Appeal 6004634

The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for one non-illuminated wall mounted sign and addition of external lighting to an existing double sided sign at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , Barnet, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/4674/ADV. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the following additional conditions:

The intensity of the illumination of the double-sided advertisement permitted by this consent shall be no greater than 600cd/m2 at any time.

The double-sided advertisement shall only be illuminated between the hours of 6am and 11pm on any day and shall not be illuminated at any other time.

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.

In the header and decision above I have used the description from the Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s appeal submission, as it describes the advertisement more concisely. I have omitted the words ‘retention of’ from the decision as consent would start from the date of the decision and not from the date on which the advertisement was first displayed.

The original application was made in part retrospectively. During my site visit, I noted that the non-illuminated wall mounted sign has been installed in accordance with the plans submitted. [name] note the Council’s concern that the sign could be illuminated, that is not what consent has been sought for, and on site I did not see any existing means of illuminating the sign. Furthermore, despite the provision of Appeal Planning Officer 6004634 photographs showing external lighting on the existing double-sided sign, neither the power bar nor any lighting was in place at the time of my visit. As such, I will assess the scheme on the basis of what is shown on the plans before me.

Advertisements are controlled with reference to their effect on amenity and public safety only. Regulation 3 requires that powers in this regard shall be exercised taking into account the provisions of the development plan, in so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors.

A number of the policies referred to by the Council in its decision notice relate to development. As advertisements are not development in planning terms, these policies are not directly relevant to the scheme before me. However, I have had regard to those policies that do not concern development, insofar as they are material to this appeal.

Neither the Council nor any other party has raised any dispute to the advertisements with regard to public safety. From the evidence before me and my observations on site, I see no reason to disagree.

The main issue is the effect of the advertisements on amenity.

The appeal site is situated on a busy thoroughfare with a noticeable separation of commercial premises on one side of the street and residential properties located on the opposite side of the street. Various forms of advertisement can be found in the street scene. The London Marathon Playing Fields located next to the appeal site, [site address] Rugby and 75 [site address] exhibit modestly sized, non-illuminated signs. Further along the street, a large freestanding advertisement for [name] can be seen alongside various other sizeable banners affixed to fences. A small, illuminated box sign is sited within the same vicinity.

The appeal site is designated as a [name] listed building and derives significance from its historic and architectural interest. Its immediate context appears relatively rural due to surrounding vegetation, but the variety of building uses in the area present a mixed character overall. The hospital function of the appeal site is clear throughout with additional signage on windows, which is to be expected on a building used by the public. I observed a balance between the verdant elements of the site and its commercial nature, with both informing how the building is experienced.

The vegetation and separation between the appeal property and neighbouring buildings creates a sense of space around it, in contrast to the more densely built-up environment in the residential part of the area. This spacious setting contributes positively to the significance of the listed building. Non-illuminated wall mounted sign.

The appeal scheme partially comprises a large sign mounted to a wall of a single storey outbuilding within the boundary of the site, on the elevation facing the street. The sign is of modest height and spans almost the width of the wall. However, it is set back from the street and obstructed by the wire fence boundary surrounding the site. This, plus its pale colour similar to that of the outbuilding, lessens the visual Appeal Planning Officer 6004634 impact resulting from its scale. Furthermore, it is only visible from directly in front of the site and therefore its visual impact affects a very small section of the street.

There is adequate distance between this sign and signage on the listed building itself to avoid visual clutter. Additionally, the style and appearance of this and the other signage, which uses corresponding images, fonts and colours, appear cohesive when observed together.

Given its location on an outbuilding, the advertisement does not impinge on the spacious and verdant setting or the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building. As a result, this sign is congruous with the character and appearance of the appeal site as a whole. It is also in keeping with the commercial context of this side of the street.

Consequently, this advertisement does not appear as an unduly prominent or visually obtrusive feature within the street scene nor an unsympathetic addition to the setting of this [name] listed building, resulting in no harm to amenity.

The size of the existing double-sided sign makes it prominent in the street scene. During daylight hours, the proposed illumination would not cause the sign to be any more noticeable than it already is due to its size. Naturally, the visual impact of illumination would be significantly reduced during the day, allowing the sign to remain in keeping with the mixed character of its surroundings. Therefore, there would be no harm to amenity during the day.

During hours of darkness however, the proposed illumination of a sign of this size would make it very prominent. The illumination would be directed down onto the sign so would not illuminate the wider area, however it would make the sign an unduly dominant and visually obtrusive element in the streetscape. This would draw the eye from the listed building, detracting from its setting, and would harm the character and appearance of the local area. The proposal would therefore harm amenity in this regard.

The appellant has indicated the illumination will be switched off daily between the hours of 11pm and 6am. This would partly mitigate the harm from night-time illumination and can be secured through a condition. However, illumination of the sign during hours of darkness that fall outside of this timeframe would still result in modest harm to amenity.

The appellant has drawn attention to wayfinding benefits and provision of clear identification of a medical and emergency premises. As the sign is at the access, it is evident that it would provide benefits for those seeking to attend the hospital, and I recognise that wayfinding would be more difficult when it is dark. Therefore, I afford these benefits moderate weight and on balance, I find that they outweigh the remaining harm to amenity.

Consequently, the non-illuminated wall mounted sign would not result in harm to amenity and the benefits from illuminating the double-sided sign between 6am and 11pm would outweigh the harm to amenity, justifying granting consent. Appeal Planning Officer 6004634

I have taken into account Policies CDH08 and CDH09 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (March 2025) which seek to protect character, design and heritage, and so are material in this case. I have had regard to Barnet Design Guidance Note 1: Advertising & Signs (1994) which promotes the relative and careful design of advertisements. Given that the signage would not harm amenity, subject to conditions, they would not conflict with these local policies or guidance in this regard.

In addition to the standard conditions set out in the Regulations, further conditions are required to control hours of illumination and brightness levels, in the interest of amenity.

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

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to conditions.