Bad News: Sunderland’s appeal was dismissed by Council.

The decision is related to a site near the Sea Road shops in the Fulwell district, where proposals for a “illuminated 48-sheet digital advertisement display” were previously submitted. The sign was proposed at the rear of the business complex, which houses a Hays Travel branch and many other retail shops, and would have been visible to anyone approaching the junction of Dene Lane and Sea Road. Sunderland City Council rejected plans for the gable wall at 2-4 Sea Road in May 2024, citing concerns over the digital billboard’s size and visual impact.

The ad was notable “by virtue of its design, size and siting, appearing extremely prominent at this location and introducing a highly visible and incongruous feature into the street scene to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area” . Applicant Alight Media later filed an appeal against the council’s refusal, and the Secretary of State assigned a planning inspector to rule on the case. The planning inspector has now issued a determination report that upholds the council rejection decision and dismisses the appeal.

According to previously submitted planning documents, the sign would have been six metres wide and three metres tall, with displays of static text and/or pictures changing with each advertisement. The planned advertisement position is near a junction and businesses, but does not address Sea Road due to its location on the rear wall of a property facing the opposite direction, according to the appeal decision report. It was stated that the advertisement should instead be “directed towards roads which are generally lined by residential properties and towards an area which exhibits a quite verdant character owing to the presence of mature trees and pockets of open space”.

According to the planning inspector, the advertising sign would be “much larger” and “out of scale with the advertisements which prevail in the area”. The appeal decision report added: “Despite the lighting established in the area, and even though the images to be displayed by the advertisement would be static, given its size and its digital illuminated nature, the proposed advertisement would nonetheless form a forceful and strident feature within the street scene.” “Within its specific setting, the plan would be incongruous and harmfully dissonant with the surrounding residential properties and soft landscaping.

“For these reasons, and even though the site is not within an area of special advertisement control nor forms a part of, or is adjacent to, any designated heritage assets, the advert would fail to assimilate into its surroundings and [would] unacceptably harm the visual amenity of the area.” The planning inspector noted that a “traditional paper and paste type display” had been based at the location some 15 years ago, but that specifics of this advertisement were not provided, “limiting [the] ability to draw accurate comparisons”. According to comments in the appeal decision report, the planning inspector was “confident that its visual effects would have been considerably different to the digital advert proposed” and “unlikely to have exhibited the same stridency”.

Despite the appellant’s provision of examples of other digital advertisements from Sunderland locations such as Southwick Road, Peacock Street, Western Hill, and a display on the multi-storey car park at Farringdon Row, the planning inspector determined that the cited advertisements had “limited weight” in the decision for 2-4 Sea Road. It was additionally submitted that there were “clear differences between the setting of the appeal site and the settings of the other cited sites, and different effects would be wrought by the proposal” . The appeal judgment report further said that “the consideration of advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety.”

The proposed advertisement’s technological advancements and high build quality, as well as its contribution to business and the economy, do not influence my decision. The appeal judgment report was published on October 18, 2024, and can be accessed through the national Planning Inspectorate website.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*