Appeal 6005183

The appeal is dismissed.

The Regulations require that decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account (a) the provisions of the development plan, insofar as it is material; and (b) any other relevant factors. As a consequence, although I have taken account of the Borough plan1, Framework2 and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) into account, they have not been decisive considerations in my determination of this appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on amenity and public safety.

The proposal is for a single sided free standing digital advertisement display. The appeal site is located on a property that is currently a carwash, and the advertisement would face onto a three-arm roundabout located towards the edge of the commercial centre of Bedworth.

Although the Regulations do not define amenity exhaustively, it states that it includes aural and visual amenity, as well as factors relevant to amenity including the general characteristics of the locality.

The site is in a transitional area where the town centre gives way to predominantly residential properties. Whilst there are several advertisements in the vicinity of the 1 Borough Plan Review 2021-2029, Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council 2 National Planning Policy Framework, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 12 December 2024 (as amended on 7 February 2025). site, these are proportionate in scale to the buildings they are located on and predominantly relate to the business operating therein.

The proposal is in a prominent location in an area where digital advertisements, especially ones of the proposed scale, are not commonplace. As a consequence, the proposal would, by reason of its prominent position and large scale, appear incongruous and out of character with the area and in so doing, be harmful to its visual amenity.

In support of the appeal, the appellant states that the existing advertisements where the proposal is positioned would be removed, decluttering the appearance of the site. However, these advertisements are not of substantial construction and are far less prominent than the proposal which is much greater in scale.

I am also not satisfied that the standard and proposed conditions, including control of the illuminance of the advertisement, type and transition of the images shown, would sufficiently mitigate the harm identified above.

In light of the above, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on amenity. Although not determinative, I also find that the scheme conflicts with BE3 of the Borough, which seeks, amongst other things that proposals should contribute to local distinctiveness and character. It would also be contrary to Paragraph 141 of the Framework, which state, amongst other things, that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited.

The appeal site is located in close proximity to a three-arm roundabout on a primary route through the centre of Bedworth. When exiting the roundabout onto the [name] there is a pedestrian crossing between the exit and appeal site. There are also central refuges on each roundabout arm that have a dropped kerb, which are used by pedestrians to cross the road.

The advertisement would show static images with instantaneous changes between them and be clearly visible on the offside when exiting onto [name], where it would be viewed within the immediate surround of the pedestrian crossing signals. The advertisement would also be visible when approaching the roundabout from [address] and [site address] .

When taken collectively with the above physical context, I found the volume of traffic and pedestrian movements present at my site visit resulted in a busy and complicated road environment, requiring a high level of concentration from road users. This is reinforced by the PPG which states that advertisements located where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety, such as at junctions, roundabouts and pedestrian crossings.

In light of the above, and despite the appellant stating that it would meet a range of industry standards, I find that the advertisement would, by reason of its changing images and close proximity to a pedestrian crossing and roundabout within a busy and complicated road environment, increase the level of distractions to drivers/ other road users to the detriment of highway safety. In reaching this conclusion, I have also had regard to the conclusions of the Inspector for the appeal at the nearby [name] building, namely that ‘the volume of traffic, plus the need for drivers to have regard to the roundabout and pedestrian crossing mean that the risk of such distraction would be unacceptably hazardous’3.

The appellant states that previous accidents in the vicinity of the site, as referred to by the local highway authority, are not relevant in the context of the proposal. However, they nonetheless demonstrate the traffic hazards and dangers present to users of this junction and the need for drivers to be able to concentrate on the highway without undue distractions.

I recognise that the scheme would consolidate the number of advertisements at the site and that the PPG states that public safety on roads is less likely to be affected where advertisements are sited within a commercial locality. However, the existing advertisements to be removed are not of an equivalent scale to that proposed and the images do not change (unlike the appeal scheme). Furthermore, I do not consider any planning conditions, including those proposed by the appellant, would mitigate the harm identified.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would be harmful to public safety. Although not determinative, I also find that the scheme conflicts with Policy HS2 of the Borough Plan, which seeks, amongst other things, proposals to have an acceptable level of impact on highway networks. It would also be contrary to Paragraph 141 the Framework, which seeks, amongst other things, to control advertisements in the interests of public safety.

The appellant has raised a series of environmental benefits derived from replacing poster and paste advertisement boards with digital advertising, including a reduction in vehicle movements associated with changing the advertisements each time. There is however no poster and paste advertisement currently to be replaced, so there would be no benefit to this effect from the appeal.

I recognise that there would be economic and social benefits from the display being used to show public services information. I am however required to consider advertisements only in the interests of amenity and public safety as defined in the Regulations. These potential benefits do not therefore provide justification for allowing a proposal which would be harmful to amenity and public safety for the reasons set out above.

In support of the appeal my attention has been drawn by the appellant to a number of advertisements at other [site address] ’s. However, I found none to be directly comparable in context to the scheme before me and have, as a consequence, determined the appeal on its own merits.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would be harmful to amenity and public safety, and that the appeal should accordingly be dismissed.