Appeal 6004811

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 Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations), the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) all make it clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts. The reasons for refusal refer to a number of policies. The Regulations require that decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Consequently, although I have taken these policies into account insofar as they are material to matters of amenity and public safety, they have not been decisive in my consideration of this appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisement on visual amenity, with particular regard to character and appearance of the [address]/[address] Conservation Area (CA); and on public safety.

The appeal site is located within an urban, mixed-use area. It sits along a busy highway lined predominantly with shop frontages, many of which display hanging Appeal Planning Officer 6004811 signs. From the appeal site no billboards are visible, although illuminated billboards do exist at other, more distant points along the same road. The proposed advertisements would be positioned on a prominent, ornately detailed three-storey building. The ground floor of this building is currently occupied by a gym and café, while the upper floors retain a traditional architectural character that contributes positively to the CA. The building’s decorative façade, particularly at upper levels, is a notable feature within the streetscape.

Either side of the appeal building are runs of single-storey retail units, which accentuate the height and visual prominence of the appeal site. Behind these lower units, set further back from the street, are additional two and three-storey buildings that appear to be residential and are oriented perpendicular to the proposed advertisement locations. The side elevations of the appeal building are constructed of red and buff brick, with some visible graffiti present on both sides. A small window is located on the southern elevation, although this feature does not appear on the submitted plans. Aside from this, the side elevations are relatively plain in comparison to the more ornate front façade.

Overall, the traditional appearance of the appeal building, and particularly the detailed treatment of its upper floors, makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA and forms an important part of the streetscape.

The proposed digital displays would, by their nature, emit light for the production of an image. This form of illumination would introduce a noticeably brighter and more visually assertive element into a part of the street scene where there is currently very limited noticeable artificial lighting during daylight hours, including from existing advertisements. The distinctly modern character of digital screens, heightened by their illumination, would sit uncomfortably against the traditional façade of the appeal building and the surrounding area, appearing visually incongruous given the building’s prominence within the street. While brightness levels could be controlled by condition, such measures would not adequately address or mitigate the lack of harmony created by the illuminated digital format in this context.

I note the appellant’s reference to previous advertisements at the appeal site, as well as to similar displays elsewhere within the CA and the wider borough. However, the examples cited are not directly comparable. The former advertisements at this location were not LED illuminated displays, and the other sites referenced differ materially in their context and characteristics. As such, they are not directly comparable to the proposal before me. I am not persuaded that the controls available in terms of switching the panel off in the evening, dimming the panel display according to ambient light levels, luminance thresholds and restricting the manner in which images change would be sufficient to offset the harm.

The proposed advertisements would harm the visual amenity of the area. The appeal scheme therefore conflicts with Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Policies Q2, Q5, Q17, Q22 and PN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the accompanying Advertising and Guidance (2016), which seek to conserve or enhance the local distinctiveness and seek to resist consent for large panel advertisements. Public Safety Appeal Planning Officer 6004811

The appeal site is located along a busy road that experiences consistently high levels of traffic. During my mid‐morning, mid‐week site visit, the highway had heavy traffic, and it is reasonable to expect that vehicle flows would be even greater during peak periods such as the morning and evening rush hours. Several bus routes operate along this stretch of road, and large vehicles, including lorries, were observed passing frequently. A set of traffic lights are located in close proximity to the appeal site, contributing to regular stopping, queuing, and pedestrians crossing within the immediate area.

The proposed advertisements would be positioned at first‐floor level on the appeal building. Owing to the building’s prominence and the open nature of the street scene, the displays would be visible from a considerable distance along the road in both directions. The proposal is for a digital billboard showing a sequence of static images.

When travelling south towards the junction, the proposed north-facing advertisement would be seen close to the traffic signal head and at a similar height. Its placement would introduce an additional visual distraction at a location where drivers are already subject to multiple cognitive demands. This proximity would also diminish the clarity of the traffic signal.

The presence of the north-facing advertisement would increase the likelihood that a driver might miss or misinterpret a signal or fail to notice a stopped or slowing vehicle due to momentary distraction. Any delay in responding to the traffic signals could lead to conflicts with pedestrians using the crossing. As a result, the distraction posed by the advertisement would also compromise pedestrian safety. The proposal therefore presents an unacceptable risk of conflict between road users and, consequently, to overall public safety.

This harm could not be sufficiently mitigated by the suggested luminance controls. While switching the advertisement off between 22:00 and 07:00 would reduce distraction during those hours, the risk would persist at all other times. Accordingly, this condition would not render the proposal acceptable.

When travelling north, the other proposed advertisement would be located on the opposite side of the carriageway and would not be viewed directly alongside any signal heads. Although it may attract some attention, it is unlikely to result in undue distraction for drivers.

In conclusion, the proposed north facing advertisement would result in unacceptable harm to public safety. The appeal scheme therefore conflicts with Policy T4 of the London Plan (2021), Policy Q17 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the accompanying Advertising and Guidance (2016), which seek to stop harm to highway and public safety.

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.