Appeal 6004210

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

I have taken relevant policies into account as a material consideration since power to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. The Council does not have concerns regarding amenity, and I have no reason to disagree. My recommendation thus focuses on the main issue which is the effect of the advertisement on public safety.

The appeal site comprises the side elevation of an end terraced property. The junction to the A663 which leads to the motorway is close to the appeal site. There is a pedestrian crossing across [address] at the junction. There are also two smaller junctions nearby. The site is prominent when travelling along [address] towards the A663. There was a relatively constant but steady stream of vehicular traffic at the time of my site visit.

The advertisement would be prominent for drivers of vehicles when travelling towards the A663. It would be positioned close to an area of [address] where the traffic splits into two lanes upon approach to the main junction and traffic starts to slow down in preparation. The junction with the A663 is particularly busy and there are several routes available for drivers of vehicles to navigate.

Given the increased concentration required in this location, the sign would unavoidably be a distraction for drivers of vehicles and would increase the likelihood of vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict. Due to its large size and elevated position, the attention of drivers may be drawn to the sign rather than the two lanes of the approaching junction with the A663. There could also be conflict with vehicles that are stopped to turn into [address].

These effects would be further exacerbated due to the altering nature of the proposed digital advert which would change every 10 seconds. The proposed advertisement would be illuminated and therefore the dominance of the sign and the effects above would be intensified when travelling along the route at night.

The proposed advertisement would therefore result in harm to public safety. Insofar as it is a material consideration, the proposal would not comply with the general aims of Policy 9 of the Oldham Local Development Framework Development Plan Document- Joint Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2011 which is concerned with the safety of road users amongst other things.

There are some benefits to digital advertising. Such as maintenance, reduced waste, support for local businesses and messaging for both emergency and community purposes. I am also aware of the examples cited, but many are much smaller scale, not in an elevated position or non-illuminated. Fundamentally, they do not appear to be in such close proximity to a major junction. The specifics of the context of a given scheme are fairly critical to its success. Accident report data supplied shows that although there are no recorded incidents immediately next to the appeal site, there are serious accidents recorded at the A663 junction. Given that I have found that the advertisement would be a distraction, there is a risk that accidents could increase.

Putting aside the limited scope of the above-mentioned regulations to be able to take account of ‘material considerations that may indicate otherwise’ I would ascribe these matters moderate weight should that not be the case. This would not be sufficient to suitably address the harm that would arise out of the scheme and the greater weight I would attach to it given that it has the potential to be impactful to life.

For the reasons given above, there would be harm to public safety. The scheme would therefore fail an assessment under the Regulations. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.