Appeal 6006873

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

An application for an award of costs has been made by Elonex Dooh Limited against Leeds City Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The Regulations set out that powers under those Regulations shall be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors. Therefore, while the development plan policies referred to in the Council’s decision cannot by themselves be decisive, where relevant I have taken them into account as a material consideration.

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

The appeal site lies within a landscaped area at the entrance to [site address] , containing grass, shrubs and trees. It therefore provides an important area of green space, softening the appearance of the entrance to the retail park at a busy road junction. Existing advertisements in the vicinity of the appeal site are limited to fascia signage associated with businesses in the retail park, a paper and paste advertising column, construction hoardings, as well as some limited small-scale signage. Despite the commercial context, large-scale, illuminated digital advertisements are not characteristic of the area. As a result, the street scene has a muted and uncluttered appearance which positively contributes to the visual amenity of the area.

Due to its size and elevated position, the proposed advertisement would be highly conspicuous to those travelling along [address] and [address], and to those entering the retail park by car and on foot/by bicycle. The proposed advertisement would replace an existing totem and would be broadly similar in scale, with a comparable footprint. However, it would appear more bulky, comprising a rectangular screen of 5000mm wide from base to its top, whereas the existing totem has a more transparent design allowing views through to the trees behind. Also, in the absence of any similar digital advertisements in the vicinity, the prominent siting of the proposal, combined with its digital illumination and sequential changing images, would result in an incongruous feature that would be visually intrusive at this prominent location.

Consequently, the proposed advertisement would cause harm to visual amenity. In this regard, and although they have not been decisive in my assessment of the appeal, the proposal would not accord with the aims of Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) ([name]), Policies GP5 and BD8 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review

(UDP), the [name] Planning Document (2006) (SPD) or the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These, amongst other things, require proposals to provide good design that is appropriate to its location, scale and function, resolve considerations including loss of amenity and for signs to be well designed and sensitively located within the street scene.

The Planning Practise Guidance (PPG) establishes that advertisements in locations where drivers need to take more care, including junctions and pedestrian crossings, are more likely to affect public safety. The PPG also lists the main types of advertisements which may cause danger to road users as including internally illuminated signs which could distract road users.

The appellant does not dispute that the appeal site is situated adjacent to a major highway junction. The prominent siting of the proposed advertisement means it would appear within the line of sight for drivers travelling eastward along [address] and those turning into the retail park on [site address] . It would also be visible to drivers travelling westward along [address], using the left hand lane at the retail park turnoff. The scale of the advertisement combined with its digital screen and the vibrancy of advertisements displayed on it would, in contrast to the existing totem, draw the eye of drivers away from the road. Such distraction would have the potential to increase the risk of collisions between vehicles manoeuvring between the multiple lanes or braking in response to slowing vehicles, traffic signals and the pedestrian/cycle crossings. No substantive evidence indicates otherwise.

Accordingly, the proposals would have a harmful effect on public safety. While not determinative in this case, this would be contrary to the aims of Policy T2 of the [name], Policy GP5 of the UDP, the SPD and the Framework. These require, amongst other things, that there should be safe and secure access, and that proposals resolve detailed considerations including danger to health or life and maximise highway safety.

I accept that the proposal would replace the existing totem with a modern display using high-quality materials and updated technology. Conditions could be imposed to control factors such as limiting luminance, the frequency of image changes and preventing animation. Provision could also be made for maintenance and for the display to revert to a blank screen if required. Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of this case, such measures would not sufficiently mitigate the incongruous appearance of the display or the inherent distraction risk associated with a large-scale digital display in this prominent location.

The appellant has referred to other digital advertisements that have been granted consent across Leeds. I am unaware of the precise circumstances in each of the cited cases. In any event, each scheme must be considered in light of its site-specific circumstances. Therefore, the presence of other digital advertisements that the have been found to be acceptable elsewhere does not justify the harm I have identified in this case, which I have considered on its own merits.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.