Application Details

Reference 18/06208/A
Address Land Adjacent To 1 Malago Road Sheene Road Bristol BS3 4EG  
Proposal Replacement of existing screen with LED Digital Smartscreen.
Validated 28-11-18
Type Advertisement
Status Decided
Standard Consultation Expiry 29-01-19
Determination Deadline 23-01-19
Decision REFUSED
Decision Issued 28-02-19
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 59  Unstated: 1  Total: 60
No. of Page Views 154

TBS response:

We are totally opposed to electronic advertising billboards which are an ugly intrusion within the urban environment, a distraction to drivers as well as being totally unnecessary. Even though this project is outside our area, we therefore strongly recommended refusal of this application, and submitted a public comment OBJECTing.

See also http://pp.bishopstonsociety.org.uk/Planning/application/PJ2F5YDNGQH00

Public Comments

Ms Loz Samuels 29 MIVART STREET BRISTOL   OBJECT

Illuminated advertisements are particularly invasive, they add to light pollution, they arevery difficult to ignore for pedestrians and have a much longer eye dwell time for drivers meaningthey are a significant distraction. There is a constant pressure on our society to consume,everywhere we go endless pressure to buy goods, eat food, look better, take out loans, be adifferent person. It is am unhealthy state of affairs, leads to depression and debt, teen-agers aresuffering from higher levels of mental health issues than ever before. Advertising is a provenfactor. Please do not allow illuminated adverts in Bristol even consider getting rid of nonilluminated billboards, there is strong evidence you will have happier residents.

Mr Hamilton Caswell CHRISTMAS STEPSARTS QUARTER (RESIDENTS & TRADERS) 11 LOWER CHURCH LANE BRISTOL  

The Christmas Steps Arts Quarter (Residents & Traders) strongly objects to thisproposal on the following grounds:

PUBLIC SAFETY This bright. ever-changing digital advertising screen would be a very dangerousdistraction to drivers, hazarding pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.

HARM TO THE AMENITY This large, brash digital screen woulddetract from the streetscape and character of this district of Bristol.

In addition, could Bristol's Planning Authority please check as to whether the existing hoarding(which the proposal would replace) has ever had planning permission. If not, then this Associationwould request that the Enforcement Department issues instructions for its removal.

Mr Anthony Revelle CHURCH VIEW, MARINERS DRIVE SNEYD PARK BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the reception of this LED digital smart screen for the following reasons:-

1. I find it astonishing that anyone would consider erecting a smart screen with moving imagesnext to a road carrying traffic. The sole purpose of the screen is to attract attention to theadvertising showing on it, therefore, how can this not distract a driver away from watching the roadahead? It must by definition be a road safety hazard and should be rejected on this ground alone.

2. We are bombarded with advertising on our TV screens and smartphones already, however, wehave a choice to watch or not there. Advertising LED smart screens cannot be avoided if you arewalking down the street and so are an unwelcome intrusion as we go about our business.

3. LED smart screens are unattractive and spoil the environment, they cause light pollution andwaste energy.

Mrs Gillian Bird 16 LYNMOUTH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Dear Bristol City Council Guardians for our City,Digital billboards in our city are a road hazard because they often rely on a moving image andtherefore distract drivers.

They also destroy our cityscape by outscaling the surrounding buildings and space. They areintrusive and depressing, often advertising cheap and unhealty foods and lifestyles, inducing bothobesity, rampart planet- destroying consumerism and status anxiety. In fact, I regard them as ahealth hazard, both for the person and the planet. Finally, they are just plain ugly!

Mr Chris Wilkinson 19B CORNWALLIS AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Such advertising technology is first of all an eyesore, electronic junk that diverts from asimple city scape. It breaks the natural flow of the buildings and skyline with what is effectively amega large screen TV in a small space. Ugly and detrimental to locals and passersby.

