Appeal 6004855

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner above, I have taken the description of the advertisements from the decision notice of the Council as it more accurately describes the proposal. However, I have removed some superfluous wording and altered the description slightly to clarify that the proposal relates to more than one advertisement.

On my site visit I observed that 4 out of the 5 vinyl window graphics had been applied. Express consent for those signs is therefore sought retrospectively.

The appellant has advised that the appeal relates to 4 of the 5 vinyl window graphics originally applied for (presumably the 4 in situ). However, this is not the scheme which was considered by the Council, who have not had the opportunity to comment on this lesser scheme. I have therefore assessed the appeal based on the plans considered by the Council. Nonetheless, as each advertisement is severable, the appeal could be allowed in part. Therefore, I have assessed whether a reduced scheme would be appropriate.

I have had regard to Section 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations). This limits my considerations to those relating to amenity and public safety.

The Council has not raised any objections to the adverts on public or highway safety grounds. Based on the evidence before me and my site visit observations, I have no reason to disagree.

Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the advertisements on amenity, with particular regard to the character and appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (HBCA).

The appeal site is located in the HBCA. In an appeal for advertisement consent in a conservation area, the test from s72(1) of the Act1 is that “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of “preserving or enhancing the character or appearance” of a Conservation Area”. In applying the statutory duty, considerable importance and weight must be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. This statutory duty applies in advertisement appeals insofar as it relates to the consideration of ‘amenity’.

The [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan 2011 (the CAA) provides a good understanding of the HBCA. Insofar as relevant to this appeal the significance of the HBCA derives from the architectural interest of its buildings and the high-quality townscape character. In addition, the HBCA is also of historic interest which derives from its history of textile production and association with the early industrial revolution.

The appeal property relates to a convenience store which is occupied by the Co-op. The building is located adjacent to [address] (the A646) which is the main route through [site address] . The building is therefore visually prominent. The building is part two-storey and part single storey and is primarily of stone construction. [address] elevation is mainly glazed and includes 12 large shop windows which extend close to floor level. The windows are arranged in to six pairs. A fascia sign is positioned above the two central pairs of windows. The two side pairs have visible arched stonework lintel detailing. The CAA identifies the building as making a neutral contribution to the HBCA. The architectural detailing and traditional materials of the building mean that it sits comfortably within the HBCA and, therefore, I have no reason to disagree with that overall assessment.

[address] is predominantly commercial with ground floor shop fronts addressing the highway. Advertisements to these units generally comprise modest fascia signs over the shop front, and the occasional hanging sign. In the main signage along [address] is generally discreet and muted in appearance.

As noted above, four of the five vinyl graphics have been applied. I accept that the architectural features of the building are unaffected by the adverts. However, the vinyl graphics occupy the full extent of the glazing panels resulting in visually large and assertive additions on the [address] shop frontage. Their cumulative presence, combined with a stark colour palette and bold imagery, creates a level of visual prominence that is uncharacteristic of the generally discreet and muted signage typical of [address]. The adverts therefore appear discordant and visually intrusive within the streetscape. As such the adverts have a negative visual effect on the character and appearance of the HBCA, and the application of a fifth graphic would compound these harmful effects further. 1 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

I note that full window vinyl advertisements were previously applied to two of the openings on this elevation2. However, from the evidence before me, the colour palette of these appeared to be much more muted and, as such, less prominent than the replacements proposed.

I have considered whether a smaller number of window vinyl graphics would be acceptable and, therefore, whether the advertisements could be allowed in part. Even a reduced number of graphics would retain the same design characteristics, including the full-pane coverage, bold colouring, and strong visual imagery, which are the primary sources of harm. The reduction in number would not materially alter their prominence or their discordant relationship with the surrounding streetscape. Therefore, I am not persuaded that a reduction in the scheme would address my concerns in terms of amenity and the effect on the character and appearance of the HBCA.

I acknowledge that the adverts help to screen internal retail clutter. However, visibility through a shop window is not uncommon and I am not persuaded that the visibility of shop clutter is visually more harmful than the inappropriate vinyl graphics proposed. I also note that the appellant has the option of an alternative solution. However, an alternative design is not before me and, in any event, has not been considered by the Council.

Accordingly, I conclude that the advertisements are harmful to amenity, with particular regard to the character and appearance of the HBCA. I have taken into account the provisions of Policies BT1 and HE1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19 – 2032/33, so far as they are material to amenity, in accordance with the Regulations. Given that I have concluded that the proposals are harmful to amenity, it conflicts with these policies.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.