Appeal 6006348

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] for SME (Hammersmith) Ltd against North Northamptonshire Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The Council confirms that if the appeal had not been lodged, the application would have been refused due to effects on visual amenity and highway safety.

The main issues in this case are the effects of the proposed signage on: (i) the visual amenity of the local area; and (ii) the safety of public highway users.

The proposed site is at the corner of a commercial car park just off the junction of the A14 dual carriageway and the A509. The A14 runs through a cutting here, with heavily wooded embankments to either side. The car park formerly served a number of commercial units but only one fast food outlet now remains. The sign, to advertise that unit, would be internally illuminated, measure about 2m by 2m and sit on top of a pole with an overall height of about 15m.

The sign is designed to advertise the business to drivers and passengers on the A14, sitting well above the mature trees and an adjacent highways sign near the beginning of the A14 off-ramp to the A509. It would, so far as I could see, be the only commercial sign of such height and prominence along this stretch of the A14. There were, for example, no such signs for the other restaurants and shops located near to this junction. The appellant argues that the area is wholly commercial in nature, but the wooded embankments give this stretch of the road a more verdant, semi-rural character. Despite the relatively small size of the sign itself, its height, position and design would make it a prominent intrusion, detracting from the green character of the embankment. I conclude that the proposal would unduly harm visual amenity.

In its location next to the A14 the sign would be highly visible to drivers on the eastbound section of the A14. It would only be a small sign, however, sitting well above the adjacent highway signage. Although there are no other similar signs nearby, this would be a standard type of advertisement, well known to drivers and easily recognised. It would have only simple lettering, with no changing or moving images. It should not, therefore, significantly distract drivers. It would be visible from far enough away so that drivers on the A14 deciding to visit the advertised premises should have time to safely manoeuvre onto the off-ramp.

The Council is also concerned that the sign could confuse pedestrians and draw them onto the dual carriageway. This seems very unlikely given the difficulties of accessing the off-ramp by foot and the generally understood nature of such highway signs. The sign would furthermore be set well away from the A509 so should not have any effect on drivers on that road.

I note that the Council’s Highways consultee does not object to the proposal and that no consultation response has been provided by National Highways. I conclude that the proposed sign would not prejudice the safety of public highway users.

I also note that another proposal for a much larger illuminated pylon sign in a similar location was dismissed on appeal in 20061. My findings on the first main issue are similar to the conclusions in that decision, but not on the second issue. I have assessed this case on its own merits and in light of current circumstances.

The Council has referenced policy 8 of the [name] 2011-2031, which aims to ensure high quality development and to avoid prejudicing highway safety. I have had regard to that policy, but note that powers under the advertisement regulations may only be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of material factors such as adopted policies though these are not by themselves decisive factors.

[name] have found in favour of the appellant in relation to the second main issue, my findings in relation to the first main issue are sufficiently compelling for me to conclude that the appeal should not succeed.