Appeal 6007026

The appeal is dismissed.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) sets out that powers under those Regulations shall be exercised only 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.

From the material submitted for the purposes of this appeal the main issues are the effect on: • Public safety as it relates to road users; and • The character and appearance of the local area.

The appeal site is located close to the boundary of a car wash facility with the A12 [address] West, directly adjacent to a vehicle entry to the facility from this road. The car wash is located at the corner of the junction of the A12 (50 mph speed limit) with [address] (30 mph speed limit), with vehicle entries from both roads. The A12 forms part of the Transport for [address] Network and is a strategic road within that network. Its junction with [address] is a major junction, with complex movements of both vehicles and pedestrians, regulated through light controls at the junction. There are also a number of vehicle entries directly adjacent on the junction, including to the car wash.

The proposal is for a free standing double sided D48 digital advertisement measuring 6 metres wide by 3 metres high and positioned approximately 2.5 metres above ground level. The proposed digital display would show static advertisements, with individual advertisements displayed for 10 seconds with an almost instant transition between. The proposal is that levels of illumination would accord with the recommendations of the Institute of [name] (ILP). Both the transition between advertisements and illumination as proposed could be controlled through the application of a suitable condition.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that all advertisements are intended to attract attention, however, those proposed at points where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety. It advises further that the main types of advertisement which may cause danger to road users are those that are illuminated and those subject to frequent changes of the display.

The proposal would be visible widely throughout the junction and approaches to it, especially those road users approaching the junction along the A12 or those turning through the junction from [address] onto the A12 heading north-east. Given the proximity of the proposal to the south easterly bound lanes of the A12 at the junction, it would be particularly visible to those approaching along the A12 in this direction.

As the A12 heading south-east approaches the junction, it diverges from two lanes to four, one dedicated to right turning traffic going into [address], two middle lanes dedicated to going straight through the junction and the far left lane allowing vehicles to proceed straight through the junction or to turn left into [address]. The proposal would be adjacent to the point where these lanes diverge and it would appear prominently in the forward view of drivers approaching the junction, where it would be seen in conjunction with the light controls for both vehicles and pedestrians.

The appellant's [name] (HSR)[address] traffic collisions (RTC) in the area over five years up to the end of September 2025. This shows 34 RTCs within sight of the proposed sign location, including 5 serious cases. I consider that this does not represent a limited incidence of RTC’s in and around the junction with the A12 and [address]. These include vehicle only incidents as well as those with pedestrian involvement, and I note that these occurred for a wide variety of reasons.

The proposal features internally lit static advertising that changes every 10 seconds, attracting drivers' attention in an area where careful observation of light controls and manoeuvring of other road users, is essential. The proposal would be particularly apparent to those approaching the junction on the A12 in a south-easterly direction, where it would be visible in close conjunction with the light controls at the point where the road diverges from 2 to 4 lanes, directly after a bus layby on a [address].

This visual prominence would be heightened during the longer winter nights, due to increased visibility of the proposed internally illuminated changing displays. As such, the proposal, with its rapid transition between internally illuminated 1 Ref: HSR (A25028) by Astute (March 2026) advertisements presents a significant risk of distraction for drivers approaching the light controlled junction of the A12 with [address], particularly those approaching in a south-easterly direction along the A12. This distraction would pose a significant increase in risk for pedestrians, cyclists, and other motorists in an area with an already significant number of RTC’s in the 5 years to the end of [name] 2025. Consequently, I find that the transition between illuminated advertisements could distract drivers when they need to focus on the road, posing a risk to highway safety and conflicting with Sections 8 and 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and the PPG.

The local area of the appeal site is fundamentally provided by the junction of the A12 with [address] and buildings that directly face on to it, the majority of which are in predominantly retail and commercial uses. These uses have a variety of advertisements associated with them, including internally and externally illuminated building mounted and free standing signs. There are also a variety of non-illuminated signs and banners associated with these uses and that are widely spread throughout the area, either freestanding or on buildings, fences and other structures. There are also larger externally and internally free standing advertising hoarding’s that display general rather than use specific advertisements.

The character and appearance of the local area is that of a busy strategic road junction surrounded by commercial and retail focused buildings in a wide variety of size, age and design, with a relatively intensive presence of a variety of types of advertising. The road junction and its immediate commercial and retail focused area is surrounded by housing but, given distances involved, this plays a minimal role in the character and appearance of the local area of the appeal site.

The height and scale of the proposal would reflect the height and scale of buildings and advertising to be found in the immediate local area. The illuminated nature of the proposed digital displays would not be a feature that would be out of keeping with the retail and commercial units, advertising or the character local area, which would be busy into the night.

Consequently, the proposal would appear to reflect and accord with the character and appearance of the local area as a busy road junction on a strategic road at the centre of commercial and retail focused immediate area. Therefore, I find that the proposal would not appear as an incongruous and visually intrusive feature in terms of the amenity the local area and would not result in any significant harm to its character and appearance. Lack of harm in this instance is a neutral factor in my considerations.

The appellant has provided me with examples of digital advertising screens that have been approved in a wide variety of other locations associated with other car wash facilities in other parts of the country. These would have been considered in their own individual merits at the time of their approval. I have done likewise in my consideration of the appeal proposal, which is a main tenet of the planning system.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would result in substantial harm to public safety as it relates to the use of the highway. This would conflict with Policies T1, T2 and D8 of the London Plan (2021). Collectively these seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that advertisements allow for highway safety.

The appeal is dismissed