But most of all it is a danger to pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. It is specifically designed to beeye catching and so is by its foremost nature a distraction from drivers observing the road. Aglance up at this screen can take a second, a second where a child walks into the road, a secondwhere a car pulls out in front, a second where the car is closer to anything else on the road, andeven a second where the direction of the car is not being attended to. Even less than a second isfilling the drivers mind and attention with "extra", some call it junk, but information that is getting inthe way of basic thought processes. The people wanting to make money from this scheme willclaim that is not significant - if so, then their screen is a waste of money. Of course it is signficant,the whole thing is designed to be significant and effect the consciousness of the driver.

And this advertising will effect children too, it is designed to do that. Children need the headspaceaway from this junk, more so in the city than in rural areas. They need the space away from theconstant bombardment of televisual images. We all know this despite what a "suit" may try toargue.

Please don't allow this horrendous psychological junk to be used for profit against safety and profitagainst people's basic rights to not having this brainwashing thrown at them as they pass by.

Miss Lucy Wallwork FLAT 6, GILLHAM HOUSE BRISTOL   OBJECT

On both grounds of amenity and road safety this application should be reused and action taken toremove the existing sign, to which this application has now brought attention.

I strongly object to this screen (one of a flood of such screens being proposed in Bristol, incontradiction of local policies in other areas) being approved.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development is used in this application - however I find itdifficult to argue that such developments represent sustainable development.

The existing screen also damages local visual amenity - it bears no relationship to the adjacentbuildings which, while not intrinsically attractive are of a reasonable scale and fit into the streetscene. The screen ignores the alignment of the buildings and intrudes at a right angle to the roadboth sticking out into the street and sticking up into the air way above the skyline of the adjacentbuildings.

Viewed from the south the screen simply intrudes on the street scene. Viewed from the north italso cuts across the otherwise pleasant views of the railway embankment, Windmill Hill skylineand the "Northern Slopes".

The existing screen is also a hazard to traffic.There are considerable pedestrian and cyclemovements in this area where concentration is essential. It is disingenuous for an advertiser toargue that these digital screens do not attract increased attention, as otherwise there would belittle logic in investing in them as they do.

In summary, I strongly recommend that in the face of strong local opposition this screen is notpermitted to be erected.

All my best

Ms Lynda Nolan THE COTTAGE. CLAVERTON HOUSE STOKE PARK ROAD. STOKE BISHOP BRISTOL   OBJECT

Why must we be constantly subjected to this disgusting attempt at hard advertising?Are we not bombarded enough wherever we turn?This monstrosity should not be allowed to be placed in our wonderful city.Not only will it be an absolute eyesore but also an extremely dangerous distraction to drivers.In my view it is an invasion of privacy, we don't want to see it but we will be forced to.Who in the hey thought this could be a good idea?To let these companies go around sticking their billboards wherever they please without anyregard for people who have to live near them and pass the disgusting things on a daily basis iswrong.These companies want to peddle their trash to us 24/7 in whichever way they see fit. Most of itirrelevant junk that no one cares for or can afford.I think whoever allows these billboards to pop up all over our city is someone who doesn't have tolook at the damned thing every day. Not in my back yard eh? Out of sight out of mind?

Ms esther tyler-ward 28 LENA STREET BRISTOL   OBJECT

No, no, no. Don't turn Bristol further into a 'buy more' city where advertising rules. I don'twant my children to be dazzled by yet more companies trying to convince them of what they wantor should aspire to.

Mr Ed Hall CROSSLEIGH VILLA EDGWARE ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL BS3 1PN   OBJECT

Having already observed, on two seperate occassions, a car swerving after obviouslybeing more concerned with reading a road side billboard than concentrating on their driving lbelieve they are a danger to road and nearby pavement users. There can be NO justificationwhatsoever for road side illuminated signs whose sole purpose is to attract the attention frompassing traffic. They be guaranteed to cause accidents.

Mrs Sue Luger 53 QUANTOCK RD WINDMILL HILL BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am opposed to this for the following reasons1. It will affect road safety these signs are distracting for both drivers & pedestrians2. We do not need more light polluting signs3. Damage to the environment4. Unnecessary use of energy resources5. There is already an unnecessary illuminated sign in close vicinity of the proposed new sign.

