Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00500/D Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 20/00500/D Applicant : Carrera Digital Ltd Proposal Installation of digital signboard Site Address Falcon House 22 - 24 Ridgeway Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 1EL
Case Officer :
Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 04.09.2020
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R1. Given the age, structure and design of the buildings it is considered that digital images would not fit with the area and negatively impact the conservation area, contrary to Environment Policy 37 of the Strategic Plan (2016), and as such have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the building is No.22-24 Ridgeway Street, Douglas known as Falcon House. It is three storys high on the junction of Lord Street and Ridgeway Street. Ridgeway Street is to the west of the application site and has a one way system implemented, travelling south to north from Lord Street. Lord Street travels to the south of the application site. The application site lies within the Athol Street/Victoria Street Conservation Area.
1.2 On the eastern gable elevation is a fixed sign measuring 2.8m wide and 1.8m deep and illuminated by down-lights. This signage is advertising for 'Sure Business fibre broadband'. It is noted this advert is not related to the occupation or use of the building.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00500/D Page 2 of 9
2.1 Proposed is the replacement of an existing fixed sign with overhead illumination, with a digital sign / screen measuring approx. 3.1m wide x 1.7m high. The sign would be at first floor level, approx. 5.4m above ground level affixed to the gable end of the application building. It is understood the sign would feature scrolling images promoting advertisements.
2.2 The applicants have confirmed the screen would not contain moving images or animation but will be a static display.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area designated as Predominantly Offices under the Douglas Local Plan Order 1998 Map No. 1 (Central Area). As previously mentioned the application site lies within the Athol Street/Victoria Street Conservation Area.
3.2 The Control of Advertisements Regulations 2013 make it clear that the only considerations which can be applied to applications made under them are in the interests of amenity and public safety. In the case of amenity, such things as the general characteristics of the area need to be taken into account along with the presence of any features of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest and the public safety should consider the safety of any person using a road, railway, tramway, harbour or aerodrome including the obscuration of any traffic sign or similar.
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application:
3.3 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
3.4 Paragraph 6.6.2 (Advertisements) of the Strategic Plan notes that well designed and sensitively sited advertisements can contribute positively to the character of a building or area and can help the public, whilst those which are too bright, over large or poorly sited may endanger highway safety by distraction and may, individually or cumulatively, detract from amenity by intrusion, clutter, visual confusion or by masking features of interest.
3.5 General Policy 6 states that "Within our town and villages, the display of external advertisements will be permitted on the site or building to which they relate provided they: (a) are of a high standard of design and material and relate well to the building and site on which they are to be displayed; (b) are in keeping with and do not detract from the surrounding area; (c) are located so as not to cause highway safety hazard."
3.6 General Policy 7 states that "Within our towns and villages, the display of external advertisements on sites or buildings other than those to which they relate will not generally be permitted."
3.7 Environment Policy 37 states "As a general policy, advertisements within Conservation Areas will be permitted only if: i) the proposal preserves or enhances the Conservation Area; ii) the signage is in a style appropriate to the character of the area; iii) traditional materials and finishes are used and glossy and highly reflective materials are excluded from proposals; and
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00500/D Page 3 of 9
iv) internally illuminated box fascia and projecting box signs are excluded from the proposals."
3.8 Regulation 5(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2013 reads as follows: "Unless it appears to the Department to be required in the interests of amenity or public safety, an express consent for the display of advertisements must not contain any limitation or restriction relating to the subject matter, content or design of what is to be displayed".
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 15/01046/D - Erection of advertising signage. Falcon House, 22 - 24 Ridgeway Street, Douglas. Refused at Appeal but overturned by the Minister (08/06/16)
4.2 It would also be pertinent to consider a previous planning application for the same form of advertising media signage installed within and around the Douglas area;
4.3 16/00949/D - Erection of a digital advertisement board. 44 Strand Street, Douglas. Approved at Appeal (30/05/17). The inspector approved a digital display screen measuring 1.9m high by 2.6m wide and 11.4 centimetres in frame depth, installed at first floor level. The sign would be of a non-flashing type and its level of illumination and hours of operation controlled by planning conditions.
4.4 16/01024/D - Installation of a digital sign (retrospective) Skanco Court, Cooil Road. Douglas. Approved. This sign is fixed to the south-eastern flank wall of Skanco Court, facing the access road to the Spring Valley Industrial Estate. It consists of a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel within a black frame, mounted about 3m above ground level. The panel has a height of about 1.5m and a width of about 6.1m. It shows static, coloured images, which change in a continuous cycle, with each image remaining on the screen for a few seconds.
