Agenda item

An Amendment Sheet wasprovided to the Committeein advance of themeeting, detailing changes since thepublication of the original report.

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

1.         The applications were for two digital LED advertisement displays (19/02317/A & 19/02321/A) and 1 internally illuminated paper sign (19/02576/A).

2. The applications were before the Committee due to the level of public interest, particularly the Temple Gate site;

3. Transport Development Management was satisfied that these panels were not a distraction for motorists and were there for the attention of pedestrians;

4. City Design observed that the new longer bus stops replaced shorter bus stops and there was therefore a decrease in advertising displays;

5. BCC’s concession with Clear Channel contained an agreement regarding the control of advertising;

6. Officers recommended approval of the 3 locations subject to conditions.

The following points arose from questions and debate:-

1. The units removed were the same size as the proposed units;

2. The content of the agreement regarding controlled advertising with Clear Channel could be reviewed but this was not a reason for refusal;

3. Facial recognition was included as standard and Clear Channel had a legal right to do so but would need to discuss this with BCC. The Committee was reminded that this was not a reason to refuse. The Committee’s focus was safety and amenity;

4. There were no powers to have the cameras removed;

5.  The LED displays would be sensitive to light and would have a “maximum” lux level to the equivalent of a 150watt lightbulb;

6. There was no information regarding noise and harm from the displays;

7.  It was observed that one of the signs had already been erected before planning permission which was unfortunate given the arrangement between BCC and Clear Channel;

8. If planning permission was refused there would be no advertising displays. The bus stops were permitted development. It was noted that the money generated by advertising contributed to the bus shelters;

9. Councillor Mead noted that the contribution from the advertising funded better bus stops which was welcomed and he would support the officer recommendations;

10. Councillor Eddy was reassured that Transport Development Management that there was no issue regarding safety and would support the officer recommendations;

11. Councillor Davies believed that advertising was not good for wellbeing but would support the officer recommendations based on no significant harm to safety and amenity;

12. Councillor Denyer would not support the officer recommendations as she observed that BCC should not be pressured into accepting things that were not required as an amenity;

13. The officer recommendations were moved and seconded and voted on separately and it was:-

19/02576/A - Temple Meads (T7) Bus Stop Located on Victoria Street North Eastbound

Resolved (9 for, 1 against) - That Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions.

19/02317/A - Temple Meads (T2) Bus Stop Located on Temple Gate Northbound B

Resolved (9 for, 1 against) - That Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions.

19/02321/A - Temple Meads (T3) Bus Stop Located on Redcliffe Way Eastbound.

Resolved (9 for, 1 against) - That Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions.