STRATEGIC PLANNING POLICY
STATEMENT FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
(SPPS)
CONSULTATION RESPONSE PAPER
on behalf of
OUTDOOR MEDIA ASSOCIATION (OMA) 29th April 2014
Strategic Planning 4 Pavilions Office Park
Kinnegar Drive Holywood BT18 9JQ T: 028 90 425222 F: 028 90 422888
April 2014 Page 1
CONTENTS
1. Introduction p.2
2. Current Legislative Context and Planning Policy p.3
3. Comparison with Scotland and England p.5
4. Proposed Planning Policy in SPPS p.8
5. Transitional Arrangements and Other SPPS Comments p.11 Appendix 1 – Appeal Decision
(
Great West Road, Brentwood, Middlesex)Appendix 2 – Report by Paul Mew Associates
April 2014 Page 2
1
Introduction
1.1 This paper has been prepared on behalf of the Outdoor Media Association (OMA), which is a representative body for the main outdoor advertisers currently operating in Northern Ireland (including Clear Channel, Exterion Media (formerly CBS Outdoor) and JCDecaux).
1.2 This submission is focused on the ‘Control of Outdoor Advertisements’ section of the SPPS but also comments on other aspects of the document that relate to outdoor advertising.
1.3 This submission takes cognisance of the current relevant Planning Policy Statement (PPS17) and also compares the suggested SPPS policy with the equivalent policies found in Scotland and England. In this way, the paper comments on best practice found elsewhere in the UK that will hopefully assist the Department when finalising the SPPS.
April 2014 Page 3
2
Current Legislative Context and Planning Policy
Legislative Context
2.1 Under Article 67 of the Planning (NI) Order 1991 (primary legislation), the Department of Environment has the power to make regulations to restrict or regulate the display of advertisements. The Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (NI) 1992 is the relevant statutory rule (subordinate legislation).
2.2 In both the primary and subordinate legislation, it is clear that the Department, when considering a proposal for advertisement, will only consider the potential impact upon amenity and public safety.
2.3 It should be noted that the primary and subordinate legislation are somewhat dated. The 23 year old Planning (NI) Order will be replaced by the Planning Act (NI) 2011, which includes similar provision to allow the Department to make regulations in regard to advertisements. This provision in the Planning Act will allow the Department to bring forward new and updated regulations that could replace the 22 year old Control of Advertisements Regulations.
2.4 Policy as contained in PPS17 is based on this 20+ year old legislation, which does not allow the advertising industry to fulfil its purpose to respond to a changing business environment and developing advertising demands of OMA clients. For example, the primary and subordinate legislation is very much based on a traditional poster panel or ‘paper and paste’ form of advertising. Such forms of advertising are becoming less popular with businesses and require high levels of maintenance. Planning Policy
2.6 The issues of amenity and public safety are carried through from legislation to policy, policy AD1 of PPS17. This policy states that consent will be granted for the display of advertisements where it respects amenity and does not prejudice public safety. 2.7 PPS17 acknowledges the role advertising has in contributing to a vibrant and
competitive economy and also the positive role advertising can play in improving areas. Paragraph 1.1 of PPS17 states:
“Advertising is a multi-million pound industry and now forms part of everyday culture, often adding colour to our streets. It is a good indicator of business health, can be a valuable source of information and is viewed by many as a form of entertainment in itself. Outdoor advertising is a key element of the industry and contributes to the creation of a vibrant and competitive economy.”
2.8 PPS17 then goes into great detail about how to assess potential impacts upon amenity and public safety and also sets out design guidelines for different types of advertisement proposals. Much of this detail is overly restrictive and prescriptive and does not allow the industry to respond to changing advertiser demands. It runs contrary to the above quoted statement and the detail in PPS17 acts as a brake on advertising contributing to a vibrant and competitive economy.
April 2014 Page 4 2.9 PPS17, although the most recent regulatory tool, is over 7 years old and is based on the primary and subordinate legislative tools. Therefore, despite being relatively new, its content is essentially over 20 years old.
