Gym sign 'harmful to safety and amenity'

by LESTER CROSS

The owner of a Borders fitness centre has lost a planning appeal which means a large advertising sign he had erected in Galashiels without permission to promote his gym will have to be taken down.

Conrad Campbell, who runs his Unit8 Gym in Tweedbank, asked Andrew Sikes, a Scottish Government planning reporter to overturn the decision by Scottish Borders Council to deny approval for the sign on a gable wall in Hall Street. Galashiels.

In a decision notice issued at the weekend, Mr Sikes agreed with the Borders planning department that the sign is harmful to both amenity and road safety.

A supporting statement from Mr Campbell included the following: "The purpose of the sign installation at this location is to increase awareness of the gym’s presence to those residing and working within the central and west side of Galashiels. The gym currently has over 250 members and I’m trying to further increase membership, offering its facilities to everyone in Galashiels and the surrounding areas."

But the planning authority maintained that the advertisement would represent a threat to road safety and would, as a result, impact adversely on public safety at this location. And the advertisement would not relate well to the location at which it is displayed or be in keeping with the character of the building to which it is attached, and would contribute to unsightly clutter, thereby having an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

Mr Sikes issued his decision to reject Mr Campbell's appeal following a site visit to the location.

In his written decision notice, the reporter says: "The proposal is a 3- metre-wide x 2-metre-high non-illuminated static advertisement set within a matt black aluminium frame. The advertisement has been attached at first floor level to the gable end of a two-storey stone-built terraced residential property. The advert promotes a gym in Tweedbank, located approximately 5 kilometres (3.5 miles) from the appeal site."

And, according to Mr Sikes: ". I note the range of views expressed in representations regarding the design and obtrusiveness of the advertisement; some consider it an eyesore, while others comment that it is unobtrusive and fits well with the character of the area. 

"In my assessment, while simple in design and production, the advertisement is large, inappropriately positioned high on the gable end of a residential property and sited in a prominent location close to a principal road. As such, I consider the advertisement obtrusive. Neither does the advert relate to the location at which it is being displayed. 

"Moreover, the street in which it is located is residential in character and, in the vicinity of the appeal site, free of advertising. While there are advertisements in the wider area these are restricted to retail and commercial properties and relate directly to the location at which they are being displayed. Taking these factors together, I agree with the council that the advertisement would be harmful to the character of the building, the amenity of Hall Street and the wider area."

The reporter agreed with the council that the advertisement could cause driver distraction and unacceptably increase risk to public safety. He conclude that the advertisement was detrimental to public safety and as such was contrary to the provisions of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan (2016).

The decision notice concludes: "In addition to comments on the appearance and location of the advert, the appellant [Mr Campbell]refers to a number of other matters in his supporting statement, particularly its purpose, benefits of physical activity and the consent of the property owner to display the advert. While I note the comments, they are not matters relevant to my consideration of this appeal. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed advertisement would be contrary to the interest of amenity and public safety and, accordingly, that advertisement consent should not be granted."