Appeal 6004206

The appeal is dismissed and express consent to display a D48 digital advertisement is refused.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the visual amenity of the locality.

Although the appeal is against the failure of the Council to issue a decision, there is an [name] dated 2 March 2026 (the application for consent was dated 17 July 2025). The Report includes a deemed reason for refusal and refers to the Council’s view that a combination of the advertisement’s means of illumination, height off the ground and extent of coverage would result in a prominent and visually intrusive feature within the street scene and add significant clutter. This would be detrimental to visual amenity in the locality.

I saw on my visit that the existing advertising hoarding occupies the majority of the upper part of the end of terrace flank wall of No. [site address] at its junction with [address]. The large scale of the existing hoarding together with its elevated position means that it is already a dominant feature of the locality and is especially prominent in long views travelling south along [address].

I acknowledge that the ground floor of the host building is a commercial use and is at the end of a shopping parade on the edge of a local shopping centre, with a filling station on the opposite side of the road. However, most of the views of the proposed digital display will be from a residential context with two storey dwellings to the north along a considerable length of [address] and more closely from [address]. Apart from the adjacent tyre centre this road also has two storey dwellings. Appeal Decision: 6004206

In these surroundings I am of the view that the existing hoarding with its inappropriately large size relative to the gable wall of No. [site address] and its elevated position can reasonably be argued as already comprising a visual intrusion into the street scene and the residential area north of the local centre.

In fairness, with its near 20-year presence according to the grounds of appeal, the hoarding is an established part of the locality. Be that as it may, the proposed conversion into internally illuminated digital advertising would inevitably intensify the prominence of the hoarding with a ‘sea change’ to its impact on the visual amenity of the area. And, as the [name] explains, this effect would be particularly noticeable on darker days and at twilight.

I have had regard to the appellant’s submissions as to the benefits of digital advertising and that the imposition of the industry’s model conditions would have some degree of amelioration as to its impact. Nonetheless, I consider that due to a combination of its large size (both in itself and relative to the gable wall of No. 68b), elevated position and mainly residential suburban context, the appeal scheme would have an unacceptable effect on the visual amenity of the area.

Consequently, there would be harmful conflict with the [name] criteria of Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 adopted 2021; Policies D4 and D8 of the London Plan 2021, and with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024.

For the above reasons and having had regard to all other matters raised the appeal fails.