2.10 The outdoor advertising industry is a fast moving and ever changing industry. This is acknowledged in PPS17, where paragraph 1.4 states:
“The advertising industry is generally aware of ongoing change in the pattern of retail activity and it is the business of the industry to respond to the legitimate commercial needs of different businesses – everything from retail parks and high street stores to small hotels and corner shops.”
2.11 Policy based on 20 year old legislation, overlaid by further design guidance and considerations does not allow the industry to develop or respond to a changing advertisement environment. As with all media industries, outdoor advertising trends are dictated by demand from the end users, in this case advertising agents and their clients. Currently, these end users are looking for more individual bespoke displays at strategic locations with dedicated illumination (both internal and external). Such displays are cleaner structures compared to the traditional poster panels, require less maintenance and can integrate better into an area. Furthermore, future forms of advertisement are likely to include digital displays. Such forms of advertising are already present in the rest of the UK and further discussion on the current situation in England is provided in the next section.
2.12 Overall, it is clear that the current relevant legislation and policy context sets out only two potential impacts to be considered when determining applications for consent to display advertisements, that is, potential impact upon amenity and public safety. Unfortunately, the current policy then adds multiple layers of further issues and guidance that are overly restrictive and stymie appropriate advertisement development. There is a lack of flexibility in the current policy to respond to an ever changing advertising industry. However, the Department now have the opportunity, through the SPPS, to provide a more flexible policy that allows advertisers to respond to change and contribute to a vibrant and competitive economy whilst retaining the key elements of legislation.
April 2014 Page 5
3
Comparisons with Scotland and England
Scotland
3.1 The Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) was released in February 2010 and provides a national planning framework and Scottish Government policy on land use planning. It states, in paragraph 33, that the planning system should operate in support of the Government’s central purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth.
3.2 There is no specific reference to or policy for outdoor advertisements in the SPP. Rather, The Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984, and amendments, provides the legislative context for controlling outdoor advertising. Similar to the legislation in NI, the two main issues are amenity and public safety.
3.3 It is left to local planning authorities in Scotland to set out policies in relation to outdoor advertisements, having regard to the above referenced legislative considerations. Different local authorities take different approaches to the control of advertisements. For example, in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012, there is no specific policy in relation to outdoor advertisements. Rather, such proposals are considered under general design policies, such as policy D2 that sets out general design and amenity considerations for all development types. The local authority can apply these considerations to proposals for outdoor advertisements. An alternative approach can be found in the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011, where there is a specific policy in relation to advertisements (policy BE5). This policy sets out considerations for all such proposals within the area and provides clear, yet flexible, requirements for advertisements. Reference is also made to supplementary planning guidance (i.e. Circulars) that provides more detail on design etc.
3.4 Overall, the strategic policy document in Scotland (the SPP) does not include specific or detailed policies in relation to outdoor advertising. Rather, it is left to local planning authorities to provide such policy in their Local Development Plans. The lack of specific advertising policy in the SPP allows local councils to decide on the scale and degree of policy control required for advertisements, whilst having regard to the legislative requirements. This can range from having a holistic design policy that applies to all development types (including advertising), as used in Aberdeen, or a specific advertising policy and supporting supplementary guidance, as used in the Scottish Borders.
3.5 The lack of any specific strategic direction in relation to outdoor advertisement allows local councils flexibility to prepare their own policies that can respond to changing advertising demands. This has resulted in local authorities having the ability to keep up with and respond to the ever-changing landscape of outdoor advertising. As such, outdoor advertising in Scotland has developed beyond the current situation in NI. This is illustrated in figure 1, which shows the type of advertisement being developed in Scotland. The example provided is a light box advertisement and is visually more acceptable than the traditional poster and paste billboards found in NI.
April 2014 Page 6
Figure 1 – JCDecaux light box on Crown Street in Glasgow.
