Appeal 6004201

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 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 (CRCA).

The appeal site is located on the footpath in front of [address]. Whilst the location of the [site address] is not within the CRCA, it is adjacent to the CRCA and experienced within its setting. It is also located in close proximity to the [address] Conservation Area (CHSCA). However, the [site address] is only visually experienced within the CRCA, and not the CHSCA, due to the visual separation of the railway bridge at this location. I have considered the appeal with this in mind.

At this location, the footway is notably wide and accommodates a range of street furniture, including 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 of architectural form to the shopfronts and upper-storey façades in this area. The generous footways and long views along [address] reinforce a sense of visual cohesion. [name] acknowledge some limited digital advertisement in the vicinity, there is a general absence of digital advertising, with most premises retaining traditional static signage, which enhances the area’s established and historic character.

Insofar as it relates to this appeal, the significance of the CRCA, as identified in the [address] Conservation Area Statement (2012), is it being an excellent example of the historical development of the area, showing growth from late Georgian suburban expansion through to Victorian and early twentieth century development. There is a consistent architectural rhythm, and the Georgian and later buildings share similar heights, repeated window patterns and classical detailing. The use of coherent materials creates a unified palette and visual cohesion, and all the above factors make a positive contribution to the CRCA.

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 CRCA, the overtly modern digital form of the proposed screen would appear visually at odds with the traditional materials and detailing of the wider street scene. This would be to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area, including the significance of the CRCA, 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 CRCA. 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. Nonetheless, the proposed conditions would not mitigate nor overcome the harm I have identified.

The evidence suggests that there was a previous grant of permission for a dual screen digital advertisement at this location; however, that permission was never implemented. I do not have any substantive evidence before me to demonstrate what the considerations of that application were and how they relate to the subject appeal. I therefore afford that matter little weight.

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.