Appeal 6003394

The appeal is dismissed.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Regulations) require that advertisements be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Whilst the reason for refusal refers to policies contained within London Plan 2021 and the Hackney Local Plan 2033, adopted July 2020, they are material considerations rather than being decisive in the determination of this appeal.

The Council has concluded that the advertisement would be acceptable in terms of public safety and, from the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposal on visual amenity of the area, including the South Shoreditch Conservation Area.

The appeal site is located at the junction of [address] and [address]. It comprises a two‐storey building with a takeaway food outlet at ground level and storage space above. Above this sits a void, framed by the exposed end walls of the neighbouring four‐ and five‐storey buildings. This void creates an irregular break within a streetscape characterised by a mix of building forms and uses.

The site lies within the South Shoreditch Conservation Area (the SSCA), which developed as an industrial suburb in the [postcode] , associated primarily with furniture and printing industries. Its significance lies in being one of the best-preserved Victorian manufacturing Districts in London. It is also noted for the industrial character of the architecture and its generally consistent scale, grain and street pattern. Most buildings from the [postcode] and [postcode] are surviving, with some earlier examples. The upper floors are predominantly free of visual clutter, allowing the facades to be appreciated. The history and architecture of the area contribute to the significance of the SSCA.

I have a duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) is that requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. This statutory duty applies in advertisement appeals insofar as it relates to the consideration of ‘amenity’.

The proposal is to erect a large advertising billboard, in the corner gap formed of a printed wrap mounted on a scaffolding support. This would be illuminated with two large downlights. Although it would be erected on a scaffolding support, it is not intended to be a temporary advertisement, so it would be a permanent addition to the area.

The appellant states that the appeal building is a non-descript building and that the proposal would create a feature of interest, complementing the mixed and varied townscape. However, the upper floors of the buildings in this part of the SSCA are mostly free from advertisement or other visual clutter allowing the architectural detail of the buildings to be enjoyed. This is a feature which contributes positively to the significance of the SSCA. Whilst the appeal building is not identified as a local building of merit, its position at the junction of [address] and [address] is prominent within the SSCA.

As a result, the proposed advertisement would occupy a highly prominent and elevated position. It would be highly visible in both long range and close-range views, particularly from [address] and [address]. The size and position of the advertisement would be at odds with the prevailing character of advertisements locally which tend to relate to individual business premises. Whilst there is an attempt to replicate the appearance of the building by including a printed image of brickwork and cornice as a border to the advert, this would comprise a very small part of the advertisement.

I have had regard to the appellant’s suggestion that the illumination could be omitted. However, this would not overcome the significant harm to the visual amenity of the area which I have identified by virtue of the scale, and position of the proposed advertisement.

My attention has been drawn to a recent appeal decision1 relating to [address], which was dismissed. However, whilst located in close proximity to the appeal site, this proposal related to a local building of merit and to a temporary advertisement. For these reasons, it is not comparable to the appeal proposal.

My attention has also been drawn to the removal of a temporary advertisement at [address], which the appellant states would ensure that the area is not visually cluttered by advertisements such as the proposed advertisement. The appellant also recognises that the proposal would be unique. However, as outlined above the upper storeys of buildings within the area do not typically have advertisements. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/Z/24/3350850

For these reasons, I therefore conclude the proposed advertisement by virtue of its scale, position and design would represent an incongruous addition that fails to respect the character and appearance of the area, and in particular would cause harm to the SSCA. Furthermore, the proposed advertisement would obscure the existing architectural arrangement of these building, which I accept is unusual but nonetheless contributes positively to the varied townscape in this location.

In accordance with the Regulations, I have taken into account the provisions of the development plan so far as they are material. Whilst not decisive, it conflicts with Policies D4, D8 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies PP1, LP1, LP3 and LP7 of Hackney Local Plan 2033, adopted July 2020. Together these policies require, amongst other things, proposals including advertisements to conserve the significance of heritage assets and their surroundings, respect local character and context and positively contribute to the public realm.

Furthermore, there would be conflict with Paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area, including the setting of the SSCA. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.