External Planning Advisor Advice

Advice To The Council Of Ministers, Isle Of Man ### Case Ref: Df13/0042 - Installation Of Illuminated Signage, Car Park Drumgold Street Douglas ### Introduction 1. As External Planning Advisor I am requested to provide the Council of Ministers with advice in respect of the Inspector's report into an application for the installation of illuminated signage at the Drumgold Street Car Park, Douglas. Advice is sought, in particular, on: - whether refusal of the application would prejudice further opportunities for the installation of illuminated advertising signage at other locations; and - whether further conditions might be imposed to mitigate the road safety concerns along with measures to limit any detrimental impact on the appearance of the building. 2. As I have indicated previously, it is not my role to substitute my judgement for those of the Planning Inspector who has reported on the case. My advice is limited to answering questions from COMIN to assist them in reaching a decision based on the Inspector's recommendations. ### Background 3. The case concerns an application for Advertisement Consent to the erection of an illuminated sign within the vehicular entrance to the Drumgold Street multistorey car park. 4. The Planning Inspector identified two main issues in relation to this application: the visual effect of the proposed advertisement on the amenity of the surroundings (including the nearby Conservation Area); and its impact on highway safety. The Inspector has recommended that the application be refused for the following reason: "Contrary to the objective of General Policy 2(i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the proposed outdoor digital poster LCD panel would have a harmful effect on highway safety because of its location at the entrance of the car park and the distracting nature of the advertisements that it would display." Policy 5. The main policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan relevant to this application are: General Policy 2 (i) - development will normally be permitted provided that it "does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways"; General Policy 7 - "the display of external advertisements on sites and buildings other than those to which they relate will not generally be permitted". The Department of Infrastructure [Highways Division] objected to the proposal having regard to General Policy 2(i), in particular the unacceptable impact on road safety. ## Consideration 6. The first matter on which advice is sought is whether refusal of the application would prejudice further opportunities for the installation of illuminated advertising signage at other locations. 7. Whilst it is important that planning decisions are taken on a consistent basis, it is an established principal of the planning system that every planning decision must be taken on the merits of the individual case. The fact that previous cases have been decided in a particular way does not generally create a precedent for others. In this case the Inspector has recommended refusal for reasons directly linked to the particular circumstances of this application. 8. Even if the above were not the position, it is difficult to see how a decision to refuse permission in this case could be construed as prejudicing similar applications in other locations when it would merely be implementing an established policy, which would also apply in those other cases. The loM Strategic Plan makes clear that in determining applications regard should be had to the provisions of the development plan and all other material considerations. This application is proposed to be located on a building to which it does not relate so it would be contrary to General Policy 7. That policy does allow for exceptions ("will not generally be permitted"). However, neither the application itself, nor the Inspector's report, identifies any special reason for departing from policy in this case. The Inspector has clearly taken General Policy 7 into account (para 15 of report) even though she has not recommended that this be given as a reason for refusal. 9. The request for advice "...would prejudice further opportunities..." rather implies that Ministers would like to see more of this type of development (ie signs on buildings to which they do not relate). If that is the case the first step must be to amend the policy in the Strategic Plan. 10. The second matter on which advice is sought is whether further conditions might be imposed to mitigate the road safety concerns along with measures to limit any detrimental impact on the appearance of the building. 11. The Inspector says (report para 13) that: "Drivers negotiating the entrance ramp would pass close to the screen and its ever-changing display of text and pictures. It would be an eye-catching distraction at a point where drivers' attention should be focused on making a safe entry into the car park. It is likely that the text on the screen would be too small to be read easily from a moving vehicle. Drivers might be tempted to stop or slow down in order to look more carefully. If there was another vehicle following close behind, as often happens in a multi-storey car park, a collision could result." The Inspector clearly agrees with the objection made by the Department of Infrastructure [Highways Division]. 12. It is difficult to see what conditions could be imposed to mitigate the road safety concerns. The display is designed to be "eye-catching" and to be located in a position where it will be seen by motorists driving into the building. It would seem perverse to allow the application on condition that, say, some sort of screening is provided so that it cannot be seen from the cars. Similarly, control of the content of the advertisements, eg requiring large text (if that is possible), would not altogether remove the danger because the content of the screen will be changing continuously and there would still be scope for drivers to be distracted as the screen changed. If Ministers wish to approve the application they will simply have to disagree with the Inspector and conclude that there is no risk to highway safety, contrary to the evidence submitted by the Highways Division. 13. As regards limiting the detrimental impact on the appearance of the building, I note that the Inspector finds that the proposed sign, because of its location, would not be prominent in the street scene and that the character and appearance of the nearby conservation area would be preserved. In the circumstances it does not seem that there would be any detrimental impact on the appearance of the building and therefore no condition is required if Ministers decide to approve the application. 14. On the contrary, if Ministers wish to disagree with the Inspector and consider that there is a detrimental impact on the appearance of the building, then the right course would be to refuse the application on those grounds. It is difficult to see what condition could be imposed on a digital LCD screen to change its appearance. The only option would be to find an alternative location, and that would be such a fundamental change as to require a new application. ## Conclusions 15. My conclusions are as follows: (i) a decision to refuse permission in this case will not prejudice similar developments elsewhere. Individual decisions do not generally set a precedent for others. Any similar case should be determined having regard to the policy in the Strategic Plan; (ii) I cannot suggest any condition that could be applied to a grant of permission that could effectively remove the risk to road safety; (iii) there would not appear to be a detrimental impact on the appearance of the building so no condition is necessary to limit this. Mike Ash External Planning Advisor 21 February 2014