England
3.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and is the English equivalent of the SPPS and SPP. Unlike the SPP, there is specific reference to outdoor advertisements but it is restricted to two paragraphs. Part of paragraph 67 states:
“Control of outdoor advertisements should be efficient, effective and simple in concept and operation. Only those advertisements which will clearly have an appreciable impact on a building or on their surroundings should be subject to the local planning authority’s detailed assessment.”
3.7 Paragraph 68 refers to the use of ‘Areas of Special Control Orders’ where an area justifies a degree of special protection on grounds of amenity.
3.8 Similar to the NI and Scottish systems, there is over-arching legislation in the form of The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. The English legislation also lists the main considerations as amenity and public safety.
3.9 As with the Scottish situation, it is left to local planning authorities to set out policies in relation to outdoor advertisements in Local Development Plans. There is a vast range of approaches to the control of advertisement by local authorities and, similar to the listed Scottish examples, they range from no specific advertisement policies to detailed assessment policies in certain areas. This flexible approach allows local councils to devise their own approach to controlling advertisements and results in modern advertisements where appropriate (see figure 2) and tighter control in other, more sensitive areas (through the use of ‘Areas of Special Control Orders’).
April 2014 Page 7
Figure 2.0 – JCDecaux light box at Bordesley Circus (Birmingham)
3.10 It is worth noting that the NI legislation contains similar provisions to the English legislation with regard to using ‘Areas of Special Control Orders’. Article 130 (3), (4) and (5) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 allows the Department to approve such Orders. Unlike the English system, such Orders are rarely used in NI.
3.11 Overall, strategic-level policy documents already exist elsewhere in the UK. There is no strategic level policy for outdoor advertisements in Scotland and only minimal reference to advertisements in the NPPF in England. For both jurisdictions, the lack of or limited strategic direction allows local planning authorities to prepare their own advertisement policy in Local Development Plans.
3.12 Common legislation in both Scotland and England ensures that the primary considerations (i.e. amenity and public safety) are safeguarded and reflected in any Local Development Plan policies. However, the flexibility afforded to local planning authorities by the strategic policy in Scotland and England means that local authorities have the ability to set their own policy for the consideration of outdoor advertisements.
April 2014 Page 8
4
Proposed Planning Policy in SPPS
4.1 Paragraphs 6.45 to 6.52 sets out the proposed strategic policy in relation to outdoor advertisements. Overall, the language and tone used in this section of the SPPS is very negative and appears to advocate a more stringent approach to controlling advertisements. This is at odds with the example of the SPP and NPPF that pursue a flexible approach to controlling adverts, thus allow local planning authorities to set the tone for control.
4.2 In paragraph 6.45, reference is made to Priority 3 of the ‘Programme for Government’ (PfG). There is nothing in this priority that directly relates to outdoor advertisements and, indeed, none of the listed key commitments in any way relate to outdoor advertisements. It would appear that the Department are trying to link outdoor advertisements with risk to public safety. Whilst public safety is a consideration for all advertisement proposals, it does not follow that all advertisements have the potential to adversely affect public safety.
4.3 It is noticeable that the Department do not refer to Priority 1 of the PfG, which is more relevant to outdoor advertisements than Priority 3. Priority 1 aims to achieve long term economic growth by improving competitiveness. This echoes paragraph 1.1 of PPS17 and if Priority 3 is to be cited in the SPPS, then Priority 1 (with greater emphasis) should also be cited.
4.4 The reference to driver distraction in paragraph 6.45 suggests that the Department feel that advertisements can cause collisions. However, there is no recorded evidence that directly links advertisements with collisions. This is supported by case-studies from England.
4.5 Appendix 1 contains an appeal decision relating to advertisement panels at a site at lands off Great West Road, Brentwood, Middlesex – known as ‘the Torch’. The Planning Inspector found that there is no proof that the proposed advertising panels would result in or cause any collisions or have an adverse impact upon public safety. Appendix 2 contains a later report by Paul Mew Associates (traffic consultants), which refers to the ‘Torch’ site and compares accident data before and after the erection of this panel. It finds that there is no discernible change in the number or type of accidents on the stretch of road in the time prior to or after the ‘Torch’ panel becoming operational. Therefore, there is no evidence that advertising panels lead directly to distracting drivers.
