Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91358/D
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91358/D Applicant : Align4Life Proposal : Installation of illuminated signage board Site Address : 1 Lake Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AF
Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 05.06.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal digital size due to its location, height, size and nits would have a detrimental impact on the outlook of the principle rooms of apartment No.'s 5, 13, 14, and especially to apartment No. 6, which only has two windows facing North for their outlook from their principle room. As such, the proposal is deemed to have a light pollution impact to the above apartments above and beyond what would normally be in situ and with this in mind the proposal would not be considered to comply with General Policy 2 (g) and Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
__ Interested Person Status
None __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is situated within the curtilage of 1 Lake Road, Douglas which is a detach two storey property situated to the East of Lake Road. The site is bounded to the North with a car parking area and a distillery, to the East there is a rear access, to the South the site is bounded with a block of apartments, and some apartments, which are under constructions and to the West a car parking area.
1.2 Due to the surrounding streetscene there is streetlights situated at regular intervals, which provide low level lighting.
THE PROPOSAL
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91358/D
Page 2 of 7
2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a digital signboard to be situated upon the North Western side of the property, approximately 2.12m above ground level, which is to measure 3.84m by 2.88m, whilst a technical specification has been provided with the application, this does not include how the proposed signage is to be attached to the wall nor the proposed width of the proposed signage.
2.2 The applicants have confirmed that the screen would not contain moving images or animation but would be still images without flashing lights, that the advertisements would be only Align 4 Life businesses and services and the proposed display would be from 7.30am to 10.30pm daily.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Mixed Use Area 8a" on the Area Plan for the East, Map 5 - Douglas Central. The site is not within a Conservation Area, but is adjacent to a Conservation Area, and is situated within a High Risk Flood Zone (River and Tidal area).
3.2 AREA PLAN FOR THE EAST 3.2.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area designated as 'Mixed Use Proposals' and Riverside Gateway '8b' on Map 5 Douglas Town Centre. The written statement notes; "Mixed Use Proposal 8b; There will be continued support for existing uses in the short-medium term. Consideration will be given to the comprehensive re-development of the area for leisure, retail warehouse (bulky goods) uses. Any redevelopment would be subject to master-planning and would include a flood-risk assessment, pedestrian and cycle links and environmental enhancement alongside the River Glass and a highway impact assessment. Residential and office uses may be appropriate on upper floors. Comparison goods retailing will not generally be supported".
3.3 CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENT REGULATIONS 2013 3.3.1 The Control of Advertisements Regulations 2013 make it clear that the only considerations which can be applied to application to applications made under then are in the interests of amenity and public safety. In the case of amenity, such things as the general characterises of the area need to be taken into account along with the presence of any features or 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.
3.4 ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016 3.4.1 Turning towards the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are relevant to the assessment of this application, General Policy 2 which sets out general development standards, General Policy 6 which sets out what is expected for the display of external advertisements and General policy 7 which sets out that the display of adverts must be in relation to the site they are situated upon, Environment Policy 22 which seeks that the amenity of nearby properties will not be harmed in terms of iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution and Environment Policy 38 which seeks that advertisements close to Conservation Areas must respect and preserve the character and appearance of the area to ensure that views into and out of the Conservation Area are protected.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been subject to previous applications of which the most relevant would be PA10/01111/C which was for "Change of use of retail and health clinic to provide orthotics, podiatry and other foot/ hand treatments" which was permitted.
4.2 There have also been several digital signboards approved in recent years, such as the ones below;
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91358/D
Page 3 of 7
PA22/00115/D - Installation of digital advertising display, 5 South Quay, Douglas. Approved at Planning Committee, "The application is recommended for approval as it is considered the proposed digital sign would not harm the character of the area or the highway network and would comply with General Policy 6 a, b,c and General Policy 7."
PA20/01481/D - Replacement of an existing large static illuminated advertising signage with a large freestanding Digital Media LED advertising sign, Junction of Pulrose Road and Peel Road, Hills Meadow. Approved at Planning Committee, "The application is recommended for approval as it is considered the proposed digital sign would not harm the character of the area or the highway network and would comply with General Policy 6 a, b, c and General Policy 7."
PA20/00500/D - Installation of digital signboard, 22 - 24 Ridgeway Street. Approved at Appeal, "For the above reasons, I consider that the appeal should be allowed, and that express consent should be granted. At the inquiry, there was agreement between the Planning Authority and the Appellants that, if express consent were to be granted, it would be appropriate to impose a number of conditions, many of which had previously be suggested by Highway Services in the interests of road safety, or were otherwise necessary in the interests of amenity. I concur that such conditions should be imposed".
