, the application of orange colour to one of the capsules on the London Eye does not constitute an advertisement. However, when viewed within the context of the other proposed signage changes, which have been described elsewhere within Section 4 of this report, it is evident that the orange colour relates specifically to EDF Energy and its advertisement brand and corporate image. It is noted that the proposed capsule drawing (EDFELE,CAP,SK002revA) states that the orange colour to the capsule “will match the EDF Energy London Eye orange in the brand guidelines (Pantone 172).” The purpose of the application of the colour to the capsule is to advertise EDF Energy. The painted capsule is intended to stand out, by virtue of its colour, as an advertisement, of the EDF Energy brand.

6.3.24 The other elements of this advertisement scheme include the display of various signs within the vicinity of the site, predominantly around the boarding platform to the London Eye. This signage includes substantial text, not least the ‘EDF Energy’ wording, and various logos which will be coloured in the same shade of orange (Pantone 172). Visitors to the London Eye and general passers-by will see much of this signage at ground floor level. It is inevitable and evidently intended that visitors/passers-by are likely to directly associate the colour of the EDF Energy branding with the colour of the capsule, particularly given the lightweight white/grey colour, which was applied on all the other capsules.

6.3.25 Furthermore, this element of the scheme is considered to constitute an advertisement on the basis that a third party, in this instance EDF Energy, have paid to have their brand, including their main corporate colour of orange (Pantone 172), associated with a highly visible and iconic structure of the London Eye. The sponsorship deal and financial transaction involved means that this display of EDF Energy text, logos and corporate colours on the London Eye structure works in the same way as standard ‘billboard’ style advertising where a third party pays a land or building owner to display an advertisement in a prominent location, to project their brand or product within the public domain.

6.3.26 Officer are of the opinion that the repainting of the capsule in the EDF Energy orange colour differs from the appeal decision (APP/X/97/U3935/002857) put forward by the applicant in support of this application. The above appeal decision relates to a retail outlet, namely PC World, which proposed to paint part of the exterior of their Swindon branch in a purple colour, one of their corporate colours. Within the appeal decision the Inspector states the following:

The large area of purple above the door would be an application of colour which cannot itself be considered to be an advertisement… The colour purple is not one that is specific to, and only used, by PC World. A full range of colours is available to any developer and in this context, purple does not constitute an announcement. I do not consider that the application of a colour wash on this part of the building could be construed as a form of direction.

6.3.27 The PC World scheme relates to the application of a corporate colour to a premises occupied by that company/business. However, as described earlier in this report, this application relates to a sponsorship deal where a third party, EDF Energy, has paid to have their text, logos and corporate colours displayed on, and associated with the London Eye. These are considered to be advertisements which only serve to promote brand awareness and create publicity for EDF Energy. The corporate orange colour is part and parcel of the EDF Energy brand and constitutes an announcement of that brand

6.3.28 Furthermore, the context of the two cases is considered to be different. In particular, part of the established character of the London Eye is its lightweight white/grey colour scheme. The repainting of one of the capsules to an orange colour can therefore only be explained logically by the association with EDF Energy, given the proliferation of other EDF Energy signage (text, logos and corporate colours) elsewhere on the London Eye structure and wider site. As such the colour on the capsule and elsewhere on the London Eye structure constitutes a part of the advertisement material on the site by EDF Energy.

6.3.29 This aspect of the advertisement material which has been displayed on the London Eye is considered to be harmful to the interests of acknowledged importance as described above and is therefore recommended for refusal.

6.3.30 With respect to the remaining elements of the advertisement scheme on the London Eye structure, these include the repainting of the stabiliser components at the bottom of the wheel, and the installation of vinyl stickers to the glazing of each of the capsules.

6.3.31 The repainting of the stabilisers from their existing red colour to an orange shade would reflect the EDF Energy branding. This is not considered to harm visual amenity noting that the existing colour is already a distinctive red. It is considered that this aspect of the painting would not harm the overall appearance of the wheel.

6.3.32 In terms of the vinyl stickers to the capsules, these are considered to be acceptable noting that they would replace the existing vinyl stickers. They would have the same dimensions as the existing stickers and would remain predominantly transparent ensuring that they would not be overly dominant.

Advertisements within the Surrounding Site

6.3.33 With regards to the works to the 6 monolith signs, which are located at ground level at various locations within the vicinity of the site, these are considered to be acceptable as they would not result in any visual harm to the area or the adjacent listed building, County Hall. The existing monolith signs were previously granted advertisement consent in January 2010 (09/03803/ADV); the proposed alterations to the existing signage would not involve any changes to the dimensions or locations of the signs.

6.3.34 The only changes has been the introduction of non-illuminated logos and branding to the base of the signs and the change from ‘landscape’ style LCD screens to ‘portrait’ style. This change in the orientation of the screens would increase the area covered on each sign from 0.2m to 0.28m. Given the minor increase in the size of the screens and the fact that only the visitor information rather than the logo and branding would be internally illuminated, it is considered that the alterations to the monolith signs would not result in any injury to amenity.

