Appeal 6003463

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the two non-illuminated totem signs.

The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of three illuminated ' [site address] ' fascia signs as applied for. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the following additional conditions: a) The intensity of the illumination of the three ' [site address] ' fascia signs permitted by this consent shall be no greater than 375 candela/square metre and only the letters shall be illuminated. b) The advertisements permitted by this consent shall only be illuminated during the opening hours of the premises to which it relates.

The proposal as described on the application form included a new shopfront and plant area. This appeal Decision relates solely to the proposed signage.

Powers under the Advertisement Regulations can exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. The Council has not highlighted any potential harmful impact to public safety, and I see no reason to reach a different conclusion. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the advertisements on the visual amenity of the area.

[site address] is an area of newly developed housing with a local community and employment centre. The appeal site is part of a commercial building with flats above which is still under construction and which is in the local centre. Planning permission has already been granted for use as a local shop.

Paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed. It is not unreasonable for the operator of a local shop to seek signage on the building. The proposed fascia signs would fit neatly into the shop front above the windows and doors and would not be disproportionate in size or position.

There is a primary school and open space to two sides of the appeal site as well as a site adjacent to the school intended for a community centre. There are employment sites not yet constructed on the opposite side of [address]. The fascia signs would not be inappropriate in visual amenity terms in the context of these other local centre uses.

As confirmed in the Advert Appeal Statement only the letters of the fascia signs would be illuminated and the illumination would be switched off at times the shop was closed. The level of illumination would be relatively modest at 375 cd/m2.

Houses on the other side of [address] face towards the building but are separated from it by a carpark with landscaped areas to the road side. No [address] does not directly face the proposed fascia signs and would be separated from them by the main road and a landscaped forecourt. The illumination would be restricted to times when the shop was open and at those times there would be shop lights visible through the windows. Tall street lights illuminate [address].

Notwithstanding the generous open spaces the local character is of a local centre in a suburban residential development on the outskirts of Chichester rather than a rural setting. The fascia signs would be directly seen by some residents and users of [address]. However, due to the setback of the building; separation distances from residential properties; and the other lighting in the vicinity; the illuminated fascia signs would not have a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area or the amenity of residents in the nearest houses or those passing by. Nor, in the context of other illumination and subject to the requirement to be illuminated only during opening hours, would there be an additional effect on dark skies or bat movements.

The proposed totems would be some 2m tall and 0.6m wide and would not be illuminated. One would be in the area of open space in front of the school. Notwithstanding whether or not this sign can be considered, as it is outside the appeal site as defined by the redline on the submitted location and block plan, it would be harmful to the visual amenity of the open space setting of the school to have such a sign in the position shown.

The other totem sign would be situated towards the eastern corner of the appeal site in a landscape area. A non-illuminated sign so close to the corner would create clutter in the landscape corridor which is becoming established alongside the main route through the estate and would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area. I find this to be the case whether or not the proposed sign would be smaller than others elsewhere. Nor would any landscaping soften the effect to such an extent as to lead me to a different view.

I acknowledge the desirability of directional signs to the carpark but the sign would not need to be as tall to achieve this. Moreover, there are likely to be other occupiers of the building which will require directional signage the cumulative effect of which would add to the harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area.

Matters relating to the level of parking provision and any disturbance from deliveries to the shop were for the Council to consider at the time when the relevant planning permissions were granted and are not matters for consideration during an appeal under the Advertisement Regulations. Those bringing children to the school may park inconsiderately. However, the signs would not fall into the categories of types of advertisements which may cause danger to road users1. Accordingly parking nearby carries little weight in the context of this appeal.

In accordance with the terms of the proposal, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of the visual amenity of the area, it is necessary to limit the extent of illumination of the fascia signs to the letters and to the opening hours of the premises to which they are affixed.

For the reasons set out above I conclude that the proposed totem signs would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area and would conflict with those principles of the Framework that seek to avoid poorly sited signs.

As set out above I conclude that the proposed fascia signs, subject to additional conditions relating to the proposed illumination, would not be harmful to the visual amenity of the area. There would be no conflict with the provisions of the Framework in this respect.

For the reasons set out above the appeal should be dismissed insofar as it relates to the totem signs; the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the fascia signs.