4.6 Reference to road safety and separate road legislation in paragraph 6.46 is unnecessary and unhelpful. The term ‘road safety’, as cited in paragraph 6.45, does not appear in either the primary or subordinate legislation in NI, despite references in the SPPS. Therefore, there is no legislative basis for expressly referring to roads safety in the SPPS, outside the more generic term of ‘public safety’.
4.7 The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) have, on numerous occasions, clarified that the implementation of other statutory controls as contained in roads legislation is totally unrelated to the planning process and roads legislation should not be used in the determination of planning applications (see paragraph 5.2 of PAC decision in
April 2014 Page 9 appendix 3). Again, there is no sound basis for including reference to separate legislation in the SPPS.
4.8 Paragraph 6.48 sets out the policy objectives for the control of advertisements. It reiterates the legislative requirements in relation to amenity and public safety; however it again specifically refers to ‘road safety’. Again, such a consideration goes beyond both legislative and policy requirements. Road safety clearly falls within the overall definition of public safety and there is no need to have a separate reference to road safety.
4.9 A further additional test above and beyond legislative requirements is included in paragraph 6.48. An additional policy objective of ’contributing positively’ to the appearance of the environment is listed. This is a considerable shift in policy when compared to both PPS17 and the legislative requirements. Policy AD1 in PPS17 requires proposals to ‘respect’ amenity and ‘not prejudice’ public safety. The additional test in the SPPS of ‘contributing positively’ to an area can be viewed as a betterment requirement. Rather than demonstrating no adverse impact in terms of amenity or public safety, advertisers will have to demonstrate how proposals contribute positively to an area.
4.10 This additional policy test of ‘contributing positively’ appears to be unique to outdoor advertisements and does not apply to other forms of development. For example, existing and proposed policy in relation to development proposals affecting listed buildings need only demonstrate no adverse impact upon listed buildings (policy BH11 of PPS6).
4.11 Paragraphs 6.49 and 6.51 again refer separately and specifically to ‘roads safety’. For reasons as outlined previously, this issue does not need to be referred to separately as it forms part of public safety (which is referred to in legislation).
4.12 Further reference to advertisements is contained in the SPPS as it relates to listed buildings (paragraph 6.14), Conservation Areas (paragraph 6.20) and Areas of Townscape Character (paragraph 6.21). Overall, the narrative contained in these paragraphs reflects current policy and are appropriately worded.
April 2014 Page 10
OMA response
4.13 No. The SPPS does not update the existing policy. Rather, the SPPS policy reiterates the more stringent elements of current policy and, indeed, introduces new policy tests that go above and beyond current legislative and policy requirements.
4.14 OMA would recommend the following:
• Removal of all separate references to ‘road safety’. Current policy and legislation refers to ‘public safety’ and there is no need to make separate reference to road safety.
• Removal of paragraph 6.45 and 6.46, as they serve no purpose, refer to separate (non-planning) legislation and are negatively worded. Alternatively, reference should be made to Priority 1 of the PfG, which is more relevant to outdoor advertisement, and remove references to roads legislation.
• Removal of the additional policy test of advertisements ‘contributing positively’ to an area, which has no legislative basis and goes beyond current policy requirements.
• The SPPS should more closely reflect the approach taken in Scotland and England, where specific policy is left to local planning authorities and the strategic policy reaffirms legislative requirements.
April 2014 Page 11
5
Transitional Arrangements and Other SPPS Comments
5.1 The existing regional policies as contained in the current suite of PPSs will remain in place until both the new local plan strategy and local policies plan are adopted and approved by the Department.
5.2 The SPPS will also be a material consideration during the decision-taking process, once a final version is in place. In the case where there is a conflict between a PPS and the SPPS, the SPPS will prevail.
