Appeal 6003912

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

I have taken the description of the proposed advertisement from the submitted plans as this is more accurate.

The powers under the Regulations1 shall be exercised only in the interests 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. Therefore, while the development plan policies referred to on the Council’s decision notice cannot by themselves be decisive, they have been taken into account as a material consideration as part of this decision. The Planning Practice Guidance sets out that in practice, ‘amenity’ is usually understood to mean the effect on visual and aural amenity in the immediate neighbourhood of an advertisement.

The main issue is the effect of the advertisement on the amenity of the area.

The appeal site is a storage premises consisting of various storage units and onsite office facilities surrounded by mesh fencing. The appeal site is situated on a wider industrial estate containing a wide range of differing industrial premises. 1 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007

The proposal involves the installation of two 8.7 metre high and 3.2-metre-wide freestanding signs. Due to both their excessive height and width, both signs would appear as highly incongruous prominent additions, particularly when viewed in conjunction. I acknowledge that, due to the industrial character of the area, signs are a typical characteristic. However, from my site visit I observed that other signs in the directly surrounding area were much more modest in their proportions in contrast to the appeal proposals before me, which would appear as highly visually intrusive. This visual incongruity is further reinforced by the over concentration of large prominent signage at the appeal site as a result of the existing signage present as well as the appeal proposals resulting in the appeal site becoming subsumed by corporate branding and creating a sense of visual clutter.

As such, the proposal would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires proposals to be sympathetic to the character of the local area and to consider the effect of advertisements on amenity. In accordance with the Regulations, I have also considered the development plan so far as it is material. Therefore, the proposal would not accord with Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Update 2020 – 2039 (2025) which requires, amongst other things, that all development proposals respect the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has highlighted several other large signs at other premises in the wider area such as at MKM, Lidl, B&Q and [name]. However, from my site visit I observed that these signs were clearly read as solo structures. In contrast the appeal scheme which proposes a collective of signs which, as a result, appear significantly more prominent and incongruous. Furthermore, I have not been provided with the planning background of these examples in order to give them significant weight.

The appellant has cited that the proposal would not result in any harm to public safety. However, whilst I do not disagree with this conclusion this is a neutral matter in the planning balance.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.