222387

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: 14/00120/D Carrera Digital Ltd Installation of a digital advertising display in ground floor window Queen Victoria House 41 - 43 Victoria Street Douglas Isle Of Man IMl 2LF Site Address: Mr Edmond Riley Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Officer's Report 1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Queen Victoria House, 41-43 Victoria Street, Douglas, which is situated to the south of the one-way highway and within a Conservation Area. The works proposed relate to a corner window facing the highway at ground floor level, which is currently unoccupied. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL The application seeks approval for the erection of a 65 inch television screen, which will show still images for 30-second periods, at which point the advert displayed would change to another still image. The television screen will be on permanently. The agent confirms that the "advertising will be for other businesses rather than their [the applicants'] own, and could range from anything such as tenants of the same building advertising what floor they are on to the likes of the Government advertising up and coming events". The agent further states that no agreement of the specifics can, however, be agreed prior to receipt of advertisement consent. 2.1 It is worth noting the need for this application. While the display of advertisements within buildings is considered to have 'deemed consent' under Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Control of Advertisements Regulations 2005 ("the Regulations"), this consent is subject to three caveats: 2.2 "1. The advertisement may not be illuminated. 2. The building in which the advertisement is displayed is not used principally for the display of advertisements. 3. No part of the advertisement may be within Im of any external door, window, or other opening through which it is visible from outside of the building." Evidently, the proposal would fail against both the first and third caveats. In respect of the second, while the ground floor of Queen Victoria House is currently unoccupied with its windows being used for the display of advertisements, the Regulations go on to clarify that "a 14/00120/D Page 1 of 6 2 June 2014

==== PAGE 2 ====

hoarding or similar structure is to be regarded as a building used principally for the display of advertisements". The applicant has stated in subsequent correspondence that they are happy for a condition to be attached to any consent that may be forthcoming preventing the display from showing full motion video content with flashing images. 2.3 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY Advertisement consent was granted in 2001 (PA 01/00519/D) and 2005 (05/00539/D), both of which related to the Manx Telecom business undertaken in these premises at that time. Roofing works were approved in 2010 (PA 10/00598/B), and this remains the only application for development or advertisement consent submitted since the adoption of the Strategic Plan in 2007. 3.1 It is worth noting that PA 13/01402/D, seeking approval for "Installation of illuminated signage" on a building roughly 60m north of Victoria Street, was refused following a recommendation by a Planning Inspector, who was the appointed person to consider the application on the basis that it was on land owned by the Department of Infrastructure, of which the Planning Authority was (and is) part. That reason for refusal read as follows: 3.2 "Contrary to the objective of General Policy 2(i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the proposed outdoor digital display poster LCD panel would have a harmful impact on highway safety because of its location at the entrance to the car park and the distracting nature of the advertisements that it would display". This decision was not challenged at appeal, 4.0 PLANNING POUCY The application site is within an area zoned as "Area of Predominantly Shopping Use" identified on the Douglas Local Pian 1998. It is also within the Athol Street/Victoria Street Conservation Area. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider General Policies 2, 6 and 7 and Environment Policy 37 of the Strategic Plan. 4.1 General Policy 2 reads (in part): " 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: 4.2 (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. and (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;". General Policy 6 reads: "Within our towns and villages, the display of external advertisements will be permitted on the site or building to which they relate provided they: 4.3 (a) are of a high standard of design and materials 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; and (c) are located so as not to cause a highway safety hazard." 2 June 2014 14/00120/D Page 2 of 6

==== PAGE 3 ====

General Policy 7 reads: "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." 4.4 Environment Policy 37 reads: "As a general policy, advertisements within Conservation Areas will be permitted only if: 4.5 i) The proposal preserves or enhances the Consen/ation Area; The signage is in a style appropriate to the character of the area; Traditional materials and finishes are used and glossy and highly reflective materials are excluded from proposals; and Internally illuminated box fascia and projecting box signs are excluded from the ii) iii) iv) proposals." The Control of Advertisement Regulations 2005 C'the 2005 Regulations") has some useful words at regulation 3(1): 4.6 "3. Powers to be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety The Department shall exercise its powers under these Regulations only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors, and in particular - (1) in the case of amenity, the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest, disregarding, if they think fit, any advertisement being displayed there; (a) (b) in the case of public safety - (i) the safety of any person who may use any road, railway, tramway, harbour or aerodrome; (ii) whether any display of advertisements is likely to obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway or tramway signal or aid to navigation by water or air." 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Douglas Borough Council do not oppose the planning application. 5.1 Highway Services object to the planning application. The Traffic Engineer of that Division states; "This application will result in a large digital display facing oncoming traffic with the express purpose of attracting drivers’ attention. Unlike static signs the display will be moving with the content changing periodically and is therefore more likely to detract a driver’s attention from the highway. The location of the sign on the angled corner of the building places the sign directly in the sightline of drivers travelling down Victoria Street and those emerging from Nelson Street. This location requires drivers to be aware of turning vehicles; there are 3 junctions and on-street car parking in this area as well as a relatively high number of pedestrian movements. 5.2 "Note: These issues would not arise if the advertising was static or if the screen was facing onto Victoria Street". 6.0 ASSESSMENT The application seeks approval for the erection of advertising signage projecting from a ground floor corner window of Queen Victoria House. The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are the impacts upon the character and appearance of the 6.1 Page 3 of 6 14/00120/D 2 June 2014

