Appeal 6003418

The appeal is allowed, and express consent is granted for the display of illuminated digital screen as applied for. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the following additional conditions:

The proposed advertisement shall display static images only and not animated, scrolling, intermittent or flashing images, or directions to drivers at any time. The rate of change between successive images shall be no greater than 1 second with no swiping or other animated transition methods between successive images. The minimum display time each successive advertising image shall be no less than 10 seconds per image.

The functionality of the advertisement shall have a default mechanism to switch it off in the event of a malfunction or during periods of maintenance.

The intensity of the illumination of the advertisement permitted by this consent shall be no greater than within that recommended by the Institute of [name] in its [name] 05 (PLG 05) Brightness of [name] (or its equivalent in a replacement Guide).

The description of development in the above banner heading has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as this accurately describes the proposed development.

A Highways Technical Note has been prepared for the site and submitted with this appeal. The document does not change the proposals as submitted and the Council has also had the opportunity to comment on this. My acceptance of this document is not therefore considered prejudicial to any party, and I have taken this into account in reaching my decision.

Regulations to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. The Council’s decision notice refers to both and thus the main issues are therefore: • The effect of the proposed development on amenity; and • The effect of the proposed development on public safety.

The appeal site relates to a waste processing site known as KCM which backs onto the busy [site address] and is accessed from [address] to the west.

The proposed development seeks consent for the display of illuminated digital screen at the northern end of the [name] site, immediately adjacent the roundabout at [address]/ [site address] . It would display different adverts on a set rotation and would be set above the boundary fence with the sign advertising primarily to vehicular traffic navigating the roundabout. The sign would measure 6 metres wide, 3 metres high and would be set on 2.5 metre high supports, approximately 1 metre higher than the adjacent boundary fence.

The surrounding land uses are commercial, and the site therefore has a commercial character. There is an existing non illuminated advert present onsite which I was able to see at the time of my site visit. I also noted that a trailer had been used to advertise the site. There were some other advertisements in the vicinity of the site along with street furniture in the form of streetlights, road signs, benches etc. Whilst surrounding adverts are perhaps smaller than that proposed and of a non illuminated nature, advertisements are still a familiar feature of the area. I did not find the area to be cluttered and there was a good degree of space between adverts and street furniture etc.

Whilst the proposed advertisement would be of a larger size to others in the area, the appeal site and its surrounds are large enough to accommodate such an addition without it appearing stark or dominant with a level of open space surrounding the advert. It would be seen against the backdrop of a commercial premises on a commercial route into Rotherham. It would not unduly affect existing landscaping features, nor would it represent visual clutter within the street scene.

The proposed advertisement would be illuminated. However, its size and positioning adjacent the boundary fence would not be overly dominant in a street scene where displays are found and have been historically associated with the site. It would not therefore unduly stand out from the existing street scene nor impact the visual amenity of the area. Furthermore, the maximum brightness would always be within the guidelines as set by the institute of [name] 5. Appropriate conditions could control brightness, animation and the timing of image changes. The advertisement would not therefore be deemed significantly bright or flashing as to result in a detrimental harm to visual amenity particularly when taking into account the existing character of the area which is a commercial location where advertisements and signs can be found. The area is also one which is well lit by lighting columns and other light sources. The level of illumination would not therefore represent a dominant feature and would readily absorb into the street scene.

I appreciate that digital advertisement has previously been refused and dismissed at appeal1. However, that scheme was in a different location/positioning to the appeal before me (further south) and related to 2 hoardings of a different scheme. They would therefore have been read differently, and I note the Inspector’s reference to the areas rural quality and verdant character. The appeal before me is situated in a different location/position, relates to one hoarding and does not unduly affect the areas rural quality and verdant character given that there is no landscaped backdrop but rather a more commercial feel. Overall, I do not find the advert to be intrusive in this particular location.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm amenity. I have taken into account Policies SP55 and SP60 of the Local Plan, 2018 (LP) which together, amongst other matters, requires adverts to be of the highest possible standard and contribute to a safe and attractive environment. [name] have concluded that the proposal would not harm amenity, then the proposal would not conflict with these policies or the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) relating to achieving well-designed places.

The proposed advertisement would be sited in close proximity to the 4-arm roundabout which is a busy road network. It would primarily be visible to traffic approaching the roundabout along [address], and those approaching along [address]. The display facing would also be visible to traffic waiting at the give way line on [address].

The speed limit is 40 miles per hour, and whilst the advertisement would attract attention, I did not find the roundabout/layout of the road to be so complicated or demanding where drivers would need to be extra cautious when approaching the roundabout. Additionally, the advertisement would be visible in advance of navigating the roundabout on approaches from [address] and [address]. Drivers would be able to sufficiently see and concentrate on the highway conditions and move into the appropriate lane in sufficient time as to not impede highway safety. Drivers would then be aware and familiar with the advert’s presence when negotiating the roundabout and it would not appear as a surprise to the driver. Such an advert would be a familiar characteristic that drivers expect to see, particularly along an urban road.

The level of illumination, static imagery, and frequency between changes of the display proposed would further ensure that the display would not be an unacceptable distraction for road users. These measures have been conditioned.

I note that there have been 3 slight injury collisions recorded in the vicinity of the site within the last three-year period available. However, the [name] submitted explains that only two of these accidents occurred in a position from which the proposed display facing would have been visible, one of which occurred during hours of darkness when the brightness of the proposed LED display would be significantly reduced. There is no evidence to suggest that the 1 RB2021/0456 and APP/P4415/Z/21/3274354 existing advertisements or previous displays was a contributing factor in these accidents.

Volumetrically, the accident history within the study area involving vehicles moving in a direction of travel towards the proposed display location equates to 0.66 accidents per year on average. Traffic data shows a two-way average annual daily flow along the A6123 of approximately 15,500 vehicles. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the roads in the vicinity can be considered fairly safe with low accident records for the volume of traffic passing.

The accident record within the study area does not therefore represent a cause for concern, and it is considered highly unlikely that the proposal would result in an increased risk of accidents occurring due to driver distraction.

I have had due regard to the other findings of the [name] and this, together with my own observations onsite, provides me with sufficient evidence to conclude that the proposed advertisement would not result in undue risk to highway or pedestrian safety as a result of significant driver distraction.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would not harm public safety. I have taken into account Policy SP60 of the LP and Policy CS27 of the [name], 2014 which together amongst other matters, requires advertisements to not cause a public safety hazard. [name] have concluded that the proposal would not harm public safety, then the proposal would not conflict with these policies or the guidance in the Framework relating to promoting sustainable transport and achieving well-designed places.

The five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations are imposed in the terms of my decision. In addition to these, I find it necessary to impose a condition controlling the brightness, animation and the timing of image changes as well as requiring the display to freeze in the event of any malfunction. These are imposed in the interests of public safety and amenity.

For the reasons given above, and taking into account all matters raised, the appeal is allowed.