Issue - meetings

The London Eye, Queen's Walk, SE1 (Bishops ward) (10/04094/ADV/RMF/17711)

Meeting: 29/03/2011 - Planning Applications Committee 1 (Item 7)

7 The London Eye, Queen's Walk, SE1 (Bishops ward) (10/04094/ADV/RMF/17711) pdf icon PDF 255 KB

Recommendation: Partial approval/partial refusal



(Case No. 10/04094/ADV) (Page No. 81 of the Agenda)


Following the officer’s presentation the applicant addressed the Committee and made the following points:


  • The application was as a result of the fact that EDF had taken over sponsorship of the London Eye from British Airways (BA).
  • The reason why the London Eye capsules were grey was because BA had requested they be that colour.
  • Apart from the colour of one capsule there was very little change from what was there previously.


In answer to questions from Members the applicant made the following points:


  • They had complied with the comments made by the Conservation and Design Team with regard to the renewal of signage on the disabled ramp.
  • There had previously been BA lettering on the capsules.
  • The sponsorship was for a period of 3 years.


A majority of the members of the Committee expressed their agreement with the views of the Council’s Conservation and Design Team, who objected to the repainting of the capsule.


Officers drew the committee’s attention to the fact that the repainting of the capsule was, in this case, considered to be an advertisement for the purposes of announcing or advertising the EDF Energy brand although normally the painting of, or application of colour to, the exterior of any building or work does not require planning permission.


Legal advice was given that although there had been a planning appeal decision submitted with the application, which stated that application of a colour was not an advertisement in that case, each application had to be considered on its own individual merits and another inspector could come to a different decision.


Members discussed whether, in the case of agreeing the officer’s recommendation C, the colouring was not removed, the matter should be referred to Legal Services and prosecution proceedings commence within 28 days. It was considered it was not necessary to commence prosecution within 28 days at this point in time as this decision could be subject to appeal. However, it was agreed that the option to prosecute should remain.


MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris and SECONDED by Councillor Ruth Ling and



(1)               That advertisement consent be refused for the following for the reasons set out in the report 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).



For – 4

Against – 1


MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Ruth Ling and unanimously




(2)               That advertisement consent be granted for the reasons set out in the report, 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7