Miss Rachelle Corker FLAT 7, 2 BRAGGS LANE OLD MARKET BRISTOL   OBJECT

I'm objecting as a concerned citizen of Bristol.

I am opposed to any corporate advertising in the city and would like to see the removal of allbillboards in our communities, as they serve no benefit to the community, make the place ugly andencourage increased spending and debt. Not to mention the terrible effects that consumer cultureis having on our beautiful planet.

It is irresponsible of the council to allow billboards which advertise anything that contributes tonegatively to our communities - I regularly see billboards advertising new cars, cheap fast foodwhich is making us sick and destroying the planet, and a wealth of consumer goods that mostpeople do not need or cannot afford, leading to increased poverty through debt.

On the whole we are subjected to far too much advertising and it is having a negative impact onour society and mental health. We are constantly fed stories about impossible lifestyles andbodies, made-up culture and ideals. There is plenty of research to suggest that advertising ismaking us more individualistic leading to a loss of community and making us less likely to help andlook after one another. Advertising is in essence mind control and is having an extremely negativeimpact on society:

The work of Sut Jhally is worth looking at:

https://thoughtmaybe.com/advertising-at-the-edge-of-the-apocalypse/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/31/advertising-academia-controlling-thoughts-universities

Screens are also proven to be addictive and placing large digital advertising screens around thecity where people are driving is dangerous and will lead to people losing concentration, focusingon the moving images on screens and therefore leading to increased traffic accidents and possiblyloss of life.

As a person that has worked hard and paid taxes, I demand that the council do what is right anddeny this application for further advertising in our city. You hvae a duty of care to protect yourcitizens.

Mr Michael Lloyd-Jones 3 THE YARD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the proposed application. I believe the installation of this digitaladvertising board would firstly be a blight on the local area, likely promoting unsustainableproducts and values that aren't in line with the needs of the local community. Bedminster is also ahistoric area with beautiful architecture, and this would certainly represent a damage to amenity inreducing the warm character of the local area and detracting from it's local identity. Finally, on apractical note the hoarding would be a significant distraction to drivers in motor vehicles, andhaving frequently used this junction I know it can get very busy, so the last thing we all need isanother thing to distract us from the road and increase the chance of collisions.

Dr David Carslake 3 KILVERT CLOSE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Advertisements are designed to attract attention. A driver's attention should be on theroad. Furthermore, as a cyclist, I rely on drivers seeing my small battery-powered rear light. Thisbecomes more difficult if the environment is cluttered with much brighter lights.An illuminated advertising screen of any sort is also a waste of electricity (Green Capital 2015?Carbon neutral by 2030?). This application should be rejected. Furthermore, the existing screenshould never have been allowed and steps should be taken to remove it as soon as possible.

Mr Joseph Gould 5 STURDON ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I feel that this smart screen would cause damage to amenity and danger to road safety.The atmosphere in the local community is negatively affected by advertising and create anintrusive experience to being part of this area.These digital smart screens are more commonly found at train stations/shopping precincts and arenot suitably for this environment.

Mr John Lines 246 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

Why do we need to distract people who are driving, especially on a major junction

Mr Robert Nicholls 4 LANGSDOWN HOUSE ST NICHOLAS RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this proposal on the grounds that the amenity value of the area will bereduced.

Miss Emma Cutmore 121 ROBERTSON ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I vehemently oppose having a digital screen placed right next to roads. I understandthat it generates income but to what expense? Drivers can become easily distracted which couldcause road accidents. It will be an eyesore which does nothing to promote good mental health.I would much rather our city be filled with beauty and nature, things that uplift and connect us,instead of helping corporations to convince us to spend our money on things we probably don'tneed. Please reconsider these plans, to benefit us and our future generations. Thank you.

Mr Howard Purse 21 COTSWOLD ROAD NORTH WINDMILL HILL BRISTOL   OBJECT

This is a particularly busy and confusing junction and the added distraction caused bythis advertising display would be dangerous. A digital screen would be particularly dangerous.These digital screens and ugly and intrusive and are out of step with the desires of the people ofBristol.

Mr David Hunter 67 HAMPTON PARK BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to object to this planning application on the following grounds:- Negative impact on amenity - this would be an eyesore, negatively impacting on the appearanceof the area. Worse, the thing would be used to encourage more consumption by those living andpassing through the neighbourhood, quite possibly incurring more debt and mental anguish as aresult. Bristol has the opportunity to be a world leader in its commitment to be carbon neutral by2030, something which this proposal works against. It also has the opportunity to be a worldleader in being one of the first places to reject such advertising, which I am aware is increasinglysupported by its residents. Rejecting this application would be another positive encouragement tothis healthy social movement.- Danger to transport - the proposal would provide a distraction to road users increasing theprospect of accidents and whilst the likely occurrence might be low risk, the impact of anyoccurrence could be devastating and is easily avoidable.

Mrs Victoria Harvey 3 VICTORIA GARDENS COTHAM   OBJECT

I object on a general note as large digital screens are an intrusion into people's alreadyover-taxed psyche, causing mental health issues.

I also object specifically as it damages amenity and will cause road safety issues in that area.

Mr Brian Morgan 24 CALEDONIA PLACE CLIFTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this proposal because1 a digital sign on this busy road must constitute a danger to road safety2 the site is already an eyesore and a further degradation by making the advertisement moreintrusive would represent additional amenity damage.Brian Morgan

Mr chris garton FISHPONDS RD EASTVILLE BRISTOL   OBJECT

As a driver, I find ordinary billboards distracting enough, and think they do not add to thegeneral safety on our roads. As for digital displays, with possibly moving images (?) would ,in myopinion be a very dangerous idea. I also feel these screens would greatly detract from theenvironment - must we really be confronted by ''television'' wherever we go? Do we want somesort of ''Las Vegas'' look to invade our cities, our lives? I would hope we manage to avoid that.

Mr Jacob Spencer  FLAT 2, 2B CLEAVE STREET BRISTOL   OBJECT

Please do not erect any more advertisement boards in or around bristol. As a resident Ido not want to see them at all. Thank you.

Mrs Margaret Mason    OBJECT

I strongly object to these huge advertising screens. They are intrusive, and verydangerous because they distract motorists, whose full attention should be on the road, and onessential signage. They therefore put other road users, particulaly cyclists, at risk.They damage amenity, contributing nothing, when it is well known that landscaping with plants hasmany benefits - including improving air quality and both physical and mental health.

Ms Ella Wheatcroft 17 BARTLETT'S RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I live in Bedminster and object to the digital screen application for the following reasons;Such a screen poses potential danger to drivers in an already congested busy area . Digitalscreen pose a risk of distracting driver from keeping their attention on the road.The screen would also impact on the local environment and thus damage the amenity, in drawingaway from any natural calming influence brought about by local trees from nearby st Johnscemetery.I object to a digital screen as it encourages children (and adults) to grow a short term attentionspan by ever changing image display, this breeding the need for quick fix, high impact receptorsas well as advertising in general advocating acquisatory behaviour as the key to happiness.

Ms Frances Macfarlane 26 NUTGROVE AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object because such billboards are distracting & consequently cause potential dangersto both pedestrians & traffic. They are also unsightly.

Mr Mark Brown 21 GRATITUDE ROAD, BRISTOL BS5 6EH   OBJECT

There is clear damage to amenity here, and an increased danger to road safety.Mental heath and well-being is also threatened by a brighter, brasher attempt to wrestle ourthoughts and general consciousness from us.

Mrs Ludmila Draxlerova 21 MARMION CRESCENT BRISTOL   OBJECT

The advert. table is dangerous for road security and annoying flicking light for citizensliving nearby.

