Appeal 6006671

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the proposal above from the appeal form rather than the application form as it more clearly describes the proposed advertisement.

The Advertisement Regulations and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) both make it clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. I have had regard to the policies of the development plan only in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to the matters before me.

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

The appeal site comprises [site address] , a two storey end of terrace building with a retail unit at the ground floor level and a flat above. [address], a fairly busy road, with traffic islands, traffic lights and pedestrian crossing nearby. The side elevation of the appeal property faces [address], a much quieter no-through residential road with the park located directly opposite to the north. A bus stop with mature trees located in the adjacent green verge are also located directly opposite the [address] junction, further up [address].

The area surrounding the appeal site is mixed in character, being largely made up of retail units, offices, cafes and restaurants at ground floor level with residential units above. There is also a block of flats opposite the site at the junction with [address].

The proposal seeks consent to display an [name] which would be 2 metres in height and 4 metres in width, attached to the side elevation of the appeal property at first floor level. It would be located to the side of the existing external chimney projection and would face [address].

Despite the set back position from [address], the proposed location at first floor level in combination with the size, means that the advertisement would cover a significant proportion of the side elevation of the appeal property which would result in an overly dominant feature. The impact would be compounded by the intermittent changing of the very bright illuminated display that would significantly draw the eye, further accentuating its visual prominence.

Whilst signage and advertisements are a common feature in the surrounding area, those present are mainly located above shop fronts and do not take up such a significant proportion of the elevation on which they are located. I also did not witness any similar advertisements to that proposed in the surrounding area in terms of the size, positioning and intermittent nature and level of illumination.

Therefore, owing to the size, position at first floor level and the intermittent illumination proposed, and in the absence of comparable large-scale LED illuminated advertising in the vicinity, the proposed advertisement would introduce a dominant and incongruous feature that would be harmful to the amenity of the area.

[name] note that the trees located on the opposite side of [address] would screen the proposed advertisement in longer views, the proposal would still be seen by drivers when approaching the traffic lights, or when entering or exiting [address]. Pedestrians would also note its presence from similar viewpoints. I therefore find that there would be a harmful impact on amenity for those passing by or visiting the area around the appeal site.

For the reasons given above, the proposed advertisement would have a detrimental effect on amenity. Accordingly, so far as relevant to amenity, it would conflict with Policies DSC1 and DSC9 of The Broxbourne Local Plan June 2020 (LP) which seek, amongst other things, that proposals enhance local character and that advertisements respect the character and appearance of the immediate environment.

The Planning Practice Guidance states that all advertisements are intended to attract attention but proposed advertisements at points where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety.

Despite the set back position of the proposal and the positioning of vehicles heading towards it being on the opposite side of the road, it would be clearly seen on approach to the traffic lights which control the vehicular movement at the junction in front of the appeal site and the pedestrian crossing. Views of the proposal would also be clear when turning right from [address] onto [address].

Whilst the proposal might not obstruct traffic signals, sightlines and pedestrian crossings, the overall size and positioning of the proposal along with the level of illumination and intermittent changing of the digital display, would have the potential to distract motorists. This would increase the risk of conflict to drivers and pedestrians, as they navigate the junction and crossing located in front of the appeal site.

The Highway Authority has not raised objection, nevertheless, this was on the basis that a condition is attached restricting the illuminance level to 800 candela/m2 and subject to the source of illumination not being directly visible to the users of the adjacent public highway. [name] note the follow up response from the Highway Authority suggesting that the second part of this condition would not be relevant given internal illumination is proposed, the scheme includes illuminance levels of 5500 cd/m2 which would go significantly beyond the levels suggested by the Highway Authority.

[name] note the appellant’s comments in their written statement in relation to being able to source an [name] which would meet the lower illuminance level stated by the Highway Authority, this was not before the Council when it made its decision and the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. I have therefore taken into account the proposal as assessed by the Council at the point it made its decision.

For the reasons given above, the proposed advertisement would be likely to have a detrimental effect on public safety. Accordingly, so far as relevant to public safety, it would conflict with Policies DSC9 and TM2 of LP which seek, amongst other things, that advertisements do not result in harm to public safety, having particular regard to the potential to distract motorists and that proposals must ensure that safety is not compromised.

I note that the proposal before me now is an altered scheme following a previous refusal at the site and that the appellant has sought to resolve the previous concerns raised by the Council. Nevertheless, I must consider the appeal scheme before me on its individual merits.

The proposal would be harmful to amenity and public safety for the reasons I have set out above and thus would be unacceptable under the aforementioned regulations. The appeal is therefore dismissed.