5.3 Whilst this may appear a sensible approach to the transition period, it would require the SPPS to be redrafted to read more as a strategic-level document. Currently, it simply repeats many of the detailed operational policies as contained in the PPSs. Indeed, in relation to the advertisement policy, it introduces new policy tests and the OMA would be concerned that the more stringent policies contained in the SPPS would take precedent over the already restrictive and prescriptive PPS17 requirements.
5.4 If the PPSs are to be retained until a local plan strategy and local policies plan is in place, there is no need to have a further layer of detailed/operational policies in the SPPS.
OMA response
5.5 The proposed transitional arrangements are only acceptable if the SPPS is redrafted to be more strategic in nature. The additional policy test in relation to outdoor advertisements should be removed and there is no need to repeat operational policies in the SPPS if PPSs are to be retained in the short-medium term.
April 2014 Page 12 APPENDIX 1 Appeal Decision
(
Great West Road, Brentwood, Middlesex)April 2014 Page 13 APPENDIX 2 Report by Paul Mew Associates
April 2014 Page 14 APPENDIX 3 Appeal Decision (Midland Building, Belfast)
2003/A306
PLANNING APPEALS COMMISSION
THE PLANNING (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1991
THE PLANNING (CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENTS)
REGULATIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1992
REGULATION 12
Appeal by JC Decaux against the refusal of consent to display an advertisement in respect of a
sign comprising individual neon lettering at The Midland Building, 6 Whitla Street, Belfast.
Report
By
Commissioner A Speirs
Grid Reference: 34289 75677 Planning Service Reference: Z/2003/0636/A
Procedure: Informal Hearing onReport Date: 29
thMarch 2004
3
rdMarch 2004
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2003/A306 PAGE 1
-1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1.
The application for consent to display an advertisement was validated by the Department on
1
stApril 2003.
1.2
The Department consulted Belfast City Council on 22
ndMay and 5
thJune 2003 with an
opinion that consent should be refused. The Council agreed with this opinion on the latter
date.
1.3
The application was refused on 12
thJune 2003 for the following reasons:
-1.
The proposed signage would give rise to conditions which would prejudice the safety
and convenience of road users since the erection of the sign in the position proposed
would constitute an offence under Article 21 of The Roads (NI) Order 1993 and
would be likely to distract the attention of motorists on the M2 motorway.
2.
The proposed sign is contrary to DGN No.13 'Control of Illuminated Signs' in that
the development would, if permitted, have an adverse impact upon public safety by
way of distracting motorists on the M2 motorway.
3.
The proposed sign is contrary to DGN No.2 'Control of Large Scale Advertisements'
in that the development would, if permitted, be visually prominent and visually
obtrusive at the proposed high level siting.
1.4
The Commission received the appeal on 20
thNovember
2003.2.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
2.1
The appeal site is located on the northern side of Whitla Street. The Belfast to Larne railway
line lies to the immediate east, with the northbound lanes of the M2 motorway beyond.
Commercial/industrial buildings lie to the north and west of the site. No 6 Whitla Street,
known as the Midland Building is several storeys’ in height with a flat roof.
3.0 DEPARTMENT’S CASE
3.1
There is no conflict between the proposal and Development Guidance Note 2. The third
reason for refusal is withdrawn.
3.2
The area is of mixed character, where commercial and retail activity dominates the York
Road frontage. The signage would be clearly visible at eye level from the M2 and from the
railway line. It is designed to attract attention. Although not a planning document, Article 21
of the Roads (NI) Order 1993 is a material consideration. The erection of the sign would be
illegal and it would send out a very confusing message if the appeal were to be allowed. The
Commissioner's comments in appeal 2003/A235 are relevant and his reasoning is endorsed.
3.3
The south-bound motorway close to the appeal site is five lanes wide and carries traffic at 70
mph. Drivers are negotiating other traffic movements and manoeuvring between lanes to
select destination lanes. The proposal would clearly cause a distraction and adversely affect
safety along the section of M2 shown in photograph 1, which was taken at Milewater
Footbridge. The scale and level of illumination of the neon signage would result in a unique
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2003/A306 PAGE 2
-feature. As such, the attention of drivers would be momentarily transferred from the control
of their vehicles, to the sign, thereby causing a risk to safety. Variable Message Information
signing has been provided on the motorway near the appeal site. This is used to display
important information for drivers so that they can modify their behaviour accordingly.
