APPEAL: AP13/0110 PLANNING APPLICATION: 13/01015/D

Report on a Planning Appeal being dealt with by the written procedure

Site inspection: 20 January 2014

Appeal made by Hartford Homes Ltd against the decline of consent for the erection of advertising signage on land at Westham, Arbory Road, Castletown.

The site and its surroundings

1. Planning approval has recently been granted for the erection of a large contemporary dwelling (PA12/00883/B) on land adjacent to Westham, a detached property, on the north side of Arbory Road. The site is connected to Arbory Road by a shared driveway. To the west is Buchan School, to the north is a field, and to the east and south are residential areas.

The proposed sign

2. For a temporary period of 18 months the appellant proposes to erect a 3m x 2.4m sign. It would be mounted on timber supports so that it was clearly visible above the site's walled boundary that faces towards Buchan School. The top of the sign would be 4.9m above ground level. At its closest, the driveway to the school would be about 6m from the sign. There are trees on the intervening grass verge and within the site itself. The sign would advertise the dwelling that is going to be built. The top portion would be an artist's impression, the middle portion would say "Stunning New Homes Island Wide", and the lower portion would give the appellant's name and contact details. The graphics would be printed onto exterior grade white vinyl with a protective over-laminate.

The case for the Planning Authority

3. General Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IoMSP) establishes that external advertisements will be permitted provided they satisfy various criteria. Criterion (a) relates to the advertisement's design and materials, criterion (b) requires it to be in keeping with, and not detract from, the surrounding area, and criterion (c) says it must not cause a highway safety hazard.

4. The Highways Division has not objected.

5. Contrary to the Case Officer's recommendation, the Planning Committee refused Advertisement Consent. The reason for refusal states: The proposed signage would be a large, intrusive and unattractive feature deliberately facing private land and thereby injurious to the amenity of the Buchan School.

Castletown Commissioners

6. The Commissioners object because they feel that the sign is too large and inappropriate for its surroundings.

King William's College, the owners of Buchan School

7. The College objects on the basis that the driveway to the school is a busy thoroughfare used by parents on a daily basis for delivering and collecting their children. The sign would be an obvious distraction. It would also be unsightly and would not sit well within the landscaped grounds of the school. Furthermore, it

Appeal: AP13/0110 Planning Application: 13/01015/D

would be inappropriate and intrusive to have a marketing sign for the dwelling facing onto the private land of the school. Presumably the developers hope to attract a potential buyer from amongst those who use the driveway to visit the school.

The case for the appellant

8. The sign would not be unattractive. In common with other signs for developments of this type, it would describe the dwelling that is going to be built and give potential buyers the necessary details so that they can obtain more information.
9. Various locations were considered for the sign, including the road frontage at the end of the shared driveway to the site. However, this idea was rejected on the grounds that it would not be in keeping with the street scene in Arbory Road because of the large number of roadside trees. It was therefore decided that the best location would be above the wall along the site's western boundary. Despite its distance from Arbory Road the sign would still be visible to passers-by, and the canopies of nearby trees would lessen any perceived intrusive impact.
10. It is acknowledged that drivers and pedestrians using the private driveway to Buchan School would be nearer to the sign than drivers and pedestrians on the public highway. But, because of the frequency of school journeys, users of the driveway would quickly become de-sensitised to the sign's presence. In any case, the sign is unlikely to have a greater visual impact than the dwelling that is going to be built on the site.
11. The appellant is confident that the dwelling will be sold in the very near future. Once a sale has been secured the temporary sign would be removed.

Inspector's assessment

12. I consider that the main issues in this appeal are, firstly, the effect of the proposed sign on the amenity of the surrounding area; and, secondly, its impact on highway safety.
13. The sign would be seen in the context of the school's landscaped grounds. Notwithstanding the presence of nearby trees, I consider that its 4.9 m height and 7.2 \mathrm{~m}^{2} coloured display area would look unduly large and intrusive in this seminatural and attractive part of Castletown. It would also look incongruous, not least because of its location some 40 m away from Arbory Road, the nearest public highway. I have therefore reached the view that the proposed sign would detract from the surrounding area, thereby failing to satisfy criterion (b) of General Policy 6 of the IoMSP.
14. So far as highway safety is concerned, I consider that the sign's 40 m distance from Arbory Road would mean that it would not be a dangerous distraction to drivers on the public highway. Furthermore, driving speeds on Buchan School's driveway are slow, and journeys so frequent that, despite the proximity of the sign, I anticipate that it would quickly become a commonplace feature and would not have a materially adverse effect on safety. Criterion (c) of General Policy 6 is therefore satisfied.

Conclusion

15. Notwithstanding my favourable findings about highway safety, on balance I find the sign to be unacceptable because of the detrimental visual effect that it would have on its surroundings.

16. I have taken into account all other matters, including the fact that the sign would be in place for a temporary period only. However, this does not persuade me that its visual shortcomings should be disregarded. Furthermore, I am not convinced that all possible options for the marketing of this development have been fully explored.

17. I therefore conclude that the Planning Authority's decision to refuse the application should be upheld. However, if the Minister were to take an opposite view and grant consent, I have supplied a list of conditions at the end of my Report that I suggest should be attached to the decision notice.

Recommendation

18. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the Planning Committee's decision to refuse the application for express consent to erect an advertisement.

Ruth V MacKenzie BA(Hons) MRTPI Independent Inspector

30 January 2014

Recommended conditions in the event that the Minister decides to grant consent:

1. The advertisement hereby granted consent shall be erected before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

2. The advertisement hereby granted consent shall be erected in full accordance with Drwg Nos 003 and 004 received on 22 August 2013, and Drwg Nos 001 and 002 received on 11 September 2013.

3. The advertisement shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its original state within 18 months from the date of this notice, or upon the sale of the dwelling that it advertises, whichever is the sooner.