6.3.35 The scheme also proposes a series of alterations to the signage at the queue area within the boarding platform. These include the application of vinyl graphics to the existing glass balustrades and the installation of nine 52” plasma screens, which would display sequential images/messages to visitors to the attraction. In terms of the vinyl graphics these are also considered to be acceptable, noting that the balustrades are predominantly transparent and that the addition of coloured graphics and lettering would not create any visual clutter on them.

6.3.36 The proposed plasma screens would also be acceptable on amenity grounds. Only the plasma screen located at the entrance to the queue would be easily viewed from outside the site. However its size and location would ensure that it would not add any additional visual clutter to the area than that resultant from the existing screens. The remaining plasma screens would be mostly hidden from Queen’s Walk due to their positioning facing down the boarding platform and position behind the existing kiosks and security structures.

6.3.37 In terms of the works to the existing ticket kiosk, these too are considered to be acceptable noting that they would not represent a significant increase in the amount of existing signage on this structure. The most significant addition would be the aluminium band, which would encompass the entire kiosk. However, the size and position of this band would ensure that it would not be overly dominant or out of keeping with the rest of the advertisement material on the site.

6.3.38 The largest element of the proposed advertisement scheme would be the addition of 64m wide graphics to the top of a canopy on the western side of the London Eye. The canopy is positioned approximately 4m above the existing pier structure and serves to protect those boarding river cruises after disembarking the London Eye. The text and logo would be orientated towards the London Eye and is designed to be read by those travelling on it.

6.3.39 Although the canopy is arched, the graphics would not be easily viewed from the opposite bank of the River Thames or neighbouring bridges due to its height and position. The canopy would remain predominantly white with the text and logo positioned broadly in the centre of it.

6.3.40 Given that the sign would not be easily viewed other than by passengers on the London Eye, and that the canopy would remain predominantly white, the canopy sign is not considered to be harmful to visual amenity of the area.

Advertisements on County Hall

6.3.41 The remaining elements of the advertisement proposal include the installation of vinyl graphics above the main entrance to the London Eye premises on the front elevation of County Hall and to the existing glass balustrade on the side elevation which forms the disabled access to this building. The graphics to the front elevation would fit into the formal signage space and would replace the existing sign. The only change would be the different coloured background and the addition of the new London Eye logo and branding. These alterations are considered to be minor and would not appear out of keeping or overly busy. The sign would remain non-illuminated.

6.3.42 The vinyl graphics to the balustrade on the side elevation would be largely transparent noting that the solid blue strip would fade to nothing rather than continue the entire length of the balustrade. The remaining elements of the vinyl graphics on the side elevation including the ‘energy lines’ would not be visually intrusive and would not cause harm to the appearance of the listed building or cause injury to the amenity of the surrounding area.

6.4 Public Safety

Policy Overview

6.4.1 Paragraph 3 (2) (b) of the Regulations states the following:

“factors relevant to public safety include— (i) the safety of persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military); (ii) whether the display of the advertisement in question is likely to obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; (iii) whether the display of the advertisement in question is likely to hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.

6.4.2 Policy 9 of the UDP deals with transport impacts and states that planning applications will be assessed for their transport impact, including cumulative impacts on highway safety, on the environment and road network and on all transport modes, including public transport, walking and cycling.

6.4.3 Policy 37 (g) of the Council’s adopted UDP (2007) deals with advertisements on footways, and states the following:

“Advertisements on footways (including private forecourts) will be resisted where they add to street clutter and/or inhibit pedestrian access. They are not permitted in areas of heavy pedestrian flow or within conservation areas, within the vicinity of listed buildings, or where they would obscure views of attractive shops or intrude into predominantly residential areas”. Assessment

6.4.4 In relation to the safety of passing traffic, including the obstruction of views and visual distraction of passing drivers on Belvedere Road, the Council’s Transport Planning Team were consulted on the proposed scheme and raised no objections subject to the condition that the signs do not flash, strobe or direct any light onto the public highway. It is also noted that Transport for London were consulted and raised no objections.

6.4.5 In relation to pedestrian safety, it should be noted that there would be no additional signage within pedestrian areas. Furthermore, there would be no alterations to the dimensions or locations of the existing signs in these areas. Any additional signage would be located within operational areas of the London Eye such as the boarding platform or would be fixed to existing balustrades. As such the scheme would have no impact upon the flow or safety of pedestrians.

6.4.6 Taking into account all of the above, it is considered that the proposals would not have a significantly detrimental impact upon the safety of the application site or the surrounding area, including in terms of the safety of passing traffic, and pedestrian safety.

