Appeal 6003314

The appeal is dismissed.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) confirms that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Therefore, while the development plan policies referred to on the decision notice are not determinative, I have taken them into account where relevant.

The description of the advertisement above is taken from the decision notice as this succinctly describes it. I observed an advertisement which appeared the same as that shown on the submitted plans. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that consent is sought to retain the development that has taken place.

The main parties agree that the advertisement does not have a harmful effect on public safety. From the evidence, together with my site visit observations, I have no clear reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the advertisement on amenity.

The application site is located in a prominent position on [address], a thoroughfare into and out of the village that comprises commercial and residential properties of generally traditional design. I observed several advertisements in the surrounding area associated with the commercial businesses upon which they are displayed. These modestly sized advertisements generally have a traditional style of shop front fascia signage, some with external illumination.

The appeal advertisement is of a similar size to a previous advertisement at the site which had a generally traditional appearance. Despite being affixed to the same brackets, taking account of the appeal advertisement’s modern design and internal illumination, it is not reflective of the general characteristics of the locality and the traditional appearance of the building it is attached to. Its scale relative to the height of the premises and juxtaposition with the roofscape results in an awkward presence in the streetscene, conspicuous in views on approach to the site in either direction. The grey colour of the advertisement does not mitigate the harmful effects of its scale, positioning and method of illumination.

While not directly faced by residential properties, the appeal site is located within the South Lakeland District Area of Special Control for Advertisements, where advertisements are strictly controlled and are required to reflect, re-interpret or complement traditional hanging sign styles and avoid internal illumination methods in line with Policy DM20 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies (2019) (LPDMP). This is not the case for the appeal scheme. Its modern styling and LED display is jarring in the street scene compared to other surrounding advertisements. This would particularly be the case at night and in low daylight conditions, even though there are externally illuminated advertisements nearby and only the letters are illuminated rather than the whole of the advertisement.

On this basis, the appeal scheme is poorly sited and designed, such that the quality and character of the locality suffer, which the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to avoid. It is indicated that there has always been an advertisement at the appeal site, which was most recently more brightly coloured than the appeal scheme and externally illuminated. Nevertheless, I have no clear details of the size of the previous advertisement or its levels of illumination, and the Council say there is no planning history relating to the previous advertisement. In any event, I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and come to my own view.

To conclude, the advertisement has a detrimental effect on amenity. While only a material consideration, it is in conflict with LPDMP policies DM1, DM2 and DM20 and policies CS1.1, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Local Development Framework [name] (2010). Amongst other things, these policies require development to be of high-quality design that delivers acceptable levels of amenity, responding appropriately to local context and distinctiveness and in keeping with local vernacular tradition.

I have no clear reason to doubt that the appellant is trying to earn an honest living from their small, hardworking family business which has local support. However, this largely private matter has not affected my consideration of the planning merits of the case.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the display of the advertisement is detrimental to amenity. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.