Appeal 6004219

The appeal is dismissed.

From the information provided by the appellants’ agent both the application and appeal were clearly submitted by Wildstone Estates Limited. I have, therefore used the name of the company in my banner heading.

I have used the description of the advertisement proposal from the Council’s decision letter dated 1 December 2025 as this describes the proposal more precisely.

The control of advertisements is exercisable only with respect to amenity and public safety. The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on highway safety.

The proposal site (the site) lies on the northern side of [site address] . The proposed advertisement would lie alongside an access to a petrol filling station (PFS) within the site. The side of [site address] on which the site lies is predominantly in commercial and industrial use. In contrast the opposite side is predominantly residential. The character and appearance is, therefore, a balance between residential and commercial. Existing signage in the wider area is not visually strident and does not dominate the street scene. This maintains a balance between the two uses in terms of the character of the area.

In close proximity to the site there are a number of advertising signs, associated with the car wash, an adjacent petrol filling station (PFS) and other local businesses. These are all static, non-illuminated signs with the notable exception of a pricing display at the PFS.

The proposed advertisement is a large, internally illuminated digital display. It would be orientated along the northern boundary of the site, close to the road. Thus, because of its size and the alignment of the road, it would be clearly visible for some considerable distance to anyone approaching or looking out of the windows of the residential properties along that stretch of [site address] . The sign would be very prominent in such views and the illumination would contribute to this prominence.

Whilst there are other advertisement signs in the vicinity, these are not of a comparable scale nor, other than the pricing of the fuel at the PFS, illuminated. Further they relate directly to the businesses associated with them.

The PFS is illuminated. However, the light levels associated with the PFS are steady and do not change, in contrast those of the proposed advertisement.

Whilst the intensity of illumination of the proposed advertisement could be controlled through the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition, this would mitigate the visual intrusion in regard to illumination, but would not eliminate it. Neither would this reduce the prominence of the advertisement due to its size and position.

The appellants identify that large format roadside advertising and digital displays such as that proposed have increased in number in recent years and are a common feature of commercial areas. Whilst this may be true, they are not a feature of the immediate area and, in any case, the character of the area is, as I have identified above, mixed, rather than predominantly commercial.

The proposal would introduce a very prominent and overtly commercial intrusive feature into the area, undermining the existing balance of character between commercial and residential uses. This, for the reasons set out above, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and thereby visual amenity.

The appellants have provided [name] (HTN01), produced by Axis to accompany the appeal and I have had regard to that document. [site address] is a wide, busy road. There is a junction, between [address], a residential side street, and [site address] that would be directly opposite the proposed advertisement. In the vicinity of the site there are numerous accesses serving the industrial/commercial sites and residential properties.

I have identified, above, that the proposed advertisement sign would be very prominent in the street scene. Given its location and prominence, it would be a very noticeable streetscape feature to drivers.

Given the level of traffic and the proliferation of accesses in the vicinity, the highway environment contains numerous potential points of conflict requiring drivers to process and respond to a multitude of information. It is a complex urban driving environment which requires a high level of concentration by drivers to negotiate safely.

The aim of advertisements is to attract attention and, given the multiple points of potential conflict in the driving environment, attracting driver attention, even for a limited period of time, could result in a collision.

Whilst digital advertisements are becoming more commonplace across the UK and drivers have become more familiar with them, that does not mean that drivers are so inured to their presence that they can be placed without further consideration of the particular highway environment.

Whilst the advertisement signs will be visible from some distance, they will change periodically as drivers approach, and so the potential for distraction remains. Further, the signage would be set to the left of drivers exiting the PFS. Whilst set back away from the road, to a degree, the advertisement would be within the field of view of drivers as they seek to judge the acceptability of gaps in traffic to pull onto the road. There is, therefore, potential for the proposal to distract a driver at the moment of decision.

[name] have identified above, the site hosts a number of advertisements and other advertisements lie close by. These are static, with unchanging images and their potential to distract, therefore, is less.

The appellants identify that, with the spread of digital advertising, the number of paper advertisements is diminishing. However, it is unclear whether the reduction is a direct result of replacement by digital advertisements, or a move away from paper advertisements for other reasons.

The appellants have not identified any advertisement that would be removed, should the proposal be approved, nor have they identified any means of securing their removal. Thus, it has not been demonstrated that there would be a local reduction in roadside clutter as a result of the proposal. In any case, the reduction in static signs does not justify their replacement by a sign with potential to distract drivers in this location.

It would be possible to minimise potential for distraction through the imposition of planning conditions controlling illumination and rate and method of change of the images, such that it would operate within the guidance provided within the Institute of [name] document PLG05 ‘The Brightness of [name]. However, given the particular circumstances, that would not eliminate the potential to distract drivers in this hazardous environment.

HTN01 sets out the recent accident history of the highway in the vicinity of the site. Nonetheless, the proposal will materially change that environment, and I have considered the potential of the proposal to result in harm from that change.

I note that HTN01 includes a limited number of case studies of sites that the appellants consider relevant to the proposal before me. However, whilst within urban environments, the locations of those studies are all some distance from the site and do not affect its immediate context. Nor is it clear on what basis these sites have been selected or whether they represent a statistically significant sample of the population. I have determined this appeal having regard to the particular highway environment which would host the proposal.

From the reasoning set out above I find that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on highway safety.

The appellants have brought to my attention a number of permissions for advertisements within various local planning authority areas1 that they consider comparable to the proposal. I note that the Salford City Council and Sefton Council developments were for replacement signs. That would not be the case here. None of the identified sites are close to the site and do not inform its context. I do not, therefore, consider them to be directly comparable to the proposal before me and I have, in any case, determined this appeal on its own merits.

The appellants have identified a number of benefits that they consider would accrue from the proposal. Use of digital advertisements would obviate the need for paper in advertisements, reducing the waste generated by its use. Further, compared to a paper display, there would be no need to visit the site to swop advertisements and this would reduce trips to the site.

[name] have noted above, with the spread of digital advertising, the number of paper advertisements is diminishing. However, for the reasons identified the putative removal of paper advertising sites carries no weight in favour of the proposal.

The appellants assert that, in instances where displays are upgraded there is typically an uplift in rent, with economic benefits. However, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate this. Nonetheless, whilst, in this instance, no advertisements are being replaced, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be additional advertising revenue from the site and thus a benefit to the economy. However, the introduction of a single new advertisement sign would not, of itself, be likely to make a considerable contribution to the local economy or regeneration and so this attracts limited weight in support of the proposal.

The appellants say that the proposal would result in a tidier and better-maintained site. However, the upkeep of the site could be achieved through other means and is not dependent on the presence of the advertising screen and so this carries no weight as a public benefit.

The proposal would provide an opportunity to display messaging for non-commercial purposes during periods when no commercial advertising is shown. However, I have no information before me to identify the proportion of time any public service information would be displayed and so this potential benefit attracts limited weight. The proposed digital display could be used to display public messaging, such as emergency messaging. It is not set out how this would be achieved and so this carries limited weight in support of the proposal as a public benefit.

Against this the proposal would be harmful to local visual amenity and highway safety. The Government, within the National Planning Policy Framework, places great importance on the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places, identifying that this is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Similarly, Government places great emphasis on creating a safe transport network. These are matters weighing significantly against the proposal and, in this case, the identified harm outweighs the limited benefits accruing from the proposal. 1 Council Refs: PA/2024/0723 (Salford City Council, DC/2023/01625 (Sefton Council) and 20/01188/ADV (Portsmouth City Council)

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the advertisement would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area and hence to amenity. I have taken into account Policies M1 and M2 of Dartford’s Borough Local Plan to 2037 (2024) (the Local Plan) which together seek, amongst other things, to ensure that advertisements must be of a scale and design that is sympathetic to the locality and do not have a negative impact on visual amenity.

I have also found that the proposal would have an unacceptable harmful effect on highway safety. I have considered the aims of Policies M1 and M16 of the Local Plan, which seek to ensure that development does not have a negative impact on public safety, including road users.

The Regulations require that decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Consequently, although I have taken these policies into account, they have not been a decisive consideration in my determination of this appeal.

I conclude that the proposed advertisement results in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood of the site and highway safety. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.