Unknown   OBJECT

Ms Geraldine Kinsella  20 QUEEN STREET EASTVILLE BRISTOL   OBJECT

The existing screen is a distraction hazard to motor traffic - and to make it a digitalscreen would excerbate this danger. Advertisers charge more to advertise on digital screensbecause the changing image draws the eye. There are considerable pedestrian and cyclemovements in this area where concentration is essential.The existing screen is an eye sore and bad for local amenity - and changing it to a digital screenwould be even more so. It bears no relationship to the adjacent buildings and intrudes at a rightangle to the road both sticking out into the street and sticking up into the air way above the skylineof the adjacent buildings.

Mr Edmond Hayes 44 BEDMINSTER ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object for the reasons widely publicised by the AdBlock Bristol group.

I am particularly concerned about the increased distraction caused to traffic approaching a busyjunction. The safety of pedestrians is already inhibited by drivers using mobile phones at the trafficlights and quickly speeding up as they move from a 20mph to 30mph zone. Adding a furtherdistraction by making a static screen digital would increase this danger. Advertisers charge moreto advertise on digital screens because the changing image draws the eye. As a pedestrian andcyclist user of the area (as well as driver) I already find the junction unsafe. It is absurd to increasethe risks there.

I also consider changing the display to digital would further undermine amenity - the existing staticdisplay is already out of kilter with the streetscape, ugly and intrusive.

Ms Ruth Crumey Davies 10 CRANLEIGH GARDENS BRISTOL   OBJECT

As a road user I object on that grounds that these screens are highly distracting andcould lead to collisions (they are designed to be more eye-catching than older versions - totallyirresponsible, immoral behaviour by all concerned). As someone who cares about public spaces Iobject on the grounds that these screens are a dismaying eyesore.

Mr Stephen Mason 39 GWILLIAM STREET, BRISTOL BS3 4LT   OBJECT

I live close to Sheene Rd and cycle along it frequently.

Even the existing screen hoarding is both an eyesore and a distraction to drivers posing a risk toother road users. A hoarding with a changing screen would be a greater distraction - that is, afterall, its whole point, to attract attention.

I believe that the introduction of a smart digital advertising screen is a hazard to pedestrians,cyclists and other road users in any location where it is visible from a road. They are entirelyunnecessary and only there to generate income for ....who? Whoever the income goes to andwhatever the amount of that income the extent of the hazard caused to vulnerable road users isnot worth that income.

I strongly oppose the installation of this dangerous device.

The Bishopston Society 27AEGERTON ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am writing as the Planning Advisor to The Bishopston Society, a local amenity groupwhich seeks to conserve the character of the Bishopston area. The Society is totally opposed toelectronic advertising billboards which are an ugly intrusion within the urban environment, adistraction to drivers as well as being totally unnecessary. We strongly recommend refusal of thisapplication.

Mr Daniel Key 95 ROSE GREEN ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This billboard will be bad and distracting for road users and bad for amenities in thearea. It will be an eyesore with distracting digital marketing. We should not privatise our publicspaces like this, especially in Bedminster where there is so much graffiti and public art.

Ms Elinor Lower 3 THORNDALE BRISTOL   OBJECT

The existing screen is a distraction hazard to motor traffic - and to make it a digitalscreen would excerbate this danger. Advertisers charge more to advertise on digital screensbecause the changing image draws the eye. There are considerable pedestrian and cyclemovements in this area where concentration is essential.

The existing screen is an eye sore and bad for local amenity - and changing it to a digital screenwould be even more so. It bears no relationship to the adjacent buildings and intrudes at a rightangle to the road both sticking out into the street and sticking up into the air way above the skylineof the adjacent buildings.

Mr Andrew Denner 270 ST JOHNS LANE BEDMINSTER BRISTOL   OBJECT

The existing sign is on a major route through south Bristol, and the increased distractionfrom an animated LED display will neagtively impact road safety. The increased visual noise isincongruent with the surrounding area and will degrade its amenity.

Ms Jasmine Tribe 23 UPPER BELGRAVE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

New screens will be bad for road safety, bad for the amenity of the areas, have negativeenvironmental effects (related to increased consumerism) and negative impacts on wellbeing.

Dr Emilia Melville 1 ESSERY ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This new billboard would be bad for road safety - as a cyclist, I do find myself gettingdistracted by advertising, and this affects my concentration on the road. Moving digital advertisingrather than fixed billboards will be even more dangerous for all road users. It would also be bad forlocal amenity, as advertising detracts from seeing the character of the area.

Dr Rowland Dye 62 CITY ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I oppose this application. I oppose more advertising that just propts us all to do moreshopping. Surely this is against the spirit of the Councils recent motion to become carbon-neutralin the near future. What about the mental harm and the under-hand tricks pulled by advertsing onour minds, see for example https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/31/advertising-academia-controlling-thoughts-universitiesNone of us can choose to "turn advertising off" when it surrounds us in our city. Added to all this isthe danger of distracting drivers etc. Plus loss of amenity in a residential area. Yes I oppose thistotally and sincerely not only will this not go ahead but the council will withdraw all other large-scale advertising in our city, as has been done elsewhere. Yours sincerely....................RowlandDye

Ms Tess Green 10 FAIRFIELD `ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this application as I believe that it will distract drivers and make the traffic onSheen Road more hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists.I also consider that it will detract from what could be an attractive environment visually by furtherdegrading the visual environment which already suffers from many ugly hoardings.

Mrs Felicity Radford GARDEN FLAT 3 VYVYAN TERRACE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to object to this digital billboard on the following grounds:-

1. All such billboards are a huge distraction to drivers and are therefore dangerous to pedestriansand drivers themselves.

2. They are visual pollution and spoil the amenity of the area.

3. We are already bombarded with advertising, trying to make us buy, buy, buy. This out of controlconsumerism is causing the serious environmental problems we now face. Infinite growth on afinite planet leads to disaster.

4. The messages promoted lead to feelings of lack, inadequacy and inequality, all causes ofmental illness.

Mr M Dunn 109 BRISTOL SOUTH END BRISTOL   OBJECT

I use Sheene Road every day to get to/from work and strongly object to this newbillboard. When trying to use the pedestrian crossing it's already hard to tell if cars filtering roundfrom Sheene Road onto Malago Road are going to see the red light and stop in time, without theadded distraction of an LED billboard.

Similarly, cycling or driving down Sheene Road can already be a scary experience as othervehicles speed down the hill and try to over/undertake to beat the red lights. Adding anotherdistraction feels like an accident waiting to happen.

I've seen people hurt at the crossings and junctions here - there should be fewer distractions, notmore.

Mr Tom Metcalfe 7B LUCKWELL ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This will be an eye sore in an area of Bristol that needs less advertising

Mr Alex Pearce 33 ARGUS RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the proposed electronic advertising board as it will be an eye sore and is notin keeping with the surrounding buildings. It will also pose a risk as a distraction to traffic in thisbusy area.

Ms Leah O'Brien 109 BRISTOL SOUTH END BRISTOL   OBJECT

The existing screen is a distraction hazard to motor traffic - and to make it a digitalscreen would excerbate this danger. Advertisers charge more to advertise on digital screensbecause the changing image draws the eye. There are considerable pedestrian and cyclemovements in this area where concentration is essential.The existing screen is an eye sore and bad for local amenity - and changing it to a digital screenwould be even more so. It bears no relationship to the adjacent buildings and intrudes at a rightangle to the road both sticking out into the street and sticking up into the air way above the skylineof the adjacent buildings.

Mr Mark Round 15 LONGMOOR ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This proposal is sited between two very busy junctions where a bright changing digitaldisplay will a great distraction to drivers on their approach. The Sheene Road / West St / North Stjunction is particulary busy and many pedestrians cross there.

Please reject this application - and perhaps remove the existing static billboard as well.

Mr George Baldwin 125 LICHFIELD ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The existing screen is a distraction hazard to motor traffic already. Having it move wouldmake it more so.

The existing screen is ugly and bad for local amenity - changing it to a digital screen would beeven more so. It sticks out into the street and feels aggressivly attention seeking with norelationship to surrounding buildings or skyline.

Mr Andrew Clegg 48 DICKINSONS FIELDS BEDMINSTER BRISTOL   OBJECT

This proposal is sited at a busy junction; traffic coming South on Sheene Road ispreparing to pass through a narrow railway bridge. Changing the advertising display to a digitaldisplay will increase the level of distraction to drivers at a point where they need to be fullyconcentrating on the busy junction ahead. This area is well used by pedestrians and cyclists andfurther hazards are not welcome.

In addition, the existing billboard is already an eyesore; changing it to a flashy digital version willworsen this. These advertisements are not welcome.

Mr Robert Staynings 40 CRAYDON GROVE BRISTOL   OBJECT

The existing screen is an eye sore and bad for local amenity - and changing it to adigital screen would be even more so. It bears no relationship to the adjacent buildings andintrudes at a right angle to the road both sticking out into the street and sticking up into the air wayabove the skyline of the adjacent buildings. Bristol has a beauty that this type of Advertisingimpacts. It degraded the over app aspects of our great city.

Mr ANDREW MAN 5 CLIFTON VIEW BRISTOL   OBJECT

It'll be an eyesore, and will detract drivers attention away from the road therefore asafety hazard

Miss Karen Smith 7 ASHFIELD ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The existing screen is an eye sore and bad for local amenity - and changing it to adigital screen would be even more so. It bears no relationship to the adjacent buildings andintrudes at a right angle to the road both sticking out into the street and sticking up into the air wayabove the skyline of the adjacent buildings.

Ms AJ Gardham 18 FRASER STREET WINDMILL HILL BRISTOL   OBJECT

The billboard is designed to attract views and changing frequently would be a distractionto motorists and cyclists. It is near a busy junction with pedestrians frequently crossing the roadfurther up. It would be a hazard to road safety.

Mr Scott Steven 138 ILCHESTER CRESCENT BRISTOL   OBJECT

I cycle to work past this advertising board on a daily basis.I feel that to place a digital advertising board here would be a distraction to motorists at thisalready busy pinch point. The advertising would draw the attention of drivers away from the roadand impart serious risk to cyclists and motorcycle riders.

Mr Bob Nicholls 4 LANGSDOWN HOUSE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the location. Size and visual intrusion of the proposed screen. The changingimages at the location of a traffic interchange will be a distraction. These screens do not have apositive impact on the local environment.

Mr John Payne 53 ZETLAND ROAD, BRISTOL BS6 7AJ   OBJECT

Bristol Civic Society objects strongly to this proposal. The change to a LED digitalscreen will intensify the impact of the advertisement at this location because of the intense farreaching nature of this type of illumination. This will be harmful to the amenity of this area. Inaddition, the proximity of this sign to a busy junction could cause a distraction to drivers and soprejudice the safety of all road users in its vicinity.

Mr ROBERT GRIFFIN 11 MERRYWOOD ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The existing sign is an incongruous intrusion into the urban fabric and should not existin this location. It provides a negative ammenity value and a distraction to road traffic and istherefore a hazard.The proposed replacement with a continuously changing led screen will be a further reduction inamenity and increase in light pollution. The changing image will provide a greater distraction toroad users and a reduction in road safety. It is placed between two near by busy traffic junctions.This proposal should be rejected and thought given to the removal of the existing sign.

Mr Conan Wills 9 CROWTHER STREET BEDMINSTER BRISTOL   OBJECT

This application is based on the premise that the existing screen is acceptable and thatthe proposed screen will enhance it.Both of these assumptions are incorrect and not only should this application be refused but actionshould be taken to rescind the deemed permission reportedly held by the existing screen.

The application stresses that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development.The proposed screen uses electricity to operate and is purely for the purpose of advertising, thepurpose of which is to encourage more consumption. This is against the very notion ofsustainability.

The existing screen is destructive of local amenity.It bears no relationship to the adjacent buildings which, while not intrinsically attractive are of areasonable scale and fit into the street scene. The screen ignores the alignment of the buildingsand intrudes at a right angle to the road both sticking out into the street and sticking up into the airway above the skyline of the adjacent buildings.Viewed from the south the screen simply intrudes on the street scene. Viewed from the north italso cuts across the otherwise pleasant views of the railway embankment, Windmill Hill skylineand the "Northern Slopes".