PA16/00949/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.
PA16/01024/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.
PA12/00604/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.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the application (16.12.24) and state in part the following, "The proposal is acceptable in highway terms with its position and size unlikely to cause disruption or an obstruction to road users. There is space to park for the erection, sign maintenance and eventual dismantling. The proposed sign operation and images should be controlled by conditions in interests of highway and public safety plus visual amenity as requested below. It may be appropriate to restrict its operating times for amenity reasons as suggested below to." HDC have suggested conditions relating to moving images, transition of images, cycle time of images, fail safe mechanism, light sensor, luminance level and optional - restriction on hours.
5.3 Douglas Corporation have considered the application (23.12.24) and state the following, "Council officers have now had the opportunity to review the above planning application and although the Council is not raising an objection against the proposal, we would kindly ask for the following to be considered prior to any decision being made. Operational hours of the signage. The application does not appear to include any information relating to its hours of operation. It is recognised that the screen is unlikely to have an impact
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91358/D
Page 4 of 7
on the existing residential properties in the area however this may change should the Lake Road Riverside Development proceed. The location of the screen could potentially have a negative impact on some of the residents within the new development. Should the application be approved, we would kindly ask for consideration to be give to the hours of operation to reduce impact on the future residential developments in the area."
5.3.1 Revised information regarding the proposed hours of operation were received on the 3/02/25, of which Douglas Corporation were re-consulted on the 4.02.25, to which no further reply has been received at the time of writing this report.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.2 PRINCIPLE OF SIGNAGE 6.2.1 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan is explicitly clear through its policies (General Policy 6 & 7) in how it expects applications for advertisements to be considered. In that those adverts should relate to the specific uses of the building, which they are to be 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.
6.2.2 With regards to the above policies, initially there was no information provided upon the application on what was to be advertised on the proposed signage, as such further information on this was requested. The applicant responded and has confirmed that the advertising will be displaying Align 4 Life business and services. In applying the above to the application site, the emergence of digital advertising that has been approved are relevant.
6.2.3 When looking at the digital advertisement board approved under PA16/00949/D, at 44 Stand Street. The inspector, in their report at paragraph 41, deviated from the planning policies (General Policy 6 & 7) on the basis, that 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 common use elsewhere and would thus comply with General Policy 6. 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 hose building. At the same time GP7 appears to be in some conflict with the prevailing Regulation 5 of the Control of Advisement Regulations."
6.2.4 When looking at the digital advertisement board approved under PA16/01024/D, at Skanco Court. The inspection, in their report at paragraph 13 summarised, "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."
6.2.5 The considerations above bring forward the concern that General Policy 7 is in conflict with Regulation 5(3) of the Control of Advertisement Regulations 2013, whilst the applicant has confirmed that the proposed signage will be advertising the existing building (Align 4 Life) business and services, it has been previously been interpreted that the policy is not written in absolute terms and a degree of leniency in the past has been allowed.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91358/D
Page 5 of 7
6.2.6 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. The proposal is already accepted as a form of advertising media, evidence within Douglas and would be considered to have a neutral visual impact.
6.2.7 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.
6.3 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.3.1 Turning towards whether the proposal would have an impact on the neighbouring amenity of the surrounding properties. When looking at the site, its situated within a part industrial area, with the Tesco superstore being situated to the West of the site and a pub and distillery to the North and East and partly in a residential environment with apartment blocks being situated to the South of the site, with the Quay West Apartments already being constructed and newer apartments to the South West of the site currently under construction.
6.3.2 With the above in mind it would be appropriate to consider whether there would be any adverse impacts on the residential amenity/ outlook of the occupants of the already built and currently in construction phase apartments to the South of the site. Due to the proposal being set forward of the already built apartments, it's deemed that there would not be an impact to these properties. Turning towards the already built apartments, there are several properties which would be within line of sight of the proposed signage.
6.3.3 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 (paragraph 4.3.2 of The Residential Design Guide), which is drawn from the centre point of the closest relevant window within the apartment block to the proposal. This is a helpful way to ascertain whether the sign would be within the "v" from the centre point of the window.
