Planning inspector rejects digital advertising board for Telford chip shop
A planning inspector has stopped a digital advertising board from being installed next to a chip shop, stating that it would be ‘obtrusive and dominant’.
The proposed electronic board, measuring six metres wide and three metres high, was planned to be installed within the car park of the Crispy Cod in Ketley, Telford – at the junction with Station Road and Waterloo Road.
Applicant Wildstone Estates said that the 48-sheet advertising display would give an opportunity for ‘more creative real time and locally relevant advertising’.
They added that the advertising board would only use static images and be controlled by light sensors influenced by the natural light.
The board was planned to be installed adjacent to the boundary fence of the site, with a tree and hedge screening behind.
Telford & Wrekin Council refused the application due to the ‘position, size and height’ of the proposed advertisement board.
Planning inspector Ben Plenty agreed with the local authority and dismissed the planning appeal stating that it would be a ‘tall feature’ and ‘substantially higher’ than the adjacent fence and chip shop. He concluded that the structure would be ‘obtrusive and dominant’ in the proposed site.
“Being in a predominantly residential area, the large format advertisement would be out of keeping within the suburban context,” Mr Plenty said.
“Despite the presence of local commercial buildings, local buildings are generally two storeys in this suburban setting. As a result, the proposed advertisement would be a strident addition to the street.”
When initially refusing the application Telford & Wrekin Council said that the advertising board would create ‘an unacceptable level of visual clutter’ due to existing signs being in close proximity.
In response the applicant said that the site was an ‘established location for advertising signage’.
The government’s planning inspector disagreed with the applicant’s view.
He added: “The signage associated with the adjacent takeaway and other local commercial/community uses is relatively subtle and relates to specific business requirements.
“Therefore, whilst not resulting in proliferation or visual clutter, the proposed advertisement would degrade the appearance of the site due to its scale and prominence.
“Moreover, regardless of the setting of the sequential display and the intensity of illumination, the proposal would harm the visual amenity of the area.”
Mr Plenty also commented that the proposed digital advertising board would not ‘blend in’ with the streetlights around the site and would instead be a ‘solid and large form’ of illumination.
“The attention that would be drawn to the advertisement would make it more apparent due to its illuminated nature, in combination with its height and scale, causing conflict with the character and appearance of the area,” he concluded.
“The benefits of the proposed advertisement, including the ability to broadcast emergency messaging and the opportunity to use void periods for non-commercial campaigns, would not outweigh the identified harm to the amenity of the area.
“Moreover, the noted reduction in the quantity of 48sheet advertisements across the country shows a general trend of reduction, this does not establish a clear reason to support such a feature on the appeal site.”
