Appeal 6005900

The appeal is dismissed.

The Regulations 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. I have had regard to development plan policies, including those of the emerging Leicester Local Plan which the council resolved to adopt on 26 March 2026 and therefore carries significant weight. The parties were invited to comment on the relevance of emerging policies, and I have taken account of the response received. Whilst development plan policies are material factors, they have not been determinative in my decision. Accordingly, the main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity and public safety.

The appeal site is an area of public realm on the south-east side of [address] adjacent to its junction with [address]. [address] is a busy, heavily trafficked road in a vibrant and lively commercial area leading to the City Centre. The site is flanked by a substantial [name] brick-built building, a former electricity substation designated as a locally listed building, which contains a colourful mural across the majority of its side elevation. A 48-sheet advertisement hoarding has been sited in the south-west corner of the site for over 40 years and has become an established feature of the street scene as a result. The area includes a plethora of existing advertising, although most signage is displayed on the frontage of the commercial premises they serve, primarily as fascia signs, and in this respect the large hoarding on the site is unique in its size and form.

The proposal is to replace the existing hoarding with a digital advertisement display of the same size, supported on a free-standing frame further inside the area of public realm and closer to the flank wall of the former substation. Its display would face north-east on the same alignment as the existing sign. The submissions indicate that the LED display would be limited to 300 cd/m2 during the hours of darkness. The advertisement display would be operational between 6am and 23:59pm daily.

The proposed digital display would be a significant and dominant feature in views along [address] from the north-east. [name] display would appear brighter and more prominent than the existing trough-lit hoarding and it would be significantly larger and a more prominent feature than the surrounding advertisements on commercial premises. Daytime illuminance levels are not provided, but it is likely that during poor weather, the hours of dusk and into the hours of darkness, the illuminance and sharpness of display would render the advertisement a dominant feature in the street scene. As the only large LED display in the vicinity, it would appear at odds with the established character of the street scene and the prevalent character of existing signage.

Regulation 3(2) and the PPG confirm that factors relevant to amenity include the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest. In 2022, the council included the adjacent former substation on its list of local heritage assets. The proposed digital display would be viewed in the context of, and in close proximity to, this heritage asset. It would be closer to the building than the existing hoarding which it would replace, and contain brighter, sharper images with a regularly changing display, drawing attention to itself in a manner that the current hoarding does not. As such, the proposal would cause harm to the setting of the heritage asset.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the [address] street scene and the setting of the adjacent heritage asset. I have taken into account Policy C03 of the Leicester City Core Strategy (LCS) (2014) and Emerging Policy HE01 of the Leicester Local Plan (LLP) which seek to protect and enhance the historic environment and promote high design standards and good place making. [name] DQP09 and DQP10 of the LLP confirm advertisements generally, and media screens specifically, will not be considered acceptable if they cause an unacceptable impact on visual amenity. [name] have concluded that the proposal would harm amenity, the proposal conflicts with these policies.

The proposal would be clearly visible to drivers heading south-west on [address]. I observed that the road carries a significant volume of vehicular traffic and pedestrian movements along and across the road. The proposal would be visible in the approach to the nearby busy signal-controlled junction where [address], [address], [address] and [address] converge and which also incorporates a pedestrian crossing.

In advance of the proposed advertisement display, as traffic approaches the signal-controlled junction, [address] is joined by vehicles exiting [address], pedestrians cross the road via a central refuge, and the city-bound carriageway divides into two lanes alongside a bus layby/stop. During my weekday morning visit, the roads, junctions and pedestrian crossings were all busy. Evidence provided indicates a history of road accidents in the vicinity of the site over the last 5 years.

The PPG confirms that advertisements that, because of their size or siting, would confuse a road-user’s view, reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic signal, or be likely to distract road-users because of their unusual nature, may cause danger to road users. Given the circumstances of the highway conditions approaching the proposed advertisement display, its proximity to the signal-controlled road junction, pedestrian crossing and bus layby, I find that the proposal would distract drivers and harm public safety as a consequence.

The council references LCS Policy CS14 in its second reason for refusal. However, this policy seeks to promote sustainable transport, and I do not find it relevant in this case. Policy DQP10 of the emerging LLP states that media screens will not be allowed where they have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Given my findings above, the proposal conflicts with this policy.

The appellant’s submissions suggest that the provision of the proposed advertisement would provide funding for improvements to the area of public realm within which it would be located. Such matters are not material to the assessment of the appeal which is restricted to matters of amenity and public safety.

The council’s reasons for refusal include reference to inadequate and incomplete plans accompanying the application and states that the submissions did not provide adequate information for good decision making. The officer report specifies that plans of the existing advertisement hoarding were not provided and the position of the supporting leg of the display panel is unclear. Notwithstanding this, the council did not exercise its right under Regulation 12 to seek clarification of the particulars or information provided. The “[name]” plan indicates that the sign can be a left or right-sided arrangement and I note that the proposed block plan and photomontage clearly identify the position of the supporting leg on the left side of the display. The Regulations do not require an applicant to provide details of any existing signage adjacent to the proposal. Whilst these issues cannot be decisive, given that the determinative matters are restricted to amenity and public safety, I find that sufficient information was provided with the application to reach a decision on the application/appeal.

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