Appeal 3274078

Both Appeal A and Appeal B are dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeals.

There are two appeals on this site that differ only in the size of the advertisement proposed. Each proposal has been considered on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication, they have been dealt with in a single decision letter.

Since the original planning applications, an updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been released. In so far as it relates to this appeal, there have been no substantial changes to the Framework, besides paragraph numbers. Both the Council and the appellant have been able to take the relevant parts of the Framework into consideration. Appeal Decisions APP/X5990/Z/21/3274078 & APP/X5990/Z/21/3275540

For both appeals, the main issue is the effect of the advertisement on the visual amenity of the area.

The appeal site is an unlisted building of merit, situated on a corner plot, located at an entrance to the SOHO Conservation Area (SCA). The SCA has a commercial feel, with a variety of shops and advertisements at ground floor level, however above this there is limited large scale commercial activity. Bordering this is the [address] Conservation Area (RSCA). The appeal site is also located in the setting of several listed buildings, including [address], [address] and 9, 19, 27 and [address]. The SCA, RSCA and nearby listed buildings all derive their significance in part from their relatively consistent scale and generally consistent approach to advertisements with upper floors largely free from such intervention. This is the case with the appeal site and so it contributes positively to the SCA as well as the setting of both the RSCA and the nearby listed buildings.

The proposals in both Appeal A and B seek to install a replica of the building façade on a scaffold shroud with an advertising area. Whilst the replica building façade would be acceptable, the proposed advertising area in both Appeal A and B would be located at first and second floor level. It would therefore be higher than other advertisements in the area. Despite the proposed advertising area in Appeal B being smaller than that in Appeal A, they would both appear large, particularly when compared to other advertisements in the vicinity. The proposed advertisement areas would cover a large part of the two floors above ground floor level and would thus appear incongruous with the surrounding area.

The proposed advertisement area, for both schemes, would be sited on a relatively visible plot, located at an entrance to the SCA. It would also be visible from the neighbouring RSCA and several nearby listed buildings. The advertisement area would appear obtrusive and, even though only for a temporary period, it would detract from the visual amenity of the SCA and the unlisted building of merit on which it would be located. It would also negatively affect the setting of the RSCA as well as the setting of the nearby listed buildings.

Whilst replication of the building façade would help disguise the scaffolding and add visual interest, the large advertisement areas would appear incongruous at high level. They would stand out from the consistent appearance of the neighbouring properties, whereas scaffolding and other building works are a frequently occurring sight, and so would not appear as prominent. Having a replication of the building façade would be a benefit and there may be a need for advertising to fund this. However, the size and positioning of the proposed advertisement areas limit this benefit, and it would therefore not outweigh the harm to the visual amenity of the area.

The appellant refers to a shroud advertisement at Holland Park Avenue, however this example is in a different context and therefore cannot be compared to the proposals. The appellant references National Planning Practice Appeal Decisions APP/X5990/Z/21/3274078 & APP/X5990/Z/21/3275540 Guidance1 and an appeal decision in Westminster, both of which suggest that buildings undergoing works may be suitable for shroud advertisements. That appeal also points out that their impact upon nearby valued landscapes and buildings should not be overwhelming. For the reasons discussed above, the proposed advertisement areas would negatively impact upon the visual amenity of the surrounding area, including heritage assets. In any case, appeals should be considered on their individual merits.

Illumination of the proposals through overhead lighting would further highlight the presence of the advertisement area. The appellant suggests this is optional and could either have a condition ensuring the lighting is timer controlled or have the overhead lighting omitted altogether. However, this would not diminish the overall harm from the advertisement area to the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

Regard has been given to the City Plan 2019-2040 (adopted April 2021) Policies 39 and 43, which together aim to ensure a clutter-free public realm that protects the character of an area, with particular regard to ensuring advertisements do not detract from any heritage asset. Given that I have found, for the above reasons, that the proposals would harm visual amenity, they would thus conflict with these policies. Policy 38 of the City Plan has been referred to for Appeal B only. This seeks to protect the character of the existing area, adjacent buildings and heritage assets. As there would be harm to visual amenity, there would also be conflict with this Policy.

The suggestion that advertising can help boost the economy post Covid-19 has been considered, however as these proposals relate to a single site, this benefit would be limited and would not outweigh the harm found to visual amenity.

For the reasons given above, I recommend that both appeals are dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, both Appeal A and Appeal B are dismissed.