6.3.4 Due to the way the apartments are being constructed with the elevation facing onto the proposed digital signage it's relevant to note that the ground floor level of the apartment block is not at the roadside level, and that each apartment is provided with a balcony and window facing North, towards the site. It is noted that the higher up the apartment block, the less light would be provided, as such Level 1, 2 and 3 have been looked at.
6.3.5 Having looked at the floor plans provided within PA24/00310/B it can be seen that the windows and balconies facing onto the application site are the main living area (open plan kitchen/ dining/ lounge), of the one bedroomed apartments. Of which the kitchen/ dining/ lounge is counted as a Primary Habitable room within the Residential Design Guidance. It's especially relevant to note that out of all the apartments which face onto the application site, Apartment 6 based on level 1 of the apartment block only has a window and balcony which faces onto the application site and no additional viewpoints, as other apartments have either a balcony or window situated to the East and West of the apartments.
6.3.6 When measured of the plan A_PL_161 of PA24/00310/B, the proposal would be situated directly within the "V" as evidenced from the 45 degree angle test for apartments 6, 14 and 21, with the proposal being situated just slightly within the 45 degree angle test for apartments 5, 13 and 22.
6.3.7 Whilst it is noted that the proposal is approximately 22m to 25m away from the above apartments, the nits for the proposed digital sign has been given at 9500 nits (a unit of luminance, which is the brightness of a display), which when changed to lux, is approximately 29,822 lux (a unit of illuminance, which is the amount of light that falls on a surface). When
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91358/D
Page 6 of 7
understanding how bright the proposed digital screen is, a representation of different light levels needs to be provided, of which a well lit office is approximately 500, a family living room is approximately 120, street lighting is approximately 15, an overcast day is approximately 1000 to 5000, a ambient day is approximately 10000 to 25000 and a British summer day is approximately 50000.
6.3.8 To put the above in context the digital signage approved under PA22/00115/D, for No.5 South Quay had a nits rating of 6,500 nits and the digital signage approved under PA20/01481/D, for the Junction of Pulrose Road and Peel Road had a nits rating of 6,000.
6.3.9 When looking at the above and noting that the proposal is approximately 3,000 nits more, it is understandable that such a display would be quite bright depending on the time of day/ what type of day it is, of which the impact from the proposal to the neighbouring apartments, especially apartment No.6, which has its outlook out of the two windows to the North only, which will directly face the proposal. Add on the fact that the proposal is to have a 160 degree viewing and is to be on from 7.30am to 11.30pm, the impact from light pollution which in turn will create an overbearing impact would be substantial.
6.3.10 With the above in mind the proposal would not comply with General Policy 2 (g) nor Environment Policy 22.
6.4 IMPACT ON CHARACTER OF THE AREA 6.4.1 When looking at the character of the area and the existing Conservation Area, and whether the proposal would impact it, it should be noted that with regards to the character of the area, the signage will only be visible to the general public who drives past the site on the way to and away from the Tesco Superstore, the roundabout at Lake Road and when travelling on the Isle of Man Railway, for a short period of time at the station and the station car park/ car parks surrounding the site.
6.4.2 The overall context of the area is mixed use, with the industrial feel of the car parking and warehousing mixed with the modern apartment blocks already built and to be built. Given this part of Douglas is being regenerated with modern buildings, and that the site is designated as mixed use on balance the placement of a digital sign would not be altering the use of the site and would be in keeping with the character of the area and ultimately would not detract from the surrounding area, including the Conservation Area.
6.5 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY 6.5.1 Turning towards whether the proposal would have an impact on the safety of the users of the highways (pedestrian footpath and carriageway) who may be viewing the proposed sign. Highway Services have considered the application and as the professional with regards to highway safety do not object to the application subject to several conditions relating to moving images, transition of images, cycle time of images, fail safe mechanism, light sensor, luminance level and optional - restriction on hours.
6.5.2 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.
CONCLUSION 7.1 Ultimately on balance, whilst the overall principle of a sign within this site is acceptable, and Highway Services have not raised any objections, the neighbouring properties do need to be accounted for, which due to the location, height, size and nits of the proposal would have an impact on their outlook from their main principle rooms. This is especially exacerbated for Apartment 6, which only has two windows within their property from the main principle rooms which will face onto the proposed digital sign.
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91358/D
Page 7 of 7
7.2 For the above reasons, the application is recommended refusal and is not considered to comply with General Policy 2 (g) and Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
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 o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status, and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 05.06.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal