Appeal 6003473

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council altered the description of the proposal during the consideration of the application to that shown in the banner heading above. This is a more concise description and removes superfluous text from that set out in the application form. Nevertheless, I have had regard to all of the details described on the form. I am satisfied that the main parties would not be prejudiced by use of the above description. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) require that decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. The National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance reiterate this approach. I have taken Policies DC1, DC8, DC9 and CC12 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (February 2018) (the Local Plan) into account as material considerations; however, they have not, by themselves, been determinative for this appeal.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. This statutory duty applies in advertisement appeals in so far as it relates to the consideration of amenity which includes the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest. I have had due regard to this duty within my decision.

The Council raise no concerns in relation to public safety and based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I see no reason to take a different view.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisements on amenity, having regard to their siting within the Ravenscourt and Starch Green Conservation Area (the CA), proximity to locally listed buildings and the impact on neighbouring residents.

The proposed advertisements would be positioned on the northern, rear elevation of the appeal building at high level. One internally illuminated horizontal advertisement would sit directly beneath fourth-floor windows, while a vertically oriented externally illuminated advertisement would occupy an otherwise blank section of the façade spanning the third and fourth floors. Both would promote the buildings function as a Polish community centre offering a range of recreational, educational, social and related activities.

The appellant indicates that the purpose of the advertisements is to draw the attention of passengers travelling on the nearby [name] line, approximately 50m to the north, as well as users of Ravenscourt Park Station. However, while the proposal might improve accessibility to the site and promote its existence, there is no substantive evidence that this is required in order to support the valuable work undertaken and facilities provided at the site, or to promote equality of opportunity to the Polish community.

The appeal property is a large concrete building which fronts the high street within the southern periphery of the CA. At present, the Polish community centre identifies itself through modest, low‐key advertisements around the main entrance at ground‐floor level. The high street is a busy commercial environment where advertising is generally confined to shopfronts at ground‐floor height, with the main exception being the nearby [name] which has a large sign at the top of the tall building. However, beyond this to the north, the character shifts markedly to a predominantly residential area, interspersed with a small garden centre, a modern [name] and the landscaped setting of Ravenscourt Park. [address] also contains several locally listed buildings. From my site visit, it was evident that advertising in this residential context is minimal, with very little commercial signage visible from these vantage points.

The advertisements would be visible from a number of public vantage points, including the platforms and entrance of Ravenscourt Park Station, along [address], and from the entrance to Ravenscourt Park on [address]. Their prominence would result in an unacceptable erosion of the area’s pleasant residential character. By reason of their scale, illumination and siting on the rear elevation, in close proximity to neighbouring dwellings, the advertisements would appear visually intrusive, notwithstanding their elevated position. Consequently, the proposal would unacceptably detract from the character and appearance of the street scene and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

I acknowledge that the proposed luminance levels would comply with relevant guidance. However, limited information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed advertisements would not result in spill or glare for neighbouring residents such that the evidence does not demonstrate a lack of harm.

The appellant has suggested that any harm could be addressed through conditions controlling the size of the lettering or the brightness and hours of illumination. However, in the absence of details as to what these conditions might result in, it has not been shown that imposing them would overcome the concerns identified. Moreover, as changes to the lettering and illumination might result in a significantly different final scheme, it would be inappropriate to impose conditions to that effect as it could prejudice interests of the Council, interested parties and consultees who may have observations to make.

I therefore find that the proposed illuminated advertisements would cause significant harm to amenity, having regard to their siting within the CA, proximity to locally listed buildings and the impact on neighbouring residents. Although not determinative, the advertisements would conflict with Policies DC1, DC8, DC9 and CC12 of the Local Plan which, amongst other things, together seek to secure high‐quality design that respects the townscape and heritage significance of the area, safeguards character and amenity, ensures appropriate scale, height and materials, resists visually intrusive or illuminated signage, and avoids glare or light spill that could harm nearby sensitive receptors, including residential properties.

I have noted the appellant’s concerns with how the Council has processed and determined the application. However, these matters have little to do with the planning merits of the scheme.

The appellant contends that the displays would serve as public information, rather than comprise advertisements. However, the appeal before me seeks advertisement consent, and I am satisfied that the proposal falls within the scope of the Regulations. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis.

I note that no objections have been received from the nearby [name], garden centre or residents at [address]. However, the lack of objections does not equate to lack of harm.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the display of the proposed advertisements would be detrimental to amenity. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.