Agenda item

            The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and explained that the key issues for consideration were the impact on amenity, setting of listed buildings and public safety.

            She informed the Committee that a sign had first been approved on the building in 1994 and again in 1998 and had been removed in 2009 and a further temporary consent had been granted for the existing LED digital sign in 2015.  She explained that the temporary time condition attached to the 2015 approval was to allow reassessment of the long-term impact of the signage at the location, however the temporary condition had been the subject of a planning appeal which was allowed and permanent consent granted.

            She reported that objections had been received from DfC Historic Environment Division and DfC Roads on grounds of adverse impact on the setting of the adjacent Listed Building and road safety.

            She stated that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, it was recommended that the application would be refused.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. M. Fairfowl, the applicant, and Mr. R. Walker to the meeting.

            Mr. Fairfowl explained that he was content that his evidence supported the proposal and gave a strong rebuttal for the refusal reasons stated in the report.

            He stated that, with regards to amenity, the proposal was suited well to the predominantly commercial area which was a main transport corridor where signage could be integrated effectively into the architecture.  He pointed out that the proposal was situated near a grade B2 listed building but that the area could not be classed as sensitive or within a conservation area.

            He contested the officers’ report, stating that the proposed display, albeit wider, would not sit any higher above the parapet than the existing display, which was not centred on the building.  He added that the size of the display had been reduced by 19% in order to be less prominent.

            Mr. Fairfowl stated that, within his Heritage Impact Assessment, his view was that the overall contribution of the B2 listed building and its setting had already been severely compromised by a lack of investment in the surrounding area and diminished the architectural and historic interest to the wider community.

            He stated that the proposal would entice local and international investment in the area and referred to a proposal which had been granted on a temporary basis for Arthur Square, which was located in a conservation area.

            He asserted that public safety was paramount and that data suggested that, with messaging and brightness controls, digital displays could be used safely, despite size, and would not cause an increase in road incidents, as demonstrated in his road safety impact assessment.

            He explained that the proposal sat well above any relevant traffic signals and in no way back framed or obscured the traffic signals or signs.  He stated that DfI’s level of risk for the proposal was too high and did not evaluate the growing evidence.

            Mr. Walker stated that there was no evidence in any jurisdiction that would indicate a larger display was detrimental to road safety.  He added that the Heritage Environment Division’s view would have been sought when the existing sign was approved and that the proposal sat within the framework of the building.

            A Member asked Mr. G. Lawther, DfI Roads, who was present at the meeting, how the larger sign would affect road safety.  Mr. Lawther explained that the policy in relation to the advertisements sets out categories that specifically cover concern, in that traffic signals will be affected by advertisements in the background at some point.  In relation to the existing sign, he stated that, even subsequent to a successful appeal, DfI would continue to find such signs unacceptable and would affect road safety.

            In response to a question from a Member with regard to the proposals impact on the adjacent listed building, Mr. B. McKervey from DfC Historic Environment Division (HED) explained that the proposal would impact on the setting of the listed building and would detract from the building’s special character.

            The Committee agreed to refuse the application in accordance with the officer recommendation and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the reasons for refusal.