Agenda item

            The Representative of the Service Director – Planning introduced the report and summarised it for everyone. He explained how the adverts would change on the screen. He advised Members that the two issues they needed to take into account when considering the application were amenity and public safety. Officers consider that there is no harm to amenity. However Transport Development Management considers that the application should be refused on the grounds of public safety. Development Management officers considered that the impact on public safety was not significant and that the proposals should be supported.

The Representative of the Service Director – Transport confirmed that they object to the application as it is considered that the screen would distract drivers and other road users at a junction where there are already a number of distractions. He showed videos giving examples of how traffic typically operates at the Junction.

Recent appeal decisions support the view that this application should be refused.

The Representative of the Service Director – Planning stated that on balance they consider that the application should be approved. They do not consider that the distraction issue warrants refusal. They are recommending that the adverts change every 30 seconds (rather than the usual 10 seconds) and this, along with other proposed Conditions, should mitigate the impact of the screen.

He drew Members attention to the Amendment Sheet.

The following points arose during the debate on the application:

·           Although there are different levels of traffic at different times of the day, restricting the hours of operation of the screen from those applied for is not relevant; the applicants want as many people as possible to see the adverts

·           It was confirmed that the report by Dr Lansdown supports the application

·           The green light time for traffic departing Temple Meads Station is quite short – 10 to 15 seconds

·           It was noted that Inspectors look at the merits of each case presented them before coming to a decision

·           Each location has to be judged by its merits and there is no conclusive evidence throughout the country to suggest that the presence of advertising screens has led to an increase in the number of accidents at their locations

·           It was noted that there are several other forms of advertising that could distract drivers, including on buses

·           It was generally considered that allowing this screen at a junction that it already dangerous could make the junction even more dangerous

Councillor Mead moved that the application be refused on the following grounds:

The proposed digital advertising screen is likely to increase the likelihood of distraction to persons resulting in the severe detriment of highway safety, in particular vulnerable highway users. The presence and nature of the proposed development is prejudicial to road safety contrary to  The National Planning Practice Guidance on advertising. The impacts on safety on Temple Gate and subsequent deleterious impacts on the safe and effective operation of the Bristol’s highway network is therefore contrary to policy BCS10 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted June 2011), policy DM23 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (adopted July 2014), and paragraph 32 of National Planning Policy Framework (published March 2012).

Councillor Davies seconded this Motion.

On being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED – (Voting 8, 2 against) that the application be refused on the following grounds:

The proposed digital advertising screen is likely to increase the likelihood of distraction to persons resulting in the severe detriment of highway safety, in particular vulnerable highway users. The presence and nature of the proposed development is prejudicial to road safety contrary to  of The National Planning Practice Guidance on advertising. The impacts on safety on Temple Gate and subsequent deleterious impacts on the safe and effective operation of the Bristol’s highway network is therefore contrary to policy BCS10 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted June 2011), policy DM23 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (adopted July 2014), and paragraph 32 of National Planning Policy Framework (published March 2012).