Agenda item

Councillor Hickman stood down. This left 9 Committee members to vote on this item.

 The Head of Development Management introduced the report stating that the Council was a party to the application in its property role in partnership with the advertiser and would benefit from some revenue. He emphasised that officers gave no weight at all to this fact when considering this application and the officer recommendation was based on amenity and public safety. The Committee was asked to determine the application on its merits.

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application was referred to the Committee by ward member, Councillor Hickman;

2. The application sought consent for the erection and display of a single sided advertising structure to be used to show illuminated advertisements capable of automatic change image;

3. The display would be 11m high and 5m wide;

4. The consent would be for a 5-year period;

5. Following consultation, 37 responses were received with an additional 2 since publication of the report;

6. The key issues for consideration were public safety and amenity. The proposed display was away from residential properties and the nearest heritage asset was a public house 80m away;

7. The location of the display was an appropriate scale for the surrounding buildings and Transport Development Management officers had no concerns after a public safety audit was carried out;

The following points arose from debate:-

1. Councillor Mead questioned the Transport Officers’ assertion that the panel was visible far enough away so as not to cause a last minute distraction and allow drivers the opportunity to assimilate the road layout;

2. Councillor English felt the proposal raised serious road safety issues and was too dangerous to consider granting. The display would be a huge distraction and there was insufficient research on their use near roads. The Committee was informed that officers had been involved in pre-application proposals and a great deal of work was undertaken to get the proposal to this stage which they considered acceptable. It was noted that lessons had been learned from appeal outcomes for similar applications that had been refused at Committee and where the Inspector had sometimes disagreed that they were a road safety hazard or an impact on amenity;

3. Councillor Davies expressed concern that drivers would be distracted by the display and fail to notice a pedestrian running across the crossing and was informed that Transport Development Management officers had considered the crossing to be far enough away to allow sufficient time for drivers to view the road ahead before driving;

4. Councillor Bradley wondered why this site was chosen when drivers often changed lanes and it was badly signalled. She believed this was one of the worst locations to position a display.  She was informed that the applicants had originally proposed Newfoundland Circus where there was much greater movement which officers had recommended against so was withdrawn;

5. Councillor Denyer disagreed with the officer view that there was no impact on amenity as it provided a negative contribution to residents’ amenity. It might not be outside of residents’ windows but was in their nearby neighbourhood. She too was concerned on the road safety issues. Finally, she disagreed with the officers’ view that there was no detrimental impact and thought a more accurate view was that it was insufficiently detrimental to refuse. She was minded to vote against the officer recommendation;

6. Councillor Mead expressed concern at the loss of part of the existing bus lay-by and the proximity of the pedestrian crossing to the display and moved that the application be refused for the risk to pedestrian safety, the proximity of the display to the pedestrian crossing and the loss of part of the bus lay-by and this was seconded by Councillor Denyer;

7. Councillor Denyer then moved an amendment to add to the motion the impact on visual amenity and this was seconded by Councillor English. On being put to the vote, the amended motion was carried (4 for, 2 against, 3 abstentions). The substantive vote then took place and it was:-

Resolved (8 for, 1 against) – that the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1. The impact on visual amenity;

2. The impact on highway and pedestrian safety, including the proximity of the proposed signage to a pedestrian crossing and also the loss of part of the existing bus lay-by.