Appeal 6002894

The appeal is allowed, and advertisement consent is granted for removal of 2No. externally illuminated 48-sheet advertisement (Approx. 6m x 3m) followed by the erection of 1No. individually supported, internally illuminated D200 advertisement (Approx. 6m x 3m) at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application 25/05432/ADV. The consent is for 5 years from the date of this decision and is subject to the standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the following additional conditions:

In daylight hours, the advertisement’s display luminance shall be controlled in order to reflect ambient light conditions, and shall at all times be no greater than the recommended maximum daytime luminance values set out in Table 10.5 within the Institute of [name] – Professional Lighting Guidance (PLG 05/2023) ‘The brightness of illuminated advertisements including digital displays’ (or its equivalent in a replacement guide) in cd/m2.

In the hours of darkness, the advertisements display luminance shall be no greater than 300 cd/m2.

The rate of content change of the advertisements permitted by this consent shall be limited to no more than once every 10 seconds. The time interval between changes of content shall be no greater than 0.1 seconds with no fading, swiping or other animated transition methods between successive displays.

The illumination of the advertisements permitted by this consent shall not be flashing or be otherwise intermittently illuminated, and the advertisements permitted by the consent shall not display any moving, or apparently moving, images.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) identify that the power to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. The council does not object to the siting of the advertisements on amenity grounds and, following my site visit, I see no reason to disagree. [name] have taken into account the policies and guidance that the Council considers to be relevant as a material consideration, they have not been determinative.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on public safety.

The appeal site is located adjacent to a roundabout on the A6110, a busy 2-lane dual carriageway running east-west. The roundabout also has exits to the north and south that mainly serve nearby commercial premises. The site currently contains 2 large, illuminated advertisements facing traffic in both directions along the A6110. Diagonally opposite, and across the roundabout, are 2 illuminated digital advertisements, also oriented towards traffic travelling in either direction on the main road.

The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) sets out that all advertisements are intended to attract attention, but those in locations where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety. The PPG also lists the main types of advertisements which may cause danger to road users. This includes those that, due to their size or siting, could obstruct or confuse a road-user’s view, illuminated signs which, because of their size or brightness, could result in glare and dazzle or distract road-users, and advertisements that are subject to frequent changes of the display.

The proposed advertisement would occupy a similar position to the existing west‐facing sign. It would be most visible to drivers travelling east along the A6110, but also to vehicles approaching from the south on [address] and to those travelling west when close to the roundabout. Although the proposal may draw more attention than the existing sign because of its LED illumination and changing images, it would come into view gradually on the approach to the roundabout from the west and south, rather than appearing suddenly within a driver’s field of vision. As a result, it would not be unduly distracting at the point where drivers are negotiating the roundabout itself or dealing with other nearby hazards, such as the bus stop and traffic lights further along the road.

Drivers travelling east would also see the advertisement while waiting at the roundabout. However, given the presence of the existing sign and its alignment with the direction of approaching vehicles, the replacement advertisement would be unlikely to cause significant distraction or compromise highway safety. The proposal would not obstruct or confuse sightlines for drivers approaching from any direction. Although it would be viewed alongside the existing digital advertisements on the opposite side of the roundabout, this would not create excessive distraction, as those existing displays are visible from a greater distance than the proposed sign when approaching the roundabout on the A6110.

The Council refers to several accidents at the roundabout over the past five years, but no details have been provided. It is therefore unclear whether these were linked to the existing advertisements or to unrelated factors. While the lack of cycling infrastructure may increase risks for vulnerable road users, there is no substantive evidence before me to show that this would be exacerbated by the proposal.

Consequently, based on the evidence put forward and my observations at the site visit, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would not have a harmful effect on public safety. Although not determinative, there would be no conflict with the public safety aims of Policies GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review

and T2 of the [name] (amended 2019).

I note the concerns raised in respect of energy usage and the content of advertisements. However, I must consider the proposal in terms of amenity and public safety, and these matters do not alter my conclusion on the main issue.

Alongside the 5 standard conditions, I have imposed additional conditions to ensure that highway and public safety is not compromised. Specifically, it is necessary to control the level of illumination and the frequency of change of display of the proposed advertisements, and to restrict other visual effects that could cause distraction to drivers. The conditions imposed are sufficient to ensure public safety is not compromised in the event the device was to malfunction.

I have had regard to proposed conditions from the Council and the appellant’s submissions which specify the same maximum time interval for changes of content. Both parties agree that luminance levels should reflect the relevant guidance, the most recent version is the Institute of [name] – Professional Lighting Guidance (PLG 05/2023) ‘The brightness of illuminated advertisements including digital displays’ (the Guidance). I have imposed a condition to limit the maximum night-time luminance in accordance with that proposed by the appellant. [name] do not have full details before me with regard to ambient daytime illuminance, I have omitted reference to a specific candela for daytime luminance whilst requiring compliance with the relevant table set out within the Guidance to ensure the maximum luminance levels would be acceptable.

Given the location of the proposed advertisements on a well-utilised vehicular route, in the interest of public safety, it is necessary and reasonable to prevent the advertisements displaying moving images, which is in line with the details contained within the submissions.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed in the terms set out.