Appeal 6004658

The appeal is dismissed.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Regulations) require that decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) confirm this approach.

The Council’s reasons for refusal (RFR) refers to policy DG8 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review (LP). This policy relates to proposals for advertisements and is consistent with the amenity matter set out in the Regulations. The RFR also refer to Objective 9 and policy CP17 of the Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy (CS) as well as policy DG1 of the LP. These relate to proposals for development. Advertisements are not development, but I have noted that there is content within the objective and the policies relevant to amenity and public safety considerations. I have had regard to this content to inform my assessment against the Regulations.

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

The appeal site is within the boundaries of a petrol filling station (PFS). The PFS is already characterised by several illuminated and non-illuminated advertisements. On the opposite side of the road there is also a public house and hotel with advertisements. This site and the appeal site relate and contribute to the character of the adjoining [site address] roundabout.

Beyond the appeal site, towards the city centre on [address], the character and appearance are noticeably different. That area is predominantly leafy, residential and suburban. This feel extends to non-residential uses such as the dental surgery adjoining the appeal site. The trees within the boundaries of the dental surgery contribute positively to this character and appearance and the visual amenity of the area in general.

The trees are prominent in the views from the roundabout along [address] towards the city centre. As such the trees' positive contribution extends not only to the predominantly residential part of [address] but also that of the roundabout. This is because the greenery provides balance to the hard surfacing, buildings and advertisements of the appeal site. The existing advertisements and buildings do little to obscure views of the trees from viewpoints on [address] or from the roundabout.

In contrast, the proposal would largely screen these trees from these views. Its scale and geometric form would also appear as an incongruous form set alongside other trees in its vicinity that would remain unobstructed. As a result, it would significantly erode the positive contribution the trees make to the visual amenity of the roundabout's environs and that of [address].

For the reasons set out above, when assessed against the Regulations, the proposal would be unacceptable in visual amenity terms. It would conflict with policy DG8 of the LP which advises that advertisements should not be consented if they are likely to cause harm to the character and appearance of the area in which they are proposed to be displayed. The proposal would also conflict with the provisions of the Framework which advises that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed.

The appellant has stated that they would accept conditions contained within the Institute of [name] (ILP) guidance which relate to matters of illumination. They also have expressed their agreement to 6 out of 7 conditions suggested by the Council’s highways officer. All but one of these conditions relate to matters of illumination and/or the kinetic characteristics of the proposal. However, the imposition of these conditions would not overcome the harm to amenity that I have identified in this decision. This is because that harm is not related to the kinetic nature of the proposal, nor its illumination.

The Council has not raised any objection to the proposal in terms of public safety, nor on living conditions of nearby residents. I have no reason to disagree on these matters.

I note the benefits of the appeal proposal put forward by the appellant in terms of efficiency, sustainability and economic development. [name] acknowledge these would be benefits relating to the proposal, they do not outweigh the harm that I have identified. In any event my considerations are confined to those relating to amenity and public safety as stipulated by the Regulations.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several other illuminated advertisements within the country. From the evidence before me, I cannot be certain that they are entirely comparable to the appeal proposal, both in terms of immediate context, and/or their effect on the visual amenity of the area. The existence of other similar displays does not, in any event, equate to the acceptability of an advertisement in the location before me, and none of the examples persuade me that the proposal is acceptable.

The appellant expresses concerns that the Council did not proactively engage with them, as per the provisions of the Framework. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Regulation 17 advertisement appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to matters set out in the Regulations.

The appellant comments that they would have been willing to engage with the Council to explore a revised location for the proposed advertisement to overcome the Council’s concerns in relation to the proximity to trees. No details of a revised location have been included in the evidence, and I can only consider the details before me.

The appellant states that an existing banner is proposed to be removed. The banner is currently below the position of the proposed advertisement. In contrast to the proposal, the banner is completely set against the backdrop of an existing wall and, therefore, does not obscure the trees to its rear. It is also modest in scale, and these attributes mean that it has no harmful effect on the amenity of the area. As such, its removal would not have any benefits that could be set against the harm to the visual amenity of the area arising from the proposal.

There are no listed buildings, conservation areas or other designated heritage assets affected by the proposal. However, this does not diminish the harm I have already identified to the visual amenity of the area.

For the reasons set out above, although I have found no harm to public safety, the proposed advertisement would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area. Therefore, I conclude the appeal is dismissed.