Appeal 6007114

The appeal is dismissed.

I am advised by the appellant that the appeal only relates to the advertisement on the road-facing front side of the archway, shown as elevation A on the submitted site and elevations drawing.

The advertisement was installed prior to the application to the Council. A separate planning application has been submitted to the Council regarding the storage container archway on which it is displayed. An application for consent has also been submitted for the advertisement on the rear of the archway.

The Council has referred to policy ST1 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review. The Regulations require that decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Consequently, although I have taken this development plan policy into account as a material consideration, it has not been a decisive factor in my determination of this appeal.

The appellant has made an application for an award of costs against the Council. That is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are the effect of the advertisement on amenity having regard to the character and appearance of the area and effect on public safety.

The appeal site is located near the south-west corner of the [name]. To the west are houses along [address], part of [address], and [address]. Opposite the site to the south there are bungalows served by [address]. Although the appeal property is part of a larger industrial area the presence of trees and fencing provide a degree of screening for the industrial uses, and the approach to the site from the west is predominantly residential in character.

The advertisement consists of applied individual white lettering around 800 mm in height stretching across the upper section of the storage container archway indicating “[name]”. It has been designed and located to indicate the entrance to the site. The main visual impact is from the western approach along [address], where at a slight bend in the road, it appears prominent and out of character because of the height and scale of the lettering. It may be glimpsed from the housing area at [address], [address], and the gardens of bungalows at [address] which are next to [address].

The signage may be illuminated with internal static lighting at a maximum intensity of [address] metre. This could be controlled through the imposition of appropriate conditions but would increase the visual impact of the lettering when lit for residents walking past or outside the nearest houses and bungalows.

There are no other significant large advertisements near the appeal site. I find that the advertisement is harmful to the amenity of the area because of its size, height, and visual impact. It would conflict with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework which advises that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed.

[address] is a single carriageway road with a 30 mph speed restriction. The appeal site is at a slight bend in the road and relatively close to the junction of [address] and [address]. The sign would catch the eye of approaching drivers along [address], particularly when illuminated. The Council considered that the advertisement would be significantly distracting to motorists when driving along [address], to the detriment of public safety. Although the Highway Authority was consulted no response was referred to by the Council or submitted with the appeal documentation. No technical evidence was provided by the main parties such as accident statistics around the nearby road junction.

The appellant has submitted copies of appeal decisions for advertisement proposals where public safety was a consideration. Three of the cases were dismissed, including that at [address], Barnsley where the site was near traffic signal controls. [address], Barnsley the proposal was for an advertisement with static digital imagery, but near a busy roundabout. [address], Westminster the proposal was for a digital display with moving animation and imagery. The appeal allowed was at [address], Doncaster where the Inspector found that the digital display would be clearly visible to road users, but not an unusual feature. The road junctions had simple layouts with good visibility and attention to the display by drivers would only be momentarily.

From my site inspection there was good visibility towards the advertisement. [address] was busy, and traffic joining it at the [address] junction was having to wait, I find that although the advertisement is visually prominent there is no technical evidence to establish that it would have a significant harmful effect on public safety.

I conclude that, having regard to the circumstances of the road layout, the advertisement causes no harm to public safety. However, that lack of harm is outweighed by the significant harm to amenity, and on balance, the appeal should be dismissed.