7.0 Conclusion

7.1 In light of the above assessment and the comments from the Council’s Conservation Officer it is considered that the orange repainting of one of the capsules to the London Eye is harmful to amenity. This is due to the visual harm caused to the London Eye structure itself, resultant from the disruption to its circular symmetry and the undermining of the shared uniformity between the capsules.

7.2 Due to its size and height when in motion, the capsule with the bright orange colour appears out of keeping with the rest of the wheel and distracts from important views. The London Eye makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the South Bank Conservation Area; it is considered that the bright orange colour applied to the capsule fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

7.3 It is noted that the applicant has stated that the application of colour to the capsule and stabilisers is only included as part of this application for the sake of completeness as these works do not require advertisement consent. However, the Council considers that the repainting works explicitly form part of the wider EDF Energy advertisement scheme.

7.4 The remaining elements of the scheme including the orange repainting of the stabilisers are considered to be acceptable noting that they do not have the same visual impact as the repainting of the capsule. The signage to the canopy is also considered to be acceptable as it would not be easily viewed other than by passengers on the wheel. The other elements of the scheme including the alterations to the freestanding signs and the signs to County Hall are minor alterations to the existing signage on the site and would not harm visual amenity or harm the special interest of the Grade II listed building.

7.5 The advertisements subject to this application are not considered to have a detrimental impact upon public safety noting that they would not endanger passing traffic or inhibit pedestrian access to the site.

7.6 It is therefore recommended that the Council grant a split decision in respect of this application, refusing the application of orange colour to one of the capsules; and approving the remaining elements of the scheme.

8.0 Recommendation A:

8.1 Refuse advertisement consent for the following:

• Application of orange colour to outer panels of the capsule including the top, under side and glazing bars of the capsule and the slewing ring cowels of the capsule structure (Advert Q on EDFELE,RB,GA001).

8.2 Reason for refusal:

1) The proposed advertisement, involving the application of orange colour to one of the capsules on the London Eye, including the top, under side and glazing bars of the capsule and the slewing ring cowels of the capsule structure, by reason of its colour, size and position constitutes as an overly dominant and incongruous display, which harms visual amenity and fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the South Bank Conservation Area, undermining the shared uniformity between the capsules thereby diminishing the aesthetic value and architectural integrity of the London Eye as a whole. The application is therefore contrary to Policy S9 of the Lambeth LDF Core Strategy (January 2011) and Policies 37, 43, 45 and 47 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’.

2) The proposal also harms the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed County Hall and adversely affects strategic views as identified within the London Plan including linear views from Westminster Pier to St Pauls Cathedral, and river prospects including the South Bank, Westminster Bridge and Waterloo Bridge. The application is therefore contrary to Policy 4B.18 of The London Plan (2008), Policy S9 of the Lambeth LDF Core Strategy (January 2011) and Policies 37, 43, 45 and 47 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’.

9.0 Recommendation B:

9.1 Grant advertisement consent for the following:

• Application of orange colour to the stabilisers (Advert U on EDFELE,RB,GA001).

• Replacement of vinyl graphics to the capsules (Advert P on EDFELE,RB,GA001).

• Alterations to freestanding signs (Adverts A, B, C, D, E, F and S on EDFELE,RB,GA001).

• Display of vinyl graphics to balustrades (Adverts G, K, M and N on EDFELE,RB,GA001).

• Installation of LCD screens within boarding platform area (Adverts J, L and T on EDFELE,RB,GA001).

• Display of non-illuminated graphic sign to pier canopy (Advert R on EDFELE,RB,GA001).

• Alterations to kiosk signage (Advert H on EDFELE,RB,GA001).

• Alterations to County Hall signage (Advert O on EDFELE,RB,GA001).

9.2 Summary of the reasons:

In deciding to grant advertisement consent, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Lambeth LDF Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’ and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the scheme in the context of these issues, it is considered that advertisement consent should be granted subject the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following policies were relevant:

Lambeth LDF Core Strategy (January 2011):

Policy S1: Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment

London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’

Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 37: Shopfronts and Advertisements Policy 43: The River Thames Policy Area – Urban Design Policy 45: Listed Buildings Policy 47: Conservation Areas

10.0 Recommendation C:

10.1 That the matter be referred to Legal Services (Governance & Democracy) to instigate prosecution proceedings under Section 224 of the Act.

10.2 Under section 224 of the Act, the display of an advertisement in contravention of the regulations is an offence. The orange colour which has been applied to the outer panels of a single capsule on the London Eye, including the top, under side and glazing bars of the capsule and the slewing ring cowels of the capsule structure – is considered to constitute an advertisement. Retrospective advertisement consent proposing the continued display of this advertisement has been recommended for refusal for reasons outlined elsewhere in this report.

10.3 Consequently, unless this advertisement is removed within 28 days of the date of the decision notice, the matter will be referred to legal and democratic services in order for them to instigate prosecution proceedings against those responsible.

Conditions

1 No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.