Appeal 6004200

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.

The Council has drawn my attention to statutory plan policies it considers to be relevant to this appeal, and I have taken them into account where relevant. However, powers under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Regulations) to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any relevant factors. Therefore, in my determination of this appeal, the policies cited by the Council have not, by themselves, been decisive.

The Council suggests that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and that the identified, less than substantial, harm found would not be outweighed by public benefits. However, the test imposed by s72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requiring that “special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing [its] character or appearance” only relates to advertisements within a conservation area. As such, these tests are not engaged in this case.

The Council has raised no objection in respect of public safety, and there is no evidence before me which would lead me to a different view. Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity, including its effect on the significance of the [address] Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site is located on the footpath in front of the [name] building on the east side of [address]. The building is not a listed building, and whilst the location of the [site address] is not located within the CA, it is adjacent to the CA on three sides.

At this location, the footway is notably wide and broadens further in front of the [name] building. This area accommodates a range of street furniture, including sculptures, street trees, cycle stands, waste bins and lighting columns, which together contribute positively to the character and functionality of the public realm.

There is a consistent rhythm to the shopfront fascias and upper-storey façades. The generous footways and long views along the high street reinforce a sense of visual cohesion notwithstanding variation in architectural style. The general absence of digital advertising, with most premises retaining traditional static signage, further enhances the area’s established and historic character.

Insofar as it relates to this appeal, the significance of the CA, as identified in the [address] Conservation Area Statement (2009), derives from its composition of late eighteenth century residential buildings and nineteenth century commercial development, reflecting a piecemeal pattern of change as the area evolved from predominantly residential to commercial uses. The retention of historic building forms, materials and architectural detailing is of particular importance, and accordingly make a positive contribution to its overall significance.

The existing analogue advert is located on the external facing side of the [site address] and is highly prominent in the footway. . It is recognised that the external display is already an illuminated static display. Nonetheless, the proposal would have a much greater prominence through the digital display, with its more vibrant screen and rotating images drawing the eye. Such advertisements would not be unusual along a heavily trafficked road such as this. However, in this location, in such proximity to the CA, the overtly modern digital form of the proposed screen would appear visually at odds with the traditional materials and detailing of the street scene. This would be to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area, including the significance of the CA, even with controls relating to the time of operation and luminance levels.

There is an existing digital advertisement display within the [site address] . However, it is located on the inside with the framework of the [site address] helping to contain and moderate the impact on the visual amenity of the area. Accordingly, neither the existing digital nor analogue advertisements outweigh or offset the harm that I have identified in this appeal.

I therefore conclude that the proposed advertisement would have a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area, including having regard to its location in relation to the CA. The Council has cited policies Q2, Q5, Q6, Q17 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) in its refusal of consent. I have taken them into account as material considerations. However, the power to control advertisements under the Regulations may be exercised only in the interests of public safety and amenity. Consequently, they have not, in themselves, been decisive in my determination of the appeal.

As the power to control advertisements under the Regulations is exercised in the interests of public safety and amenity, the environmental, social, or economic benefits of the digital advertisement display do not outweigh the harm I have identified to the visual amenity of the area.

An extensive list of conditions has been offered by the appellant, including controlling luminance levels, controlling obstruction of the footway, sequencing of messages, and times of display amongst other things. However, the proposed conditions would not overcome the harm I have identified.

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.