Appeal 6008806

The appeal is dismissed.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) require that applications for the display of advertisements are considered 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. Factors relevant to amenity include the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest.

The main issues are the effects of the proposed advertisement on visual amenity, with particular regard to nearby heritage assets, and public safety as this relates to road users.

The appeal site is currently occupied by a decommissioned digital advertisement display measuring approximately 14m by 4m which is supported by two steels at a maximum height of 9.7m. This structure is directly in front of the western side of [name] which faces the very busy gyratory road system associated with [name], the A3036 and the A3200. The gyratory forms part of the approach across [name] towards the Westminster World Heritage Site (WWHS). Opposite the site there is the Park Plaza Hotel and beyond this there is the grade II listed General Lying-in-Hospital.

The decommissioned advertisement display that currently occupies the appeal site was granted advertisement consent in 2016. It replaced three separate advertisement displays in this area and had temporary consent for 5 years. At the time of my visit the digital display was no longer active although the structure remained in place. The information before me indicates that there is an active enforcement case regarding this matter.

An application1 to retain the 2016 advertisement was refused in 2023 and a subsequent appeal2 was dismissed in January 2024. My colleague’s observations and conclusions are matters to which I attach significant weight. In particular, I note that my colleague was able to assess the effects of an operational digital display screen on the visual amenity of the site’s surroundings and on public safety.

The appeal proposal would comprise the installation of a 12m x 3m freestanding digital advertising display mounted on a pair of laser cut tapered legs. It would be smaller than the now decommissioned display that formed the basis of my colleague’s assessment.

My colleague noted the impact of the then proposed digital display on dull days. It was apparent from my site visit that natural light levels in the vicinity of the appeal site are relatively low due to the substantial neighbouring buildings. In addition, the digital display would be partly viewed against the permanently dark space below and immediately behind it. As a consequence of its siting, size, elevated position and illuminated nature, the proposed advertisement would be an overtly prominent and incongruous addition to the street scene.

For these reasons I conclude that the proposed advertisement would have an unacceptable effect on the visual amenity of its surroundings and the approach to the WWHS and result in harm to the setting of the nearby grade II listed General Lying-in-Hospital.

I have taken into account the policies cited in the Council’s reason for refusal which seek to protect amenity and are therefore material in this case. [name] have concluded that the proposal would harm amenity, it follows that it conflicts with these policies.

National Planning Practice Guidance3 recognises 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. Such points include junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings and approaches to low bridges. The Guidance identifies the types of advertisement that may cause danger to road users which include those which, because of their size or siting, would obstruct or confuse a road-user’s view, or reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic sign or signal, or would be likely to distract road-users because of their unusual nature.

The appeal site is next to an extremely busy gyratory, with a 4-way, multi-lane road junction controlled by multiple traffic lights, cycle lanes and pedestrian crossings. 1 LPA ref: 23/01067/ADV 2 APP/N5660/Z/23/3329043 3 Paragraph: 067 [name]: 18b-067-20140306 One road emerges from a long dark tunnel under the nearby railway lines. This is precisely the kind of environment where drivers, cyclists and pedestrians need to take extra care.

It was apparent from my site visit that from some points within the gyratory road users would view the traffic lights against the backdrop of the illuminated digital display and that the display would be in the eyeline of drivers approaching the junction from 2 directions. The digital display would inevitably distract drivers to some degree, particularly given displayed images would change and would be designed to attract attention.

I recognise that the proposed display is smaller than that previously proposed and note the information presented by the appellant in respect of accident data in the area over recent years. However, on balance I share the views expressed by my colleague that a large digital display in this location has the potential to create visual confusion for road users as they approach and use the gyratory system leading to an increased risk of injury to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.

Due to its size, illuminated nature and siting close to a heavily trafficked gyratory with signal-controlled junctions I therefore conclude that the proposed advertisement would have an unacceptable effect on public safety as this relates to road users.

I have taken into account the policies cited in the Council’s reason for refusal which relate to highway safety and are therefore material in this case. [name] have concluded that the proposal would result in harm in this respect, it follows that it conflicts with these policies.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.