DONCASTER METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 23rd November 2010

Application 1

Application 10/02929/3ADV Application 2nd December 2010 Number: Expiry Date:

Application Application to Display Advs (DMBC Reg 3) Type:

Proposal Display of various non illuminated free standing post mounted Description: sponsorship signs to roundabouts across the borough

At: Various Locations Around The Borough Doncaster South (see list in appendix 1)

For: DMBC

Warmsworth, Cadeby, Third Party None Parish: Stainton, Rossington, Reps: Cantley with Branton, Blaxton, , Edenthorpe, Marr, Barnby Dunn & Kirk Sandall, Armthorpe, Thorne/Moorends, Hatfield Ward: Mexborough, Town Moor, Central, Balby, Wheatley, Sprotbrough, Cantley & Bessacarr, Armthorpe, , Conisbrough & Denaby, Thorne, Rossington, Hatfield

Author of Report Gareth Stent

MAIN RECOMMENDATION: Grant Further Assessment of the Proposal

This application was previously considered at the 23rd November 2010 Planning Committee, where it was deferred in order that the applicants and other interested parties have the opportunity to explore the highway safety implications of the proposal. This was originally intended to take place on the 14th December 2010 committee, however will now take place via a technical briefing to be held on the 8th December at 11.00am. Representatives from Police, Doncaster Council Highway Safety officers and the applicants are invited to present their case.

In addition since the deferral, the applicant (Heather Coulthard: Neighbourhood Manager Bessacarr and Cantley) has written to South Yorkshire police to try and establish how many deaths or accidents have happened in Doncaster regarding drivers reading the signs on roundabouts. The response from Julian Anderson OSS Analyst is attached in full:

“A collision having a causation factor resulting from reading a sign would be classed by the Police Officer as a "Distraction Outside the Vehicle." This is an official Dept. of Transport classification. It is not broken down any further into specific reasons.

To drill down any further would require a manual read of the case files and or incident logs, assuming the collision is recorded / reported to the Police.

It is also worth bearing in mind that it is not really in human nature to admit such errors and if a person was questioned may indicate another reason for the collision. It is also worth noting that slow speed rear end shunts (that may result from read such a sign at a R/about) could be a damage only collision (i.e. no injury) and may never get reported to the police or their insurance company, for that matter. However, this is pure speculation.

I have briefly talked to the Sgt. in the Serious Collision Unit regarding this matter, as he has many years of experience and would be aware of such issues if they arose during an investigation or at trial. He states that in some 22 years he can say he has not come across a collision where a sign was a factor. If it had come out during the investigation that a sign had obstructed the drivers view (slightly different to your question but could be a factor), he would have to indicate this to the court.”

This response can be discussed at the forthcoming committee meeting.

======

1.0 Reason for Report

1.0 The application is required to be presented to committee because it has been submitted by Doncaster Council and is likely to generate significant interest and has objections from statutory consultees.

2.0 Proposal and Background

2.1 The application is for the display of up to 215 non illuminated post mounted sponsorship signs placed within roundabouts and central reservations across the borough. Due to the multiple locations, a single advertisement application has been submitted to cover the entire borough. The signs if approved, will replace several that currently exist within the boroughs roundabouts. The agents and company responsible for making the submission is Immediate Solutions. Immediate Solutions have acted for several other councils on similar advertisement schemes and won the tender to act on the councils behalf to regularise the signage within the borough, make it more efficient and effective. This scheme is not speculative, but part of a strategic programme of works due to be undertaken by the council.

2.2 The submission contains 58 locations within the borough with each having between 2- 8 signs per roundabout/central reservation. Although the general locations of the signs have been shown, the exact position of these signs will need further consideration, and this application is simply to agree the principle of supporting the initiative. The decision will not be issued until these have been agreed.

3.0 Relevant Planning History

None of the existing roundabout signage has had advertisement consent.

4.0 Representations

4.1 Due to the number of sites proposed, the application was advertised in the Doncaster Star on the 14th October 2010. No individual letters of opposition were received.

5.0 Parish Council

5.1 Rossington Parish Council: No observations.

5.2 Edenthorpe Parish Council: Request care is taken in positioning the proposed signs so as not to detract from the attractive flowers beds which make the Edenthorpe Roundabout one of the most attractive in the borough. The neighbourhood manager should be consulted.

5.3 Thorne & Moorends Town Council: Object to the application on the ground of Road Safety. If however permission is granted and the project goes ahead the Council requests a share of the revenue generated by signage within the Parish.

6.0 Relevant Consultations

6.1 DMBC Traffic and Road Safety Engineer: The engineer notes that details of the sign construction, installation methods, and materials used would be useful in order to fully assess the likely road safety implications. It is also queried whether passive safety has been considered, what are the secondary safety implications and how the product is likely to perform when subjected to vehicle impact damage and wind loading. Concern was also raised in regard to the ‘spiked’ post tops.

6.2 The officer noted that some of the proposed locations at roundabouts where opposite each entry arm, generally coinciding with the existing location of the mandatory ‘Turn Left’ signage. The proposed sponsorship sign location must not obstruct these signs, and it is suggested that for consistency and to minimise road safety concerns, these signs should where possible be mounted in line with the existing signs, at a location to the right when viewed from the entry. This ensures that when viewed, the road user is looking towards potentially conflicting circulating traffic coming from the right, rather than looking away from it. 6.3 The highway officer then commented on the individual locations for the signage and highlighted several sites where the number of signs can be reduced and some deleted in order to minimise unnecessary clutter.

6.4 South Yorkshire Police: The consultation response specifically assesses highway safety, and the Traffic officer accepts that the use of this medium has become commonplace in the UK. Some level of control over the number, size, construction and deployment of such signs is, however, necessary. Sign clutter has reached epidemic levels with extraneous signs now detracting from those signs vital to the safety of motorists. It is clear that in drawing up both the sign design and location detail the designer has solely the promotion of the sponsor in mind with little consideration given to road user safety. If these were to be 'road signs', by definition, most of them would be rejected out of hand. Little consideration has been given as to how these will perform in the event of vehicular impact.

6.5 The consultation response urges the designer and the highway authority to take into consideration the weight of research into the effects of roadside furniture in collisions. In the first instance the sign construction is a direct road safety concern. The physical size of the signs presents a danger to anyone coming into contact with them, particularly motorcyclists.

6.6 The height of the signs at many locations restricts drivers’ views of other road users circulating the carriageway. The officer estimated that the upright posts to be approx 150mm square. The potential for serious injury for anyone losing control and colliding with them is significant. Design standards suggest that posts of this diameter should be of a passively safe material when adjacent to high speed roads (50mph and above) unless behind safety fence (crash barrier). There is no detail of the 'set back' distance (min 450mm) from the edge of carriageway; again there is a detailed specification for this to ensure that there is sufficient safety margin.

6.7 The traffic officer has then commented individually on some of the signs, requesting that they be of a passively safe material and in some cases removed from the scheme all together i.e. signs OSR4 & OSR 6 - High level of collisions at this location – Unsuitable location for any non mandatory signage.

6.8 In summary the traffic officer generally considers that the signs are too large a size for most of the locations. On many of them the mandatory signing, chevrons etc preclude the proposals. The highway authority should be aware that in permitting the placing of these signs they could find themselves subject to third party claims from anyone believing the signs to have caused or contributed towards any collision.

6.9 The officer highlights that in the event of a serious incident occurring as a consequence of a road user colliding with these signs, reference will be made to the comments made in respect of the suitability of them, as highlighted in the police consultation response.

6.10 CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural : Objections were raised, suggesting that the signs would disfigure the urban environment and create distracting and therefore dangerous clutter for drivers. They campaign suggests that Doncaster Council should refuse this application, undertake an audit of all its street furniture and remove all extraneous signs. The proposed signs would replace some existing signs, which would deface the public spaces of Doncaster. The slow accretion of small ugly alterations such as those proposed here would be extremely damaging, as the example given demonstrates that the new sign would detract from the brick faced 'Welcome to Doncaster' as it would obscure one of the galloping horses and attract the eye away from 'welcome'.

6.11 The clutter of road signs and furniture already disfigures many of the transport corridors in the Borough and the opportunity should be taken to remove all extraneous signs. An uncluttered high quality environment attracts investment and visitors, and increases citizen well being. No sign should be allowed adjacent to the road unless it fulfils a purpose to manage traffic, increase road safety or provide information about directions. The CPRE state they support South Yorkshire Police’s objection regarding safety issues.

7.0 Relevant Policy and Strategic Context

7.1 Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

7.2 Planning Policy Guidance 19: Outdoor advertisement control

7.3 Doncaster Unitary Development Plan (Adopted July 1998) Policy Ref: ENV 58 – Advertisements

8.0 Planning Issues and Discussion

8.1 The main planning issues for discussion are simply the visual appearance of the proposed signage and the impact upon highway safety. These are always the two fundamental issues when signs are being considered. In terms of the highway impact, consideration must be given to the size, shape and detail of the sign, its positioning, its construction material and its ability to cause distraction.

8.2 Policy ENV 58 states that the borough council will seek to ensure that any existing or proposed advertisement does not detract from amenity or public safety or from the character of the building or local environment.

8.3 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and PPG19: Outdoor advertisement control offer guidance on advertisements and state that they should not cause harm to the visual amenity of the area and to public safety.

Signage Detail

8.4 The signs proposed are generic and follow an approved corporate style. The signs will have a message, for instance ‘Doncaster- going places, Doncaster ' location is everything, Doncaster 'open for business’ followed by a larger promotional space for the sponsors logo. The signs will be free standing, and the specifications are detailed below:

8.5 The signs are proposed to be constructed of aluminium with adhesive vinyl and anti graffiti laminate on the flat panel. None of the signs will be illuminated. As yet the signs have not been commissioned or tendered, therefore wind loading and impact resistance has not been tested. This will be subject to further consideration and will be controlled via condition prior to installation. Appendix 2 shows an example of the current and proposed signage at one of the sites within Doncaster. Appendix 1 shows detail of the shape, layout and dimensions of the proposed signage.

8.6 The signage initiative is to last for ten years and the company responsible for the control of the advertisement panels work in conjunction with the advertising standards authority in that certain adverts are not supported i.e. contraception products, political parties, trade unions, sexual nature, religious nature, race prejudice, gender, age, or support advertisements for the tobacco industry.

Visual Amenity

8.7 The use of such signage is now common place across the UK, with many Local Authorities using such initiatives to generate revenue and to standardise and control advertisement within their respective boroughs. Some signage space is also used to get localised messages across to the public for instance crime awareness, or out of centre parking messages etc. Within Doncaster, several forms of roundabout advertisement currently exist. This scheme aims at standardising the existing signage by removing it and replacing it with this proposed sign. It must be stressed that all of the areas chosen to accommodate the new signs, either currently accommodate existing signage or have been previously agreed to support such initiatives in the past.

8.8 In recent months literature and comments have been circulating (some from central government) about the need to de-clutter our streets and resist unnecessary street furniture and signage. Although this is relevant, it could be argued that the advice is more directly aimed at town centre locations and the over use of directional signs is equally harmful to the quality of the street scene. In this case, it true that the scheme does introduce additional signage, where no signs currently exist, however they are considered of a size and scale so as not to harm to character or visual appearance of the borough. Such initiatives have been accepted across the UK and are now common place across our towns and cites as well as our neighbouring boroughs of Sheffield and Rotherham.

Impact upon the Highway

8.9 The detailed responses from the CPRE and South Yorkshire Police outlined in the consultation section highlight some of the main issues for discussion within this proposal. The general concern is for the addition of unnecessary signage around the road network, its ability to distract or impede other important directional signage. Also consideration is needed to assess how the sign would perform in the event of a crash.

8.10 In dealing with the latter first, due to the sensitivity of this scheme, the agents have yet to commission the construction of the signs and therefore due to its size do not know exactly how it will perform in a crash situation. Such signs are not often hit on roundabouts as the main type of impact at roundabouts is low speed shunts and the central island invariably remains intact. Nevertheless, the agents have commissioned the construction of countless other similar signs all of which have been made from passively safe materials and have been accepted by other councils during similar schemes. Therefore this manufacture detail will be conditioned to ensure that the signs perform safely in the event of being involved in a road traffic accident. 8.11 Secondly is the issue of unnecessary signage. In today’s society advertisement is common place across our roads, rail links and motorways. It is one of many forms of advertisement that have evolved over many years. In an ideal world, there would be little or no advertisement, however, it can be argued that roads in our towns and cities would be duller for it and the population would be less informed. This scheme only utilises sites which either already have signage or ones which were previously earmarked for signage and never developed. Therefore, while the consultees discussion concentrates around unnecessary clutter, this scheme is merely reconfiguring existing signage and in some cases increasing the density of signage. The fall back position is that the vast majority of the signs are already present and would remain so. Therefore there is no real benefit in refusing this proposal. Previously Doncaster Council has not made applications for its older signage, and regularising the situation is part of the reasoning behind this application. The number of signage locations has been reduced as a result of negotiations with the highways officers, and the manufacture detail and exact positioning will agreed in detail prior to the decision being issued. This will address many of the concerns of South Yorkshire Police in respect of the location of individual signage.

8.12 The issue of distraction is the third topic for discussion and centres around the signs ability to distract motorists using the road. South Yorkshire Police has suggested that the highway authority, in allowing these signs to be placed in the highway, could be subject to third party claims form anyone believing the signs to have caused or contributed towards any collision. This is however true for all the existing signs within the borough and in most cases where the council has allowed street furniture to be placed within the highway. Like many council's Doncaster decorates its roundabouts with flowers, raised planters, floral simulations i.e. Robin Hood, the chairs at Bennetthorpe, the Vulcan Bombers at Tudworth, ships and trains, all of which have the ability to cause distraction. The onus and responsibility is always with the driver of the vehicle or cycle to ensure that they concentrate on the road.

8.13 Finally the highway safety perspective needs commenting on, in particular whether the signs impede other signs which the advert regulations prohibit. From the consultation responses it was clear that the original submission highlights this issue. In an attempt to address this, the agents have taken account of the highway officer’s comments and have reduced the number of signs per roundabout and where possible positioned them in places where the exit and entry roads lead nowhere. The exact siting of the signs really needs to be agreed on site, as the general locations of the signs shown on the submission may cause obstruction.

8.14 Due to the large number of signs involved this permission seeks to agree the principle of the initiative and the number of signs per site. If approval is given, the highway engineer can assess each site more closely and agree the exact siting of the signs. This was considered as the most effective method of dealing with this unusually large submission. The notice of decision would only be issued once all the signs were agreed.

9.0 Summary and Conclusion

9.1 In summary the proposed signage will replace and create uniformity across the borough. It is acknowledged that the number of signs will increase, however the size, shape and design of the signs are not considered to cause any significant harm to the character of the borough’s road network or cause undue visual distraction. The signs will be constructed of a passive material and positioned so as not to compromise road safety or impeded the visibility of existing highway signage. Further work will be required on the exact locations of the signs, however this scheme warrants support in principle. The proposal is therefore considered in accordance with ENV 58 of the Unitary Development Plan. Members are advised that the approval will not be issued until the exact siting of all the signs has been agreed.

The above objections, considerations and resulting recommendation have had regard to Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention for Human Rights Act 1998. The recommendation will not interfere with the applicant’s and/or objector’s right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

GRANT Advertisement consent subject to the following conditions, however the decision is not be released until the exact positions of the signage has been agreed.

01. ADVT1 This consent shall expire 5 years from the date of this notice, whereupon the signage shall be removed and any damage repaired, unless further consent to display has been given by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To accord with Regulation 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and for the purposes of amenity and public safety.

02. ADVT2 Any advertisement displayed and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site. REASON To accord with Regulation 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and for the purposes of visual amenity.

03. ADVT3 Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public. REASON To accord with Regulation 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and for the purposes of public safety.

04. ADVT4 Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity. REASON To accord with Regulation 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and for the purposes of public safety and visual amenity.

05. ADVT5 No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission. REASON To accord with Regulation 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

06. ADVT6 No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to - (a) endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military); (b) obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or (c) hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle. REASON To accord with Regulation 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

07. Prior to the signs hereby approved being installed, full details of the manufacture detail, wind loading capabilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The sign shall then be manufactured and maintained in accordance with these details. REASON In the interests of highway safety. Reasons(s) for Granting Planning Permission:

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PERMISSION

The Local Planning Authority has decided to grant planning permission:-

1. Having regard to the policies and proposals in the adopted Doncaster Unitary Development Plan set out below, and all relevant material planning considerations:

Policy Ref: ENV 58 - Advertisements.

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

Planning Policy Guidance 19: Outdoor advertisement control

2. For the following reasons:

Having taken into account all the planning considerations raised in the consultations and representations, against the policy background referred to above, it has been concluded that the proposed signage is acceptable. In particular, the Local Planning Authority is of the view that its accordance with the relevant policies of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan and the advice in the relevant national planning policy guidance.

The proposed signage will increase the amount of signage within the borough, however the size, shape and design of the sign is not considered to cause any significant harm to the character of the borough’s road network and cause undue visual distraction. The signs will be constructed of a passive material and positioned so as not to compromise road safety or impeded the visibility of existing highway signage.

N.B. The foregoing Statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to grant permission. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer's Report and the application case file and associated documents, which may be inspected, by appointment, at the offices of the Development and Planning Service (for address see Decision Notice). Appendix 1: List of roundabout sites

Roundabout location Ref No of signs Adwick Road Roundabout (Mexborough) OS-R-016 3 Armthrope Road/Leger Way Roundabout OS-R-30 4 Asda Petrol Station OS-R-060 2 Ballby Bridge OS-R-061 3 Ballby Carr Bank (By B&Q Depot) OS-R-058 4 Barnby Dun Road/Wheatley Hall Road OS-R-031 4 Roundabout Barnsley Road Motorway Roundabout (Marr) OS-R-023 4 Bawtry Road/Thorne Road Roundabout OS-R-032 4 (Austerfield Manor) Bellrope Acres/Tranmoor Lane Armthorpe OS-R-052 4 Blaxton Roundabout OS-R-033 4 Cantely Lane/Warning Tongue Lane OS-R-035 4 Roundabout Cantley Lane/Goodison Boulevard Roundabout OS-R-034 4 Central Reservation (Bennetthorpe) OS-R-018 5 Church Meadow Road/Brodsworth Way OS-R-036 3 Roundabout (Rossington) Cleveland Street Roundabout OS-R-006 4 Council House Roundabout OS-R-010 3 Denaby Main OS-R-051 3 Gliwice Way Roundabout (McDonalds) OS-R-014 4 Great North Road (Woodlands) OS-R-043 3 Hatfield Lane/West Moor Link Roundabout (2) OS-R-025 4 Herten Way OS-R-059 3 High Road Warmsworth Roundabout OS-R-046 4 Holmes Market Roundabout (Wheatley) OS-R-039 3 Holmewood Lane/M18/West Moor Link OS-R-026 4 Roundabout (4) King Avenue OS-R-065 4 Lady bank Roundabout OS-R-012 5 Lakeside Boulevard/Carolina Way Roundabout OS-R-047 3 Lakeside Boulevard/Gliwice Way Roundabout OS-R-049 3 Lakeside Boulevard/no name Roundabout OS-R-048 2 Lakeside Boulevard/Stadium Way Roundabout OS-R-015 3 Middle Bank Roundabout OS-R-011 5 Nutwell Lane Roundabout OS-R-029 3 Potteric Carr Roundabout (Welcome) OS-R-017 4 Racecourse Roundabout OS-R-007 4 Sandall Park Roundabout OS-R-005 4 Selby Road/M18 Roundabout (Thorne) OS-R-024 5 Shaftsbury Avenue Roundabout (Intake) OS-R-040 3 Shaw Lane Roundabout OS-R-004 4 Shooters Hill DR Broadsworth Way OS-R-064 4 South Parade/Waterdale Junction Raised Flower OS-R-050 2 Bed (both Sides) St George and Dragon OS-R-057 2 St Georges Roundabout OS-R-042 3 St Marys Roundabout OS-R-022 5 St Pauls Roundabout (nr rear Toys R Us) OS-R-013 4 Stainton Lane/Scotch Spring Lane Roundaabout OS-R-037 4 The Sidings Roundabout OS-R-009 4 Thorne Road A18/Hatfield Lane Roundabout (2) OS-R-028 4 Tickhill Road/Woodfield Way Roundabout (1st) OS-R-021 3 Tickhill Way Brodsworth Way OS-R-063 4 Tudworth Roundabout OS-R-001 4 Waterdale/Chequer Road Roundabout (Civic) OS-R-041 4 Wath Road/Mexborough Relief Road OS-R-044 4 Roundabout (Swinton) West Moor Link/Thorne Road Roundabout OS-R-027 4 Sainsburys (1) West Moor Link/West Moor Park Roundabout OS-R-002 4 (Ikea) Woodfield Way Roundabout (2nd) OS-R-019 3 Woodfield Way Unadopted Roundabout (3rd) OS-R-020 2 Woodlands Central Reservation OS-R-054 8 A&B Removed OS-R-038 OS-R-055 Appendix 1: Sign Design

Fig 1: with sample sponsor

Fig 2: Alternative Council ‘messages’ Appendix 2: Example site A6182, White Rose Way

Fig 1. Existing sign

Fig 2. Proposed Replacement