Appeal 6004048

The appeal is dismissed.

As only the easting and northing co-ordinates of the appeal site were used for the address of the appeal site on the planning application form, for clarity I have also included the descriptive address used in other documents submitted by both main parties.

Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) requires that local planning authorities control the display of advertisements in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan, in so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors.

The Councils reason for refusal relates specifically to matters of amenity. There was no objection raised on the grounds of public safety, and I find no reason to take a different view on this matter.

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

The appeal site lies within an established mixed-use part of Sheffield, characterised predominantly by commercial and employment uses reflecting the area’s industrial origins. The immediate surroundings appear to be a mix of warehouses and light-industrial units, and these would form the backdrop to the proposals on a busy crossroads, at the junction of [address] and [address] East. There is an existing illuminated sign adjacent to the appeal site and a further large paper advertisement on the same side of the road towards [address]. However, the area is not exclusively commercial in nature, immediately to the north of [address] there is a row of two-storey terrace houses which have an outlook onto the proposed site.

The proposed advertisement would take the form of a freestanding 48-sheet paper display positioned adjacent to an existing illuminated display. By reason of its scale, form and design, it would appear visually discordant when read alongside the illuminated display, rather than forming a coherent or complementary element of the street scene.

The Council has drawn my attention to the fact that the introduction of the LED screen in this location was accompanied by the removal of several advertising hoardings, which had previously contributed to a visually cluttered street scene. The submitted evidence, including photographic material, clearly demonstrates the extent to which the former arrangement resulted in visual disorder.

Although the proposal would not increase the number of signs to the original quantum, the reintroduction of a large paper hoarding in close proximity to the illuminated display would result in a visually cluttered appearance at this prominent junction. Furthermore, its scale and highly visible position would introduce unwelcome and unnecessary visual intrusion in the outlook from the houses on the opposite side of [address].

When taken as a whole, the proposal would result in significant harm to the visual amenity of the locality, contrary to saved policy BE13 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy CS74 of the [name] (2009), which whilst not determinative seek to ensure that signage does not appear unduly prominent and result in visual clutter.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other locations in the area where multiple advertisements are positioned together. Each site must, however, be considered on its own merits and the presence of advertisements elsewhere does not provide justification for harmful advertisements.

I note that the site is not within a conservation area. However, this does not justify additional visual clutter. The proposal must still be judged on its impact on the locality, and in this case that harm remains clear.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.