Agenda item

            The Committee agreed to consider the aforementioned applications together.

            The case officer outlined the applications for the erection of 11.2m high by 4.3m wide advertisement supporting structures containing 6.7m high by 3.8m wide LED screens at both locations.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, technical information had been submitted to address the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) Roads concerns and the refusal reason, but no amendments had been made to the proposed scheme.          

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as set out in the Late Items Report Pack. 

            The case officer explained that, after assessment, both applications had been recommended for refusal on the grounds that:

·        The proposals were contrary to Planning Policy Statement 17 (PPS17): Control of Outdoor Advertisements; Policy AD1, Amenity and Public Safety, in that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not prejudice public safety; and

·        The proposals were contrary to Planning Policy Statement 17 (Control of Outdoor Advertisements) Policy AD 1 in that the proposed LED display units would, if permitted, be unduly visually prominent at these locations due to inappropriate scale and massing and, lead to an undesirable precedent for other similar signs along this main traffic route.

            The Committee received a representation from Councillor Craig in objection to the case officer’s recommendations for refusal. He suggested that similar proposals had been approved elsewhere in the UK and that the applicant had worked on the site specific project with DfI Roads. He advised that the applicant had submitted additional information on 12th October, however, the applicant had not had the opportunity to review or consider the response from DfI Roads.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. C. Bryson, agent, representing the applicant. Mr. Bryson raised the following points of objection to the officer’s recommendations for refusal:

·        In consideration of the proposal, weight should be given to the Department for Infrastructure Memorandum (2015) in relation to advertisements which stated “there is no conclusive proof that the presence of advertisements is a contributing factor in the cause of road traffic collisions”;

·        The proposals formed part of a wider DfI pilot scheme, where 7 locations would be proposed for such advertisements on a trial basis, which had not been mentioned in the report;

·        The case officer’s report had not outlined the socio-economic benefits of the proposal, which included revenue for the Council;

·        Information submitted to the Council had not been available on the Planning Portal;

·        The applicant had not been made aware of additional consultation information received by the Planning Service; and

·        Requested a deferral so that all matters could be considered.

            During point of clarification, Mr. Wilson confirmed that similar LED Advertisements had been installed in Birmingham, Milton Keynes and Glasgow.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. L. Walsh, Department for Infrastructure Roads. Mr Walsh advised that research indicated that digital advertisements had a dwell time that would distract drivers and suggested that the M1 and M2 should not have any additional distractions. He suggested that the pilot scheme was subject to suitable locations of the proposed LED advertisements and confirmed that he had concerns with the locations of the two proposals.

LA04/2017/2728/A

            The recommendation to refuse the application was put to the Committee when eleven Members voted in favour and one against and it was declared carried.

            Accordingly, the Committee refused the application for the reasons as set out in the case officer’s report.

LA04/2017/2730/A

            The recommendation to refuse the application was put to the Committee when eleven Members voted in favour and one against and it was declared carried.

            Accordingly, the Committee refused the application for the reasons as set out in the case officer’s report.