4.6 12/00604/D - Erection of illuminated signage Sea Terminal Building, Victoria Pier, Douglas. Approved. The inspector concluded "there would be no material harm to visual amenity and that the character and the overall appearance of the Conservation Area would each be preserved". in accordance with General Policy 6 and Environment Policy 7.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council have raised an objection (17/06/20) stating the proposal is contrary to Environmental policy 37; the negative impact on the conservation area; the impact from light 'nuisance' on the nearest residential property owned by the Council; and the content media would not be relevant to the building it is attached too.
5.2 Highways Services have commented (08/06/20) "The position of the proposed advertisement is acceptable. It does not obscure, hinder the ready interpretation of any road traffic sign or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use of the highway. Access and parking are retained". Furthermore they have provided a list of technical display requirements the signage will be required to comply with but on the whole, do not object subject to the following conditions;
i. Moving Images: There shall be no moving images or special effects of any kind during the time that any message is displayed, including noise, smell, smoke, animation, flashing, scrolling, three-dimensional, intermittent or video elements.
ii. Transition of Images: The interval between successive displays shall be instantaneous for the complete screen to change (0.1 seconds or less). There shall be no visual effects between successive displays, including swiping or other animated transition methods. Any fading shall take no more than 2 seconds. The display will include a mechanism to freeze the image in the event of a malfunction.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00500/D Page 4 of 9
iii. Cycle Time of Images: The display shall not change more than once every 10 seconds, the use of message sequencing for the same product is prohibited and the advertisements shall not include features or equipment which would allow interactive messages or advertisements to be displayed.
iv. Fail Safe Mechanism: The screen display shall be erected with a mechanism installed in order that, if the installation breaks down, it defaults to a blank black screen in order to avoid any flashing error messages or pixilation.
v. Light Sensor: The screen display panel shall at all times be fitted with a light sensor to adjust the brightness to changes in ambient light levels.
vi. Luminance Level: At no time shall the Luminance level of the signs exceed the thresholds contained within the Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) guidance document PLG05 - The Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements 2015 or any subsequent amendment/replacement to this guidance. Typically, set at 600 cd/m for daylight use and 300 cd/m for hours of darkness with a mechanism to prevent "dazzle" when a light poster replaces a dark one.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
(i) the principle of the signage (GP6a) & (GP7)
(ii) visual impact on the character of the property (GP6b) (iii) visual impact on the character of the Conservation area (EP37) (iv) impact on highways (Gp6c)
(i) the principle of the signage
6.2 The Strategic Plan is explicitly clear through its policies (GP6&7) in how it expects applications for advertisements to be considered. In that those adverts should relate to the specific uses of the building to which they are attached. Advertisements that are not related to the land or building to which they are generally attached are considered not acceptable. The rationale is to prevent an unwarranted proliferation of adverts that could compromise the appearance and attractiveness of the town and villages. However, these policies can only be applied within the parameters of the legislation as noted above and so are limited to impacts in terms of amenity and public safety.
6.3 In applying the above, the complex history of the application site and the emergence of digital advertising that has previously been approval at appeal are relevant.
6.4 With regard to the application site and the current signage, (para.4.1) the Minister overturned the refusal recommendation by the inspector and cited the following two reasons for disagreeing; (i) Within General Policy 7, it is not written in absolute terms and includes the words "will not generally be permitted" provides support to the Minister. The Minister did not accept the inspectors' reasoning/conclusion the signage would be an incongruous feature within its setting. With regard to Environmental Policy 37, questions the inspectors' assessment and their opinion of the signage and whether the signage preserves or enhances, the Minister refers to the context of the area and other signage that is present of various heights and types of manufacturing and designs in different materials and colours, so within this context would not be considered to harm the character and appearance of the Conservations area. This approval allowed the current context of illuminated signage measuring 2.8m wide and 1.8m deep and allowing for the commercial advertisement on the building with no relation to the buildings occupation or use.
6.5 Turning to the digital advertisement board located on the building 44 Strand Street (para.4.3) at first floor level. The inspector, in their report at paragraph 41, deviated from the planning polices (GP6&7) on the basis, the proposed signage would not appear out of keeping in this modern, highly commercial context and the sign would be a 'state-of-the-art' unit in
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00500/D Page 5 of 9
common use elsewhere and would thus comply with GP6. The inspector further notes at paragraph 42, "I note that GP7 is framed in general terms and imposes no absolute prohibition on signs unrelated to the host building. At the same time GP7 appears to be in some conflict with the prevailing Regulation 5 of the Control of Advertisement Regulations". And at paragraph 43; "the proposed digital board would replace an existing, lawful conventional, fixed advertisement in essentially the same position. By displaying a variety of images, it would tend to reduce proliferation of signage elsewhere. These factors mitigate any potential net impact the sign would have".
