Appeal 6003549

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council indicate that the proposal has been made in retrospect. However, at the time of my visit a different shop front sign to that illustrated within the appeal plans was in place. Notwithstanding this, I am required to consider the proposal that is the subject of this appeal and upon which the Council made its determination. I have therefore considered the proposal on the basis of the plans that are before me and not what has taken place at the site.

The provisions under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors.

The main issue is the effect of the siting of the proposed advertisement on amenity, that being the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The appeal site is located within an existing commercial area. The premises form part of a pair of commercial units within the same building. Both shop fronts host similar traditional features. These traditional shop fronts contribute to the character and appearance of the building and the wider commercial area. The premises is clearly visible within the locality.

The sign would project forward of the shop frontage and that of the pair of shop frontages. This would create a large projecting feature upon the existing shop front. In addition, the signage would cover the entire existing fascia of the shop frontage and that of its traditional detailed features that contribute positively to the appearance of the existing shop fronts and the commercial units as a pair. As such, the proposed fascia sign, by creating an unduly prominent and overly large fascia feature and obscuring the original fascial and ornamental detailing of the commercial unit, would cause visual harm to the shop front.

Further to the above, the fascia sign would be of modern design, incorporating large internally-illumined lettering and logos set upon a fascia band. Being a large and bulky form of signage upon the frontage this would contribute to the appearance of the signage being visually overly dominant upon this commercial premises. The illumination of the letters and logo would add to the conspicuous nature of the signage, particularly during those hours of darkness.

Taking these matters collectively the proposed signage would have a significant and negative visual impact upon the character and appearance of the property and the street scene.

The locality is not designated a conservation area and the building is not listed. Whilst the appellant contends that the shop front exhibits none of the traditional features referred to by the local planning authority, a photograph (annotated as figure 02) contained within the appellant’s submitted statement shows the shop front in its unaltered form. That photograph clearly shows the traditional features of the shop front.

It is contended that [address] displays a variety of modern and altered shop fronts with external security measures. I acknowledge that the area is commercial in nature. However, on my observations, I did not see any existing examples of signage projecting beyond the shop fronts within the vicinity of the appeal site to the degree of that proposed here.

Conditions have been put forward relating to requiring all visible parts of the shutter, guides, and box to be powder-coated/finished to match the existing shop front colour and for the shutter to be closed outside of trading hours. However, these conditions would not overcome my above concern in specific regard to the fascia signage such that would ameliorate the objections sufficient to allow consent to be forthcoming.

The fascia signage forms part of a housing box for roll-down shutters that are required for security. It is highlighted that the nature of the retail use can be the subject of crime and that the proposal would bring about business viability benefits. I accept that these would be merits brought about by the proposed signage. Nonetheless, these benefits do not outweigh my above concerns relating to amenity and do not bring about a justification for the proposed development.

For these reasons, I conclude the advertisement would have a harmful effect on the amenity of the area. The Council has referred to Policies EN1 and EN7 of the [site address] Local Plan within its decision notice. These policies require the design and character of a proposal to respect the context of the site and for advertisements not to appear obtrusive or dominant within the street scene or cause visual clutter or significant harm to the appearance of the building it is displayed upon. Given that I have concluded the proposal would be visually harmful this bring the proposal into conflict with these policies. [name] have taken these policies into account as a material consideration, the powers to control advertisements under the regulations may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. These are matters which must be determinative.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed.