I am writing on behalf of Calton Community Council (CCC) regarding application 26/01967/ADV for the erection of one freestanding digital advertising hoarding at 122 Duke Street. Having reviewed the full application documents for both 26/01967/ADV and the neighbouring application 26/01854/ADV, CCC objects to 26/01967/ADV as submitted.
The complete application packs establish that these are two separate applications for two separate neighbouring advertising positions. Application 26/01854/ADV, submitted by JCDecaux, relates to the existing eastern hoarding on the south side of Duke Street. It seeks to retain the existing single-leg cantilevered structure and renew the earlier consent for a single-sided digital 48-sheet display, with the applicant stating that its size, position and orientation would not change.
Application 26/01967/ADV is materially different. It is submitted on behalf of Wildstone Estates Limited for an additional freestanding 6m by 3m digital D-Poster on the neighbouring western site at 122 Duke Street. The Wildstone supporting statement expressly distinguishes its site from the adjacent site to the east, which it confirms has hosted another advertising panel since at least July 2008. The existing and proposed elevation drawing for 26/01967/ADV also shows no current panel at the Wildstone position and a new digital structure in the proposed elevation.
The consequence is that, if both live applications are approved and implemented, this stretch of Duke Street could contain two separate large-format digital advertising hoardings beside one another. That cumulative position must be assessed expressly. It would be misleading to consider 26/01967/ADV merely as the replacement or modernisation of the existing JCDecaux display because it would add a second digital structure at a neighbouring position.
CCC acknowledges the operational controls proposed by Wildstone. The panel would display static advertisements for a minimum of ten seconds, use ambient-light sensors, be limited to 300 cd/m² during the hours of darkness, and default to a blank or black screen in the event of malfunction. We also recognise that digital operation may reduce reposting vehicle trips. These controls are relevant, but they do not remove the cumulative amenity and placemaking effects of authorising two substantial digital displays in close proximity.
The Wildstone submission itself states that advertisement control should take account of cumulative impacts and promotes digital conversion as a means of consolidating multi-panel sites, reducing the overall number of panels and removing clutter. The site-specific outcome here appears to point in the opposite direction: the Wildstone proposal would sit beside the separate JCDecaux digital proposal rather than replace it. Planning should therefore assess the combined visual presence, illumination, frequency of changing advertisements and effect on the street scene of both displays operating together.
The emerging residential context also remains central. As set out in CCC’s representation on 26/01854/ADV, the Proposed City Development Plan 2 identifies the land directly behind or adjoining the hoardings under site reference CfS240327 for twelve new houses. Granting a further five-year digital consent for an additional panel would intensify the potential conflict with future residential development, including cumulative light spill, outlook and visual amenity, and could complicate the delivery and marketability of much-needed housing on this brownfield land.
The applicant’s amenity assessment concentrates on the existing position, identifying current residential properties approximately 20 metres away and relying on orientation, intervening landscaping and illumination controls. It does not adequately address the combined effect of two neighbouring digital hoardings on the prospective housing site during the five-year consent period. This is a materially changed planning circumstance which requires more than reliance on the historic presence of advertising in the area.
There is also a wider placemaking concern. CCC accepts that the applicants have advanced public-safety cases and that the Avenues Plus works provide improved conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. Our principal concern is not a generic allegation of road danger. It is whether adding a second large digital advertising installation is compatible with the Council’s regeneration and public-realm ambitions for Duke Street and whether it would create avoidable cumulative advertising clutter at a location intended to move towards a more residential and people-focused character.
CCC therefore asks that application 26/01967/ADV be refused. The proposal is for an additional digital hoarding, not simply the renewal of the existing eastern display, and the cumulative amenity, illumination, placemaking and future residential impacts of the two applications have not been satisfactorily resolved.
If officers are nevertheless minded to grant consent, CCC asks that determination should not take place without a coordinated assessment of 26/01967/ADV and 26/01854/ADV. Any consent should be materially shorter than five years and should include a robust and enforceable cessation and removal mechanism linked to commencement of residential redevelopment on site CfS240327. It should also secure the proposed controls on luminance, display duration, transitions and malfunction.
We would be grateful if you could confirm that the two applications are being assessed as neighbouring but separate advertising positions, and that their cumulative impacts will be considered before either application is determined.