Appeal 6006786

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are (i) the effect of the display on the amenity of the surroundings, and (ii) the effect on highway safety.

On the first issue, the proposed display would be attached to the brick-built eastern elevation of [site address] , a four-storey building on the edge of Waterlooville town centre. This is the narrowest of the elevations of the L-shaped building and has a frontage to [address] at its junction with the dual carriageway [site address] .

The edge of town centre position is significant because the proposed advertisement would relate mainly to a residential as opposed to commercial context. For the appellant, it is argued that this area is more mixed in character, but the appeal file illustrations of commercial premises in a more urban environment, although close, are not part of the residential area from which the display would be seen. Furthermore, the [name] correctly refers to the fact that in views in the approach up [site address] from the east there are at present no advertisements in sight. The appeal proposal would therefore draw the eye and adversely affect visual amenity because of the change to the character and appearance of the area.

In more detail, [address], a block of flats, is at close quarters with the proposed site - on the opposite side of [address], whilst to the north on the other side of [site address] is [address], a sheltered living complex that in part rises to four storeys. There are also detached houses nearby both to the north and south of [site address] . Therefore, although close to the commercial premises in the shopping centre, the proposed display is in a primarily residential area. Its siting, size and illumination would be out of keeping and harmful to the visual Appeal Decision Ref. 6006786 amenity of the locality, including in terms of the outlook from the dwellings and gardens of nearby occupiers.

Because of its proximity the residents of [address] would be particularly affected. [name] note the grounds of appeal argue that a direct outlook from habitable rooms would be limited, I consider that with the sign only 12m away, the outlook from all internal rooms including the communal staircase and from the front entrance and garden would have a significant effect on the amenity of residents. The immediate setting and ambience of the flats would be materially altered and to their detriment. In this context I have noted the concerns of occupiers of this building who have objected to the proposal.

On this issue, I therefore find that the appeal scheme would have an unacceptable effect on the amenity of the area. This would conflict with Policies CS6 & DM10 of the Havant Borough Local Plan ([name]) 2011; Policy DM21 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) 2014 and paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2024.

Turning to the second issue, the effect on highway safety, the sign would be adjacent to traffic lights that also serve as a pedestrian crossing over [site address] . For the appellant it is argued that the brightness of the display can be controlled; that there have been no recent accidents to the east of the site; that drivers would have sufficient time to assimilate both the display and the driving conditions at the junction, and that analysis of other similar sites does not suggest an adverse impact on safety.

I have considered these points carefully; however, context is all important. The sign would be seen from some distance in the approach along the dual carriageway with at present no other advertisements or distractions for drivers. And with its illuminated and rotating display I am wholly with the Highways Authority appraisal that the illuminated advertisements would have the potential to distract drivers at the exact time of a need for increased concentration on the approach to the junction.

With a likely 40mph speed of traffic and an imperative for drivers not to delay in reacting to changes in the traffic lights, queues of waiting vehicles, or pedestrians using the crossing, I consider that the proposal would have an adverse effect on traffic safety. This would be contrary to the above-mentioned Policy DM21 in paragraph 8 and Framework Policy 141.

For the reasons explained above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal fails.