The existing screen is also a hazard to traffic.It is deliberately sited to maximise visibility to southbound traffic exiting a busy junction beforeapproaching another more complex one. There are considerable pedestrian and cycle movementsin this area meaning driver concentration is essential. To position an advertisement in such aposition is clearly intended to attract the attention of drivers and thus distract them from drivingsafely.

The proposed screen involves changing images at 10 sec intervals. This may only have amarginal effect in worsening the visual amenity but in no way improves it. However, it would havea significantly more distracting effect on drivers. The marginal reduction in height is welcome butnot significant to its overall impact.

On both grounds of amenity and road safety this application should be refused and action taken toremove the existing sign to which this application has now brought attention.

Mrs Jean Moloney 9 OSBORNE TERRACE BEDMINSTER BRISTOL   OBJECT

I totally object to the installation of this advertisement media. It is not sustainable, as ituses electricity which in itself causes warming. Therefore is bad for the atmosphere. Also there isthe light pollution involved with these digital displays. There are bad for the environment,especially wild life - yes there are urban foxes etc in Bedminster. This also affects the birds, withthe additional light on 24/7.

That is apart from a distraction to drivers with adverts changing every 10 seconds.

This is totally unnecessary and will cause harm to the environment for just an advert. All these ledadverts are out of hand, with them on bus stops - I did not see any planning applications for these,and again, create light pollution, and the heat is the summer can be very uncomfortable whenwaiting for a bus.

There is no need for any of these led adverts, they are totally unsustainable, and just a nuisanceto wildlife and humans alike.

Therefore I believe that this should be declined.

Mr Barney Smith 13 BLAGDON CLOSE WEDMORE VALE BRISTOL   OBJECT

This application is based on the premise that the existing screen is acceptable and thatthe proposed screen will enhance it.Both of these are wrong and not only should this application be refused but action should be takento rescind the deemed permission reportedly held by the existing screen.

The application also stresses that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment. The proposed screen uses a high level of electricity to operate it and is purely forthe purpose of advertising the purpose of which is to encourage encourage consumption.18/06208. It is intended to replace the static illuminated sign with an animated one, 10secintervals.

It is viewable on the Bristol City Council planning applications tracking site.https://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/then enter 18/06208/A in the bottom box.

My objection to it is attached here. Please use any of it you wish but your own comments, themore the merrier, would be even better.Sheene road digital screen

Barney Smith. Adbloc Bristol

"Adblock Bristol is a diverse coalition including Bristol residents, planning groups, artists,councillors and community groups, from areas across Bristol including Easton, Eastville, Ashley,St Paul's, Bedminster and Southville. www.adblockbristol.org.uk"

The existing screen is destructive of local amenity.It bears no relationship to the adjacent buildings which, while not intrinsically attractive are of areasonable scale and fit into the street scene. The screen ignores the alignment of the buildingsand intrudes at a right angle to the road both sticking out into the street and sticking up into the airway above the skyline of the adjacent buildings.Viewed from the south the screen simply intrudes on the street scene. Viewed from the north italso cuts across the otherwise pleasant views of the railway embankment, Windmill Hill skylineand the "Northern Slopes".

The existing screen is also a hazard to traffic. Its position is deliberately sited to maximise visibilityto southbound traffic exiting a busy junction before approaching another more complex one. Thereare considerable pedestrian and cycle movements in this area where concentration is essential.To position an advertisement in such a position is clearly intended to attract the attention of driversand thus distract them from driving safely.

The proposed screen involves changing images at 10 sec intervals. This may only have amarginal effect in worsening the visual amenity but in no way improves it. However it would have asignificantly more distracting effect on drivers. The marginal reduction in height is welcome but notsignificant to its overall impact.

On both grounds of amenity and road safety this application should be reused and action taken toremove the existing sign to which this application has now brought attention.