6.6 With regard to the Skanco appeal (para. 4.4) the inspector, in the report at paragraph 13 surmised; "General Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan indicates that, in settlements, the display of advertisements on sites or buildings to which they do not relate will not generally be permitted. This provides a basis for the refusal of consent for a proliferation of advertisements that have no particular relationship to the area in which they would be located, and plainly serves the interests of amenity. However, in my view, it provides no basis for the imposition of a condition limiting the subject matter of an advertisement for which express consent has been granted, contrary to Regulation 5(3) of the Control of Advertisement Regulations 2013".
6.7 Turning to GP7 and the previous considerations concerning the conflict with the Regulation 5(3) of the Control of Advertisement Regulations 2013, whilst the content of the sign will not relate to the building, it has previously been interpreted that express consent has already been granted and the policy is not written in absolute terms and a degree of leniency in the past has been allowed. In this case the proposal would have a neutral impact on this basis of relevancy of content to the building.
6.8 To sum up the above paragraphs and the previous interpretations of GP6&7 based on previous decisions; the proposed digital display screen as previously considered is deemed as "state-of-the-art" high quality digital display media and would be considered acceptable to the first part of GP6(a) parts (b&c) will be discussed separately. Given this application is to replace a fixed media sign, in the same position, and of a smaller size, it would be judged the proposed sign would be of a high standard of design. The proposal is already accepted as a form of advertising media, evidence within Douglas and would be considered to have a neutral visual impact.
6.9 On the basis of the above the principle of using a digital display media sign is deemed acceptable to General Policy 6(a) and GP7.
(ii) visual impact of the proposed signage 6.10 The context of Lord Street, essentially acts as one of the main arterial routes or gate ways in / out of Douglas and is more commercial orientated than residential. This was further highlighted in the Minsters comments regarding the (15/01046/D) application for the existing sign, where he disagreed with the inspector's character assessment of the streetscene as noted in para.6.4. The streetscene is varied and is more biased to one of a commercial retail and offices (mixed use) streetscene with some residential as opposed to the contrary. Given the location of the sign on the gable end of the building ensures it would only be visible by the public / highway users is when travelling west.
6.11 The location of the signage is to the rear of the application building which is a blank façade with a painted rendered wall with a signage at first floor level. This proposed sign would be located in the same position, affixed to the building and of similar vertical and horizontal sizes. The sign would be mounted above the horizontal string course along Lord Street elevation and in line with the pair of windows. Within this context, the visual impact of the physical parameters and siting of the sign would be appropriate to the context of the area, having little discernible difference over and above the existing, giving a neutral impact on the building and the streetscene.
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00500/D Page 6 of 9
6.12 With regard to the comments received from Douglas Borough Council, specifically to the operation of the sign and the proximity to the nearest residential dwelling on Lord Street. This is understandable, and at first floor level the proposed signage would be perpendicular towards a No.26-28 (owned by Douglas Borough Council).
6.13 It would be appropriate to consider whether there will be any adverse impact on the residential amenity / outlook of the occupants of No.26 at first floor level and 28 at ground level. As a guide we can perform a desk top analysis whereby we initially use the 45 degree rule approach to assessing any impact of outlook (para.4.3.2 of the RDG) from proposed 'development' from a neighbouring window. This is a helpful way to ascertain whether the sign would be within the "V" from the centre point of the window. When measured off the plan (dwg No.002), it proves this is not the case and the sign is outside of this field of view which would indicate there would be no particular visual impact.
6.14 Visiting the site and that of No.28 (ground floor) the adjacent room (twin windows) are a bedroom, No.26 (first floor) is a bedroom and living room to the two windows. The main outlook from these windows are out towards the properties across the highway. The existing sign above is not apparent when here (the downlighting at night time is a cause of concern from the occupants of both flats). The centre point of the window is measured as 4.6m to the existing sign / gable end and 7.0m to the window furthest away. When standing at this window and measuring 45 degrees, it is beyond reasonable doubt the sign would not be within this "V" as evidence during the site visit.
