Appeal 6005220

The appeal is dismissed.

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 Planning Practice Guidance reiterate this approach. Therefore, while I have taken account of the policies and guidelines that the Council considers to be relevant, these have not been decisive in my determination of this appeal.

I have noted that permission is being sought retrospectively for this advertisement. This matter is not in dispute between the parties, and I have been able to confirm the retrospective nature of this development during my site visit. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the advertisement display on the amenity of the area including whether it has preserved or enhanced the character or appearance of the Hale Station Conservation Area.

[site address] is situated within the centre of Hale. The property is positioned within a two-storey terrace which is characterised by commercial properties at ground floor level with further businesses operating above. At a first-floor level the building has retained a number of pleasant architectural features which contribute to its character and value from the street scene, including sash and oval window detailing and roof finials, cornicing below the eaves and ornate rainwater goods.

The appeal site is within the Hale Station Conservation Area (HSCA) and in accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the appearance of the HSCA.

The significance of the HSCA is largely focused on [name] itself, but the buildings across the wider designation incorporate examples of the Arts and Crafts movement and other architectural styles, which can often be best seen at a first-floor level. The Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal (SPD5.11) (2016) indicates that the retail units and shop fronts along [address] are of architectural value, recognising that there is an eclectic mix of signage relating to independent retailers which is a defining characteristic of the area. Whilst the Appraisal notes that some of this signage can be intrusive and inappropriate to frontages, it also notes that the upper floors have often survived relatively unchanged from their original design. This is the case for [site address] itself.

The signage which is the focus of this appeal is positioned at a considerable height on the building, with the top of both signs resting just below the level of the roof eaves. The positioning of the signage gives it considerable prominence when viewed from the street. This prominence is further exacerbated by the size of the signage which also results in important elements of the first-floor character of the building being obscured from the street scene, particularly the attractive oval windows set below finials and the sash window detailing when looking south-east along [address]. The illuminated nature of the signage only results in further prominence in the street scene at certain times of the day.

[name] would acknowledge the appellants argument around the importance of appropriate signage to meet the needs of their business, my decision must turn only on the interests of amenity and public safety. Given the size of the signage and its location at a first-floor level, coupled with its projecting nature and illumination, it is an overly intrusive feature in the street scene and is not consistent with the wider uniformity of advertisements found along [address].

The signage is not consistent with the Council’s SPG on Advertisements which indicates that signage should generally be positioned at a ground floor level and that in conservation areas, signage should have special regard to the local character in relation to its size and illumination. The proposal is also not supported by policies set out in the Council’s Hale Station Conservation Area Management Plan (SPD5.11a) which suggest that signage should be at a scale and style that is appropriate to the building and its historic setting and make use of appropriate materials, colours and illumination.

I noted on my site visit other examples of advertising at a first-floor level, specifically the building adjacent to the appeal property. However, these advertisements were materially different to the signage which forms part of this appeal, in regard to their lack of illumination, projection or positioning on the building. As a result, these advertisements do not have the same visually obtrusive prominence when viewed from the street.

For the reasons given, the signage would not be sympathetic to the defining characteristics of the host property and its surrounding area and would fail to preserve the significance of the Conservation Area. I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal would have a harmful effect on amenity.

In accordance with the Regulations, I have taken into account the provisions of the development plan in so far as they are relevant. [name]-P1 and JP-P2 of the ‘Places for Everyone’ Greater Manchester Plan seeks to ensure that development conserves and enhances the historic environment, taking into account the heritage significance of an area. Policy R1 of the Trafford Local Plan: [name] states that all new development must take account of surrounding building styles, landscapes and historic distinctiveness and demonstrate how they will complement and enhance existing features of historic significance, including their wider settings.

I have concluded that the signage would harm amenity, and therefore the appeal development conflicts with these policies. For the same reason, the development would also be contrary to the provisions of paragraph 141 of the Framework which states that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed.

The Council have not suggested the proposal affects public safety and I see no reason to disagree.

I note the appellants position that the illuminated signage has replaced previous advertisement displays which included four banners lit by nearby lighting and positioned at first-floor level. [name] acknowledge this may be the case, the previous signage, despite their number, were materially different to those now proposed, in terms of their more lightweight and less substantial design and their absence of integral illumination. Consequently, the previous signage would have been less harmful in respect of their impacts on the street scene.

Whilst Conservation Area Appraisals are recommended and allow for a full assessment of the characteristics of existing conservation areas, the length of time since such a review has taken place does not diminish the protected status of the conservation area, or override the statutory duty set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the advertisement would harm amenity and the appeal should be dismissed.