Appeal 6004903

The appeal is dismissed.

Both the council and the appellant refer to a directional road sign sited on the nearside verge of the northbound carriageway of [site address] . During my site visit I noticed that this sign had been damaged. However, I have no reason to believe that it would not be repaired.

The Regulations require that advertisements be controlled only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan in so far as they are material, in addition to any other relevant factors. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) confirm this approach. In my decision, I have had regard to the development plan only in respect of these matters.

The council has raised no objection in respect of amenity, and I observed nothing which would lead me to dispute this conclusion. Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on public safety.

The appeal site is within the forecourt of a petrol filling station located on the western side of [site address] , which provides access to an extensive commercial and industrial area from the Boongate interchange with the A1139 [name]. It is a well-trafficked road by both cars and commercial vehicles. Several prominent advertisements are displayed on the buildings and forecourts of nearby premises. Therefore, the site is in a busy location within which advertisements are typically found.

The appellant has provided a [name] (Axis, January 2026) which identifies that, whilst one serious collision occurred on the northbound carriageway near the appeal site during the most recent available 3-year period (2022-2024), the accident record does not suggest existing highway safety in the vicinity of the site is a cause for concern.

The proposed digital display would be sited to the north of the petrol filling station, close to its egress point from the forecourt to [site address] . To the south of the egress, there is a directional traffic sign on the highway verge which directs drivers to a right turn lane to [address] East, which serves numerous commercial and industrial units, including a busy fast-food restaurant at its junction with [site address] . My site visit took place on a weekday morning, and I observed that the right turn lane was well used by cars, commercial vans and HGVs. Therefore, despite the relatively modest number of recorded collisions, there are several potential conflict points in close proximity to the site.

The proposed display would face south and thus would not be visible to drivers heading south on [site address] , or exiting the [address] East junction. However, it would be visible to drivers heading north along [site address] .

The appellant advances that the directional road sign would be visible to drivers in advance of the proposed display, allowing them opportunity to perceive and assimilate the directional sign prior to the proposed display entering their view. The Highway Report concludes that there would only be a slight overlap between the directional sign and the proposed display at the distance where drivers would be required to make safety-critical decisions.

However, the approach to the site includes many visually competing elements, such as the forecourt of the petrol filling station, its signage and vehicular entrance, which reduce the visual prominence of the directional sign in longer distance views. Therefore, I cannot be certain that drivers will have taken navigational decisions at distance from the sign.

As illustrated by the image provided by the Local Highway Authority (LHA), as perceived in shorter distance views, the proposed display would appear to be behind the directional road sign. The Highway Safety Report suggests foreground and background objects are perceived by drivers to be moving at different rates, making separation more readily distinguishable. However, the confluence between the directional information displayed on the road sign and advertisement material displayed on the proposed digital display behind, as perceived by drivers, would create distraction and reduce the visual prominence of the directional road sign.

Maintaining the visibility of the road sign is important to the safe operation of the busy junction of [site address] and [address] East. The proximity of the vehicular egress from the filling station forecourt adds to the activity in the immediate vicinity and the potential for distraction. Therefore, the confluence of the sign and the proposed digital display would reduce its effectiveness, leading to late or sudden manoeuvres of right-turning vehicles and harming public safety through increasing opportunities for conflict between road users.

The appellants advise that the proposed digital display would operate in line with best practice for digital roadside advertising, and the change of the static images displayed would be instant with each image displayed for 10 seconds, reducing the number of advertisements experienced by drivers. Illumination would respond to ambient light conditions and be of limited brightness at night. Whilst these measures could be secured by planning conditions, they would not adequately address my concerns regarding the confluence of the digital display with the existing directional road sign which is a consequence of its proposed siting.

My attention has been drawn to several other examples of digital advertisement displays elsewhere in the country and in Scotland. I have limited details of each, and I am not certain that these examples are comparable with the appeal proposal in respect of their siting and proximity to junctions and/or directional traffic signs.

The PPG states that advertisements at points where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety, including at junctions. It notes that the main types of advertisement which may cause danger to road users include those which because of their size or siting would reduce the effectiveness of a traffic sign. I have had regard to the advice of the Local Highway Authority who advise that the proposed digital display would distract drivers and cause confusion with the existing directional traffic sign and right-turn filter lane and thus cause additional danger to users of the public highway.

The appellant asserts the proposal would be beneficial as it would enable multiple advertising campaigns to be carried at once, reducing pressure for new advertising locations and would provide a range of social, economic and environmental benefits. However, such benefits would not outweigh the harm to public safety identified above.

Taking into account all of the above, I find that the position and nature of the proposed digital advertisement display in relation to the existing directional road sign, egress from the filling station and right-turn filter lane would likely result in increased conflict between road users. Consequently, the proposal would have a harmful effect on public safety contrary to the provisions of the Framework and the guidance of the PPG, which seek to control advertisements in the interests of public safety. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy LP13 of the Peterborough Local Plan 2016-2036 (2019), which seeks to ensure highway safety.

For the reasons set out above, the proposed digital advertisement would be harmful to public safety. The appeal is therefore dismissed.