Appeal 6005641

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interest of accuracy, the description of development in the banner heading above is based on the Council’s decision notice.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 require that decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) confirm this approach. Therefore, while I have taken account of the policies that the Council considers to be relevant, these have not been decisive in my determination of this appeal.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity; and • the effect of the proposed advertisement on public safety.

The proposed advertisement would be attached to the gable end of an end-terrace property at the junction of [address] and [address]. Whilst it is an urban roadside location, the surrounding area remains overwhelmingly residential in character. The open green space opposite and the openness of the junction also mean that the flank wall is prominent in public views.

The existing side elevation is plain and visually simple. It forms part of a domestic terrace and does not read as a commercial frontage or advertising location. Although there are some non-residential uses nearby, including the leisure centre and public house, the streetscene is not characterised by large illuminated digital advertisements and retains a relatively open and uncluttered appearance. The proposal would therefore introduce a type, scale and intensity of advertising which would be noticeably at odds with the prevailing character of the area.

The advertisement would be substantial, measuring around 6.4m wide by 3.4m high overall. Its size, elevated position, projection from the wall and internal illumination would make it a highly conspicuous feature. The changing digital display would further increase its visual prominence, even though the images would be static and non-animated. The proposal would dominate the otherwise simple gable wall and would appear as an overtly commercial and visually intrusive addition to the street scene.

I acknowledge that the proposal would not be within a conservation area or an area of special advertisement control, and that no nearby heritage asset would be affected. However, the absence of such designations does not mean that the locality has no visual sensitivity. The advertisement would be experienced in a residential setting where the appeal wall is prominent and where there is little comparable signage.

The proposed controls over luminance, image duration and transitions would moderate the operation of the display, but they would not alter its fundamental scale, siting or commercial character. Even with such controls, the advertisement would remain a large illuminated digital feature on a domestic flank wall in a predominantly residential area.

Digital advertisements may be common in some town-centre or arterial-road contexts, but that general point does not demonstrate that this particular site can accommodate one without harm. I find that the advertisement would fail to appear sympathetic to the host building or the prevailing visual character of the area.

Accordingly, the proposed advertisement would have a harmful effect on the amenity of the area, contrary to the provisions of the Framework and guidance within the PPG. I have also had regard to Policies M1 and M2 of the Dartford Local Plan to 2037 (the DLP) insofar as they seek to ensure that development is well-designed and advertisements are of a scale and design that is sympathetic to the building and locality, and do not have a negative impact on visual amenity. [name] have concluded that the proposal would harm amenity, the proposal would conflict with these policies.

The display would be positioned adjacent to the junctions with [address] and [address], close to bus stops and an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing. The nearby leisure centre, Borough Open Space and surrounding residential area are also likely to generate regular pedestrian activity in the vicinity of the site. Consequently, this is a location where drivers are likely to be undertaking turning, slowing, overtaking and gap-selection manoeuvres whilst also responding to pedestrians and changing traffic conditions.

The PPG states that all advertisements are intended to attract attention, with those proposed at points where drivers need to take more care being more likely to affect public safety. Furthermore, it advises that the main types of advertisement which may cause danger to road users are those that obstruct or impair sightlines at a junction, or at any point of access to a highway, and those which, because their size or siting, would obstruct or confuse a road-user’s view. The PPG also states that externally or internally illuminated advertisements which are subject to frequent changes of the display and which, because of their brightness, could result in glare and dazzle, are likely to distract road users.

Kent County Council (KCC) Highways objects to the proposal on highway safety grounds. I attach significant weight to its detailed technical advice. Its concerns relate to the cumulative effect of the scale of the display, its illumination, changing imagery and siting within what it identifies as a complex highway environment.

The proposed advertisement would be substantial in scale and highly prominent within drivers’ field of view. It would be clearly visible to southbound motorists travelling along [address], including on the approach to the uncontrolled crossing, as well as to drivers emerging from [address] and [address]. Due to its size, illumination and changing digital imagery, it would inevitably attract visual attention.

I acknowledge that the proposal would display static images only, with no animation or video content, and with transitions every 10 seconds. I also acknowledge that the proposal would not physically obstruct visibility splays, highway signage or traffic signals. However, the principal concern is distraction rather than obstruction. Even brief diversions of driver attention can be critical in a busy urban highway environment involving junction manoeuvres and pedestrian activity.

I have considered the appellant’s submissions regarding driver behaviour research and the absence of definitive evidence directly linking roadside advertising to collisions. However, advertisement control is concerned with preventing unacceptable risks to public safety, and it is neither necessary nor realistic to wait for harm to materialise before concluding that a proposal is inappropriate. In this case, the combination of the display’s scale, illumination, changing imagery and prominent siting would create an unacceptable risk to highway safety within a highway environment where drivers are required to process multiple sources of information simultaneously. The evidence before me also indicates that collisions, including serious incidents, have occurred in the vicinity in recent years, reinforcing that this is a location where careful driver attention is important.

The appellant also states that drivers use “glance strategy” behaviour and instinctively prioritise the driving task. That does not mean that attention cannot nevertheless be drawn towards visually prominent roadside features. The evidence before me includes separate research provided by KCC which raises concerns regarding driver distraction associated with digital advertising displays, particularly within more demanding highway environments and during image transitions.

In this case, the proposed display would be encountered at a location where vigilance and concentration are required due to nearby junction manoeuvres, pedestrian activity, bus movements and the uncontrolled crossing. Even brief diversions of driver attention in such circumstances may have safety implications. I am therefore not persuaded that the proposal would operate as a benign or incidental part of the streetscene. Rather, I find that it would introduce a distracting feature into a sensitive highway environment.

Although digital advertising is commonly encountered within urban environments and arterial roads, the appeal site is not located within a commercial town-centre environment characterised by extensive digital advertising. Furthermore, the Advertisement Regulations require assessment on a site-specific basis. The fact that similar displays exist elsewhere does not establish that this location is suitable. What may be acceptable in other settings cannot override the particular public safety risks that arise here.

The suggested controls relating to luminance, image duration, transitions and malfunction safeguards would reduce some operational impacts, but they would not overcome the inherent harm arising from the siting and prominence of a large illuminated digital advertisement in this location.

Consequently, it would have a harmful effect on public safety, contrary to the provisions of the Framework and guidance within the PPG, which seek to control advertisements in the interests of public safety.

I have taken into account Policies M1 and M16 of the DLP which seek to ensure that the siting of development and advertisements must not have a negative impact on public safety including highway safety and the free flow of traffic, cycles and pedestrians. [name] have concluded that the proposal would harm public safety, the proposal would conflict with these policies.

I have considered the claimed operational and sustainability benefits associated with digital advertising displays, including reduced printing and servicing requirements compared with traditional paper advertisements. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm I have identified in relation to amenity and public safety. Nor can the capability to feature public service or emergency information on the display screen weigh in favour of the proposal, as these matters fall outside the scope of the Advertisement Regulations.

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