Appeal 6005562

The appeal is dismissed.

As the description of the advertisement varies between submitted documents, I have use that from the Council’s decision, as this has also been used by the appellant for their statement.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) sets out that powers under those Regulations shall be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors.

From the material submitted for the purposes of this appeal the main issues are the effect on: • The character and appearance of the appeal site and that of local area; and • Public safety as it relates to road users.

The appeal site comprises the gable wall of the end of a two storey terraced house at [site address] , located at the junction with [address] within a predominantly residential area. The terrace of which the appeal property forms part faces onto [address], whilst its gable end faces towards Stoneydown Park, a relatively small open space that also fronts onto [address].

Along this part of [address] there are limited advertisements in evidence and on the day of my site visit no advertisement was being displayed at the appeal site. The only illuminated advertisements evident in the area are the shop signs for a small local convenience store located at [address], located on the other side of the street to the appeal suite. Other advertisements in the immediate vicinity are non-illuminated banners associated with the park and local school. All these advertisements are at street level and of small scale and the overall local level of advertising is visually restrained and unobtrusive.

The gable of the appeal property has been used for some time to display non-illuminated poster installations at first and part ground floor level. The proposal would involve the replacement of paper poster displays on the gable with a relatively flat internally illuminated digital advertisement display, measuring 6 metres wide by 3 metres high and positioned 2.85 metres above ground level.

The proposed digital display would show static advertisements, with individual advertisements displayed for 10 seconds with an almost instant transition between. The proposal is that levels of illumination would accord with the recommendations of the Institute of [name] (ILP). Both of these aspects of the proposal could be appropriately controlled through the application of a suitable condition on an approval.

In street views, from along [address] and [address], and from views from within the park, the prominent position, scale and illumination of the proposal would contrast with the existing restrained and unobtrusive level of advertising in this predominantly residential area. The non-illuminated poster displays on the appeal site would not have exhibited the illuminated nature of the proposal or its transition between 6 advertisements every minute. As such, the proposed internally illuminated digital display would appear as significantly more conspicuous in these views. At night [address] is well-lit, and during the night would, due to its size, illumination and and type of display, appear as overly assertive within the streetscene and incongruous within its context. As such it would appear as a dominating feature that would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the appeal site and that of the local area.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that all advertisements are intended to attract attention, however, those proposed at points where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety. It advises further that the main types of advertisement which may cause danger to road users are those that are illuminated and those subject to frequent changes of the display.

[address] has a limit of 30 mph and during my mid-morning weekday site visit, appeared to have a steady but not continuous flow of traffic, with limited numbers of pedestrians traveling along the street. During my site visit the use of the light controlled pedestrian crossing located at the other end of the street frontage of the park was limited, although I note that this aligns with a main access point to the school located at the other side of the park.

The proposal would face towards road users travelling North along [address] towards the appeal site. The internally illuminated digital display screen with its transitioning display of advertisements, would appear directly in the background of and in conjunction with the light controlled pedestrian crossing and its users In the view of road users travelling towards the appeal site.

The appellant's [name] (HSR) reviews road traffic collisions (RTC) in the area over five years before August 2025. This shows ten RTCs within sight of the proposed sign, including two serious cases. In my view this does not represent a limited incidence of RTC’s, but I note that these occurred for a wide variety of reasons. The HSR also concludes that, based on case studies of similar advertising displays approved without safety concerns elsewhere, have not led to increased RTCs from driver distraction. However, there are other locations where advertisement displays of the type proposed have been refused on the basis of their likely harmful effect on the safety of road users.

The proposal features internally lit static advertising that changes every 10 seconds, attracting drivers' attention in an area where careful observation of a pedestrian crossing and other road users is essential. This effect would be heightened during longer winter nights due to increased visibility of the changing displays. As such, the proposal, with its rapid transition between internally illuminated advertisements presents a significant risk of distraction for drivers approaching the light controlled pedestrian crossing. This distraction would pose a significant increase in risk for pedestrians, cyclists, and other motorists in an area with an already significant number of RTC’s in the 5 years prior to August 2025. Consequently, I find that the transition between illuminated advertisements could distract drivers when they need to focus on the road, posing a risk to highway safety and conflicting with Sections 8 and 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and the PPG.

The appellant highlights other places with approved internally illuminated digital advertising displays that the appellant believes are similar to the current proposal and its surroundings. While these screens share some features, such as being positioned on gable ends, they are not exact matches for the appeal site and would have been evaluated based on their individual merits, just as I have assessed this proposal. This is a key principle of the planning system. Therefore, I have given only moderate weight to the case studies, examples, and conclusions presented in the HSR in my considerations.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and that of the local area, as well as substantial harm to public safety as it relates to the use of the highway. This would conflict with Policies 53 and 59 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan - LP1 (2024). These seek to ensure that advertisements reinforce local character and distinctiveness, avoid negatively impacting any host building, complement the character, context and visual amenity of the surrounding area and allow for highway safety.

The Council’s decision finds that the proposal would conflict with Policy 57 of the Local Plan, I have not done so as this policy relates to amenity defined by given examples that do not relate directly to the effect of the proposal.

The appellant has drawn to my attention the potential benefits of the proposal, including the environmental benefits of limiting poster changing vehicle trips, with no waste that would otherwise result from a from paper poster display, although no paper poster display currently exists. The social benefits indicated for public, charitable or emergency messages are indicated as possible but not definite. The economic benefits of an increase in rent for the location and concomitant increase in business rates are also only potential rather than definite benefits of the proposal. As these benefits are potential, marginal or limited, I have only afforded them limited weight in my considerations.

I find that the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm that I have identified. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.