6.15 It is further noted, when looking towards the existing sign which is forward of the window, the current sign sits at a higher level, almost the bottom the current sign is level with the top of the window reveal at first floor and not directly perpendicular as one may assume looking up at the sign and the adjacent window from the street. The fixed aspect of the sign would not be considered to be detrimental to the occupant’s outlook any more than the existing.
6.16 Turning to the digital aspect of the screen and its impact on the streetscene and mainly for the occupants of No.26 and 28, the applicants provided further comments to confirm the digital screen will not feature moving images or videos and will be static images similar to the current sign but on a slow rotation of images. The applicants provided further information to say the viewing angles of the sign are 160 degrees vertical and 70 degrees horizontal, which in effect limits the light spill to the sides but offer a wider viewing angle when looking up at the sign. Furthermore, they confirm the display is fitted with a light sensor to control the luminance of the images displayed adjusting to ambient light levels within the environment it is located. The applicant has suggested that the operating hours could coincide with those of the adjoining streetlights. Alternatively the digital signage is able to be dimmable over a wide range of intensities and a night time luminance can be based upon the light levels of the surrounding streetscene normally values between 100-300 cd/mtr2 (night time levels) i.e. no brighter that the general public street lighting.
6.17 On balance, this would be seen to mitigate any perceived overbearing impact from light nuisance and given the current levels of illumination from the downlighter, would be an improvement on the current situation for the use of the adjacent rooms during the hours of night time and would be in accordance with General Policy 6b. This can be further reinforced through appropriate worded condition limiting the hours of operation and luminance levels as proposed by the applicant and as advised by highways services in para 5.2.
(iii) visual impact on the character of the Conservation area 6.18 In terms of whether the proposed digital signage would preserve or enhance in accordance with EP37, the location of the signage to the rear of the application building would not detract from those important architectural merits of the building facing onto Lord Street and Ridgeway Street. It is noted the siting of the sign on the rear elevation similar signs are located
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/00500/D Page 7 of 9
on the Sea-Terminal building, within the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. Whilst these are the same type of signs, given the above paragraphs noting the acceptance to GP6&7, they have become adopted as part of the character of the area. In this context, the replacement size of advert in this specific location on the gable end of the building, is considered to have a neutral impact on the Conservation Area without detracting from those notable features that contribute to the Conservation Areas character appraisals.
(iii) impact on highways 6.19 The main aspect to this proposal is of safety of the users of the highways (pedestrian footpath and carriageway) who may be viewing the proposed sign. It is noted that highways services do not object to the application nor do they consider the proposed signage and media is hazardous to the use of the highway. They do however seek a number of conditions limiting the media or images and brightness levels, as noted in para.5.2.
6.20 The applicants have responded to these 6 points to confirm; there will be no moving images and the screen will be a static digital display; the intervals between "adverts" will be zero with a slow merge or instantaneous change with no visual enhancements during the transition method; the "advert" will not change more than once every 10 seconds; in case of a fault with the screen the default setting is for the screen to go blank; the display is fitted with a light sensor to control the luminance levels of the images displayed, automatically adjusting to ambient light levels within the streetscene; all the displays are guided through the ILP guidance document of PLG05.
6.21 Furthermore the applicant reinforces the point the luminance levels are no brighter than the current light levels in the environment, whether this is daytime or during the evening, in effect, at night-time this will be no brighter than the surrounding street lighting. On this basis and as there is no objection from highways, it is considered the proposal would comply with General Policy 6(c) and would not cause a highway safety hazard.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, the application is recommended for approval as it is considered the proposed digital sign would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties or the highway network and would comply with General Policy 6 a,b,c; General Policy 7 and Environmental Policy 37.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2013 (As Amended), the following persons are automatically interested persons: o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. o the Highways, Ports and Railways divisions of the Department of Infrastructure.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than those explicitly listed above) are material; and __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Refused
Committee Meeting Date: 21.09.2020
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/00500/D Page 8 of 9
Signed : J SINGLETON Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
==== PAGE 9 ====
20/00500/D Page 9 of 9
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 21.09.2020
Application No. : 20/00500/D Applicant : Carrera Digital Ltd Proposal : Installation of digital signboard Site Address : Falcon House 22 - 24 Ridgeway Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 1EL
Senior Planning Officer : Mr Jason Singleton
Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
At the Committee Presentation on 21st September 2020, the Planning Committee elected to decline the Officer recommendation and refused the application on a 4/3 split on grounds;
R.1 "Given the age, structure and design of the buildings it is considered that digital images would not fit with the area and negatively impact the conservation area, contrary to Environment Policy 37 of the Strategic Plan (2016), and as such have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area".
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal