Appeal 6006489

The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of a 1 x digital double-sided freestanding advertisement unit at [name] [site address] , City of [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01181/ADV. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulations and the following additional

The display shall be for static images only, and there shall be no moving or flashing images or visual effects displayed at any time;

Any changes between images on the display shall occur instantly with no sequencing, fading, swiping or merging of images;

The display shall not change more frequently than once every 10 seconds;

The intensity of the illumination of the advertisement permitted by this consent shall be no greater than 300 cd/sqm during hours of darkness; and

The digital screen shall be programmed to default to a blank black screen should any fault or malfunction occur.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the decision notice as it succinctly describes the advertisement proposed. Wording that is not an act of development has been removed.

The Regulations stipulate that control may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Therefore, whilst the development plan policy referred to on the decision notice is not determinative, I have taken it into account where relevant.

The main parties agree that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on public safety. From the evidence, together with my site visit observations, I have no clear reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity.

The area surrounding the appeal site is characterised by a mix of residential and commercial properties. There is an existing internally illuminated double-sided poster unit at the appeal site, which is adjacent to [address], a busy main thoroughfare. Advertisements of varying sizes and appearance are a feature of the area.

The proposal would be located at the edge of the pavement at the corner of [address] and [address], in the same location and of similar dimensions as the existing display unit. While the Council may consider the existing situation to be cluttered with advertisements, the proposal would not alter the number of advertisements because the existing unit would be replaced by the appeal scheme. There would not therefore be a numerical increase in advertisements and so the proposal could not reasonably be said to create advertisement clutter.

The display would be illuminated by way of a LED display and allow for static images to be displayed on rotation. Although this would have a different appearance to the existing poster at the site, the digital upgrade and associated increase in brightness would not be out of place given the digital advertisement on the gable end of [site address] and regular lighting columns along [address]. Several restrictions and controls are proposed that would further limit the display’s visual effects, secured through the imposition of conditions.

Consequently, even cumulatively with the gable end advertisement and if the consent for the digital advertisement on the other side of [address] is implemented, the proposal would not result in a harmful proliferation of illuminated advertisements. In coming to this conclusion, I have taken account of the spacings and sizes of the advertisements in the area and the broad vista on the westbound approach to the site arising from the generous width of [address].

When the relationship to other advertisements is considered, together with the proposed digital display, the appeal scheme would not result in an incongruous or uncharacteristic feature. It therefore follows that the proposal’s effect on the visual amenities of residents as they move between streets and users of the highway would not be unacceptable.

The proposal would therefore be in line with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Advertisement Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 8 (2019) in relation to the design of advertisements where care should be taken regarding siting, size and illumination.

To conclude, the proposed advertisement would not unacceptably affect amenity. Consequently, insofar as it is material, the proposal would accord with Policy 20 of the Hull Local Plan 2016 to 2032 (2017) which includes a requirement that advertisements have an acceptable impact on amenity with regard to the character of the area and advertisement clutter.

In addition to the five standard conditions, I have imposed conditions to secure operational controls and restrictions in relation to the images displayed, night time illumination levels and in the event of fault or malfunction which are necessary in the interests of amenity and public safety.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.