==== PAGE 4 ====

Conservation Area and the effect on highway safety. Although General Policy 6 and 7 do not directly apply - both refer to advertisements attached externally to the building - it is considered that the thrust of these poiicies are extremeiy reievant. For the same reason, reference is made to Generai Poiicy 2 - this is a poiicy reiating to deveiopment rather than advertisements, but the thrust of that poiicy is reievant. It is aiso noted that a recent and iocai decision made reference to this poiicy. There is iimited guidance on how to assess the merits of eiectronic signage of the nature proposed, especiaiiy so in respect of highways safety. Although it is understood that some guidance exists in the UK, no such guidance has been prepared for an Isie of Man context and, as such, any such guidance couid only be considered to be of iimited use, not ieast since it is understood that much of this UK guidance reiates to city environments, which, evidentiy, would have limited applicability here. Perhaps the best guidance is that outiined in 6.2 As such. Highway Services have taken a perhaps understandabiy precautionary position. Discussion between the appiicant and Highway Services took place on site, and both the applicant and the Traffic Engineer provided feedback to the case officer after this meeting; this feedback was broadiy identicai, with the apparent resuit being to 'agree to disagree', 6.3 Severai site visits were undertaken at different times of the day. The state of the road was at its busiest during iunchtime hours, with a number of distractions/issues to be aware of for drivers of motor vehicies noted in the immediate vicinity. These inciuded; (i) the bend in the highway; (ii) the joining of Victoria Street with Ridgway Street; (iii) the junction with Neison Street; (iv) the junction with the unnamed street connecting Victoria Street and King Street to the south; (v) the presence of parking bays; (vi) the presence of ioading bays; (vii) the presence of taxi bays, and (viii) the presence of disabied parking bays. The addition of a digital visual display here would add a ninth potential distraction for drivers here, which is an often-busy road even if road speeds are generaiiy iow. 6.4 It is further noted that the image dispiayed on each occasion it is passed would likely be different to that previously seen by drivers. While this is true for most static advertising not related to a business name, the continual changeover - every 30 seconds - is more intensive than the change of (for example) billboards on a regular, more infrequent basis. During some of the busier times the application site was viewed, it was evident that the queuing resulting from the various uses/junctions at this point was such as to make it quite likely that drivers would be subject to this changeover while queuing. That the road is also busy with pedestrians crossing from one side to the other makes such distraction even more problematic. 6.5 Consent was sought for a temporary period only. Unfortunately, the agent did not advise as to what that period would be. Temporary consent is useful for several reasons, one of which is using that temporary period to assess the effect of a proposal on the area where its potential impacts are not easily determined at the application stage. It is not considered that such a circumstance applies in this case, however, where there is a serious concern in respect of highways safety on what is a very busy highway with numerous distractions already. As such, it is considered that the application should be refused on the basis of its unduly harmful effect on highway safety having had regard to part (c) of General Policy 6, and also with respect to part (i) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. Reference has also been had to regulation 3(1) of the 2005 Regulations on this point. 6.6 Moving onto the effect of the proposal from a more aesthetic point of view, Generai Policy 7 reads: "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". As noted, while the application proposes adverts other than those relating to the business taking place within the unit (which is, after all, vacant), GP7 relates only to external advertisements, It is 6.7 Page 4 of 6 2 June 2014 14/00120/D

==== PAGE 5 ====

considered reasonable to conclude that the word ''external" refers to externally-viewed, rather than externally-located, advertisements, and that the policy was written in this fashion to differentiate between sites/situations such as those the subject of this report and sites/situations such as football grounds, shopping centres and the like. Environment Policy 37 is dear that consent will be issued to new adverts in Conservation Areas only in certain circumstances. It is considered that the proposal is, on balance, unacceptable from this point of view. The addition of a new piece of advertising here would not in itself be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area here, which is in many ways characterised by significant levels of advertising relating to a relatively vibrant shopping and office street. The materials and size of that proposed, however, reflect poorly on the surrounding area and, while it is perhaps true that tailoring a television screen to better tie in with its surrounding built environment is probably tricky to successfully accomplish, it is considered that insufficient effort has been made to acknowledge the Conservation Area setting. It is perhaps the case that a 65-inch television screen in this location simply cannot be successfully accommodated from a visual point of view; this judgement is reached having regard to the majesty of Queen Victoria House and its location within what is a fairly grand street frontage in the Island's capital. 6.8 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION While it is noted, and welcomed, that the applicants have gone to some effort to ameliorate concerns raised during the application process. However, this effort has not been sufficient to overcome the serious concerns in respect of highway safety and visual impact of the proposal. This conclusion has been reached having had regard to the circumstances of the site as weil as the recent refusal nearby. It is also noted that the issue of highway safety might be far less of a concern should a revised siting of the television screen be proposed - that is, facing onto the pavement rather than the highway - but that this would be unlikely to resolve the other concern in respect of visual impact. 7.1 On this basis, it is recommended that the application be refused due to its unduly harmful effect in respect of highway safety and its failure to adequately reflect its Conservation Area setting. 7.2 8,0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS In line with regulation 9(5) of the Control of Advert Regulations 2005, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits. 8.1 14/00120/D Page 5 of 6 2 June 2014

==== PAGE 6 ====

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused 02.06.2014 Date of Recommendation: Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 : Notes attached to refusals R 1. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed digital advertising display wilt not have an unduly harmful effect in respect of highway safety. This has been determined having had regard to part (c) of General Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. R 2. By virtue of its materials, size and prominence within the streetscene, the proposed digital advertising display would have an unduly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the streetscene, In conflict with Environment Policy 37. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made: Refused Date : Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :... Sarah Corlett Senior PJanning Officer . Signed ... Jennifer GMance Signed ;... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed ;... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management 14/00120/D Page 6 of 6 2 June 2014