Appeal 6005829

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Notwithstanding the description of development above, the recommendation below will only relate to the advert proposed.

Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) state that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. With respect to the appeal, the development plan policies referred to by the Council are not determinative, but I have taken these into account as a material consideration.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on public safety.

The appeal site is a section of pavement adjacent to ‘Sainsbury’s Local’ on [name] which has a busy urban character due to its variety of commercial units. The highway adjacent to the appeal site is a dual carriageway containing various junctions. Notably, adjacent to the appeal site are the junctions for [address] and [address] as well as a bus stop. The proposed communication hub with integrated advertisement would primarily be seen by traffic approaching the site from the west on [name].

Planning Practice Guidance notes that all advertisements are intended to attract attention, but those located at points where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety. The section of highway that the appeal site is located on is straight, allowing intermediate as well as long range views of the appeal advert.

Whilst the installation would be unlikely to distract drivers on the opposite carriageway, drivers on the eastbound side of [name] are likely to have their attention drawn to the advert. It would be an intervening distraction due to its visibility, illumination levels and changing images which would be inappropriate particularly when considering that drivers are likely to be merging or changing lanes, including drivers wanting to turn left on to [address] or right on to [address].

In addition, two further factors associated with the road layout in this location requiring drivers to pay particular attention, are the presence of the adjacent bus stop and dedicated cycle lane. As a result, traffic may be slowing down on the approach to the bus stop in order to allow buses to exit and join the highway. This is in addition to the requirement to have regard to the traffic light junction further ahead. Whilst drivers may glance towards the sign very briefly, their attention would be diverted away from the road ahead and the road users around them and instead to the left side of the road. There might be limited evidence to suggest a link between digital adverts and increased road accidents. I also have no reason to doubt that the advert would comply with industry best practice, with limitations on brightness and controls over changing images. Regardless, the purpose of the proposed advert would be to attract attention. The advert could result in additional distraction along a section of road which requires heightened concentration. Even with the suggested controls in place, the scheme could result in additional driver distraction with an associated risk to public safety.

The proposed advertisement would therefore pose an unacceptable risk to public safety. In accordance with the Regulations, I have considered the development plan so far as it is material. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to the aims of Policy DH(f) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) (the LP) which seeks for advertisements to not adversely affect public safety including drivers.

The Council also refer to [name] DH1 and IM(b) on the decision notice. However, these policies relate to design and pedestrian safety respectively which the Council has acknowledged that the proposal is acceptable in these regards. Therefore, they have not been determinative.

[name] note the merits of the scheme outlined by the appellant including but not limited to providing free phone calls, access to local information and navigation, free USB charging, Wi-Fi provision, the ability to contact emergency services, public messaging capabilities, the ability to count pedestrian and cycle movements, monitor air, sound and light levels, provide 5G provision and remove existing outdated payphones. However, matters not relating to amenity and public safety fall outside the scope of the appeal, as defined in the Regulations.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.