Agenda item

Councillor Mike Davies left the meeting prior to consideration of this item.

Officers presented this report and made the following comments:

·         At the meeting on 10^th June 2020, officers had recommended approval of this application

·         Following its deferral, it was deemed that consent has been in existence for 10 years

·         An assessment had been made of the three locations where LED signs were currently installed in Bristol concerning the level of accidents

·         At the Lawrence Hill roundabout, there had been two accidents in 2018 following the installation in 2017. At the M32 in Eastville, LED signs had been installed in early 2019, Whilst there had been 4 accidents before the installation, there had been none after. There had been no accidents recorded at St Phillips Causeway between 2014 and 2019 following the installation of LED signs. It was noted that these statistics did not show near misses

·         The assessment of the data was inconclusive as to whether or not digital signs were the cause of the accident in each case.

·         A national assessment of accidents at LED signs had not been practicable due to the very large amount of data to assess.

·         There had been a great deal of research carried out on driver distraction. Whilst this showed that road sign advertising could cause an increase in crashes, this was not conclusive

·         The applicant had been unwilling to agree to a condition to limit the screen’s ability to change in day time only

·         Details of the expected changes in cycle and foot traffic in the area were set out

·         Draft policies in the local plan had not yet been adopted. However, development in the area would be supported by transport improvements. If the area became more residential, improvements to highways would be recommended including walking and cycle routes

·         Whilst there were proposed pedestrianisation changes in the City Centre, there was nothing for this application site

·         The officer recommendation remained for approval with the conditions previously outlined. There was no policy to restrict LED signs in the city

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following points:

·         The proposed location for the LED screen was an intersection and would be in the centre of the windscreen coming from one direction towards it

·         Requiring there to be no change of display during daylight hours could be perceived by the applicant as an undesirable limitation and tantamount to a refusal

·         Under standard conditions, images did not change any faster than 10 seconds

Councillors made the following comments:

·         The research from an objector in Israel was very helpful. The point of a roadside advert was to distract and therefore the application should be rejected. This location was not appropriate

·         Reports from Sweden and Denmark suggested that distractions cause accidents

·         The report seemed inconclusive as to whether or not this was an appropriate location. There was not enough evidence. Any refusal on safety grounds would need to prove that it was unsafe and so it should reluctantly be supported

·         Although more evidence was required, it was nevertheless clear that the location of the proposed sign at an intersection and being viewable from the centre of the windscreen whilst travelling from one direction increased the risk. Therefore the application should be refused

·         Since it was not conclusive, it did not seem possible to refuse it. A policy was required on digital adverts

·         The purpose of these adverts was to distract. However, without data, it would be difficult to refuse it. This application was complicated by the fact that the applicant would not support a Management Plan which would enable control over it

Councillor Steve Smith moved, seconded by Councillor Don Alexander that the application be approved.

Upon being put to the vote, this was LOST (3 FOR, 6 AGAINST, 1 ABSTENTION).

Councillor Stephen Clarke then moved, seconded by Councillor Clive Stevens and upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED (7 FOR, 3 ABSTENTIONS) – that the application be refused on the grounds of road safety due to its proposed location at a roundabout and in a position which was likely to distract drivers.

It was noted that a policy on Digital Signs was required and noted that this might be an issue for the appropriate Cabinet Member to consider.