Drivers' attention would be distracted away from this to the proposed signage, resulting in
them being unaware of potential hazards or road conditions ahead. The proposal thus
conflictswith DGN 13. A copy of a report commissioned by the Scottish Executive is provided. The
conclusions point to driver distraction being a serious road safety problem. The conclusion
states that "it seems highly likely that billboards are a major contributory factor to such
distraction incidents." The document refers to billboards but the research done does not
distinguish these from other roadside signage. It does not refer specifically to static neon
signage but the witness is confident that this was part of the research. Allowing the appeal
would set a precedent.
3.4
The size of lettering would be visually prominent relative to the motorway. The prominence
and obtrusiveness of the proposal would be exacerbated by the absence of similar signage in
the area. The neon lighting would be particularly prominent in the evening.
3.5
The sign on the mill adjacent to the appeal site is unauthorised and the Enforcement Section
has been notified of this. The signs at Duncrue Street are not on a Special Road. Their
impact on safety was taken into account. They have a backdrop of storage sheds and do not
interfere with the traffic lights. Traffic speeds on the slip road where they are located are
much less than those on the M2.
3.6
It is not possible to state if the other signs referred to by the appellant are authorised. Roads
Service would take appropriate action under the Roads Order when resources permit. It may
be the case that the other signs referred to were not designed to be wholly or mainly visible
from the M2. Their visibility may be coincidental.
3.7
Drawing 03 refers to a change of lettering. As the letters are individually affixed, this would
require consent each time a change was made. The approval would be based on the
'Smirnoff' lettering shown on the plan. If changes were made, the lettering could cease to be
statically illuminated.
3.8
If the appeal is allowed, all five standard conditions referred to in the relevant regulations
should be attached to the consent.
4.0 APPELLANT’S CASE
4.1
The sign would only be seen from the south-bound section of the M2. JC Decaux business is
centred around road traffic. The location has been chosen for that reason. The Roads Order
is not a planning document. The signage does not conflict with DGN 2 and DGN 13 for the
following reasons: -
·
The proposal is within the city centre limits of Belfast, in a predominantly commercial
area,
·
The proposal would be in keeping with the scale and design of the host building and
would not impact on the street scene. It would be in the public interest to brighten up an
otherwise dull location. There is no other signage on the building and the proposal
would not result in a clutter of advertisements on an individual building,
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2003/A306 PAGE 3
-·
The proposal would be affixed at high level where it would not hinder the free passage of
pedestrians. The sign would not be projecting, rotating, or electronic and would not
distract drivers on the M2. The thrust of paragraph 4.5 of DGN13 relates to moving
signage. The proposal would not obscure visibility or detract the attention of motorway
users away from traffic signs, as it would be well separated from the latter by the
northbound carriageway and the railway line.
4.2
It is accepted that the signage would be visually prominent to an extent. That is the purpose
of an advertisement. It would, however, be affixed to the wall of the existing building and
would not project above the roofline. There would thus be no undue dominance and it would
be small in relation to the whole building. This sign is distinguishable from a billboard,
which could contain a large amount of information and may require to be read. The proposal
is for one word, a company name, and would not be a major distraction. Photograph 1 shows
that the sign would not be obtrusive; the NIR signage is much more noticeable. The Royal
Mail sign in the photograph is also more prominent even though it is more distant. The sign
is designed to be noticed from a distance as part of the wider vista. Drivers will not suddenly
come upon it; therefore it will not cause a distraction.
4.3
The report to the Scottish Executive deals with all distractions from cars - not just signage.
The research is not conclusive and states that further studies need to be undertaken.
4.4
Other illuminated signs can be seen from the M2 and M3 motorways. Those at Philip House
and Yorkgate on York Street are clearly designed only to be seen from the motorway. Those
on the Royal Mail building, the Odyssey Arena and the Hilton Hotel may not have been
specifically designed as such but are still visible. All these signs are typical of that proposed
here. It is not known if they all have planning approval. There is also a very large
advertisement on the mill adjacent to the site, which can be seen by traffic travelling on both
directions on the M2. This is illuminated at night. It is not known if this has approval but it is
worse than the proposal in terms of impacts on safety and visual amenity. There are 4 No
large billboards at Duncrue Street. These are externally illuminated and have a temporary
approval. These are not visible from the M2 but are on a slip road.
4.5
The lettering of the sign would be changed, depending on contract circumstances. The size
of the letters would not vary. The Department is not in a position to control the content of
signs. The understanding was that the application was for display of an advertisement on an
area of wall. The application is for the sign, not the particular word or lettering. Drawing 03
is just an example of what the sign might contain. The illumination is to be static and this can
be controlled by Planning Service. There is no objection to the standard conditions suggested
by Planning Service.
5.0 CONSIDERATION
5.1
Given that the Department withdrew its third reason for refusal, it falls to me to consider the
proposal only in respect of potential impact on safety.
5.2
In terms of the first reason for refusal, the Commission determined in appeal 2003/A235, that
the power to control advertisements under Article 21 of the Roads Order is a separate
legislative provision, unrelated to the determination of applications or appeals in respect of
advertisement consent. I concur with the Commission's previous approach and find that the
first reason for refusal is not sustainable.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2003/A306 PAGE 4
-5.3
I agree with the appellant's analysis of the potential safety impact of the proposed lettering.
Its size and position would not render it prominent or more obtrusive than many of the signs
that can be seen as part of the wider vista on the section of M2 identified by the Department
and it would come to the attention of road users gradually, rather than suddenly. Its simple
design would not draw undue attention. I do not consider that it would distract drivers, given
its static nature and the degree of separation from the southbound carriageways of the M2.
Travelling along the M2 and M3 motorways at night, I observed various internally
illuminated static signs, including those cited by the appellant. I did not consider these to be
distracting to a degree that would hinder the ready interpretation of road signage and I discern
no significant difference between these and the proposal. I do not consider the research
evidence presented by Roads Service to be conclusive or convincing in relation to the specific
circumstances before me. I find that the second reason for refusal has not been sustained. I
do not consider, given that I have found the proposal to be acceptable, that a wide-ranging
precedent would be set if this appeal is allowed.
5.4
Paragraph 2, sub section (b), of Article 9 of the Planning (Control of Advertisements)
Regulations 1992 permits the Department to grant consent for the use of a particular site for
the display of an advertisement in a specified manner. Drawing 03 indicates a lettering depth
of 1.5 m across the full width of the building and states that this would periodically be
changed. I do not envisage, if a change were to be made to the advertisement, that the colour
of the lettering or the specific wording of the signage would render it unacceptable from a
safety perspective. I do, however, judge it necessary to attach a condition requiring the use of
static illumination only, as any flashing or movement may result in a distraction to motorists.
Other conditions that require to be attached are those standard conditions applicable to the
circumstances at the appeal site.
6.0 RECOMMENDATION
6.1
Having found that the case against the proposal has not been sustained, I recommend to the
Commission that the appeal be allowed subject to the following conditions:-
1.
The advertisement shall be maintained in a clean, tidy, and safe condition to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Department.
2.
No advertisement shall be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or
any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.
3.
The individual letters comprising the advertisement shall not exceed 1.5m in height and
shall be illuminated internally. Illumination shall be of a static nature only.
6.2
This recommendation relates to the following
plans:-·
Location plan at scale 1:1250 bearing the Department’s refused stamp dated 12
thJune
2003.
·
Block plan at scale 1:500 bearing the Department’s refused stamp dated 12
thJune 2003.
·
Elevation at scale 1:100 bearing the Department’s refused stamp dated 12
thJune 2003.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2003/A306 PAGE 5
