Appeal 6005558

The appeal is dismissed for the wall mounted internally illuminated flex face lightbox sign and is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of the non-illuminated dibond panel banner at [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01409/ADV. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations and the following additional condition:

The non-illuminated dibond panel banner hereby permitted shall not be erected and displayed other than in complete accordance with the approved plans: Location/Block Plan and dimensioned photograph.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the 2007 Regulations) require that applications for the display of advertisements are considered in terms of amenity and public safety.

The description of the advertisements has been adopted from the council’s decision notice which represents a simplified version of the description provided on the application form.

The advertisements subject of this appeal have been erected. The site visit was undertaken during the daytime, but the evidence provided by the council includes photographs of the advertisements taken during the evening and these have been taken into account as part of the assessment of the appeal scheme.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in December 2025 but does not raise any new matters which affect the assessment of this appeal scheme.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the advertisements on the visual amenity of the host property and the streetscene.

The appeal property is a modest sized single storey health centre building with accommodation within the roofspace. The property is situated at the end of a cul-de-sac which is fronted by a number of buildings, including a school and a supermarket with an extensive car park. There are existing large illuminated advertisements erected on the roof and side wall of the supermarket albeit this building is significantly larger than the property. Other signage is associated with the supermarket’s car park and the school. The road has streetlighting and there are lamp posts providing external light for the car park.

Referred to as the lightbox sign, a large, internally illuminated advertisement has been erected on the wall of the property facing towards the turning head of the cul-de-sac. The level of illumination is 50cd/m2. The appellant has advised that this static advertisement is only lit when the health centre is open. The lightbox sign is claimed by the appellant to be essential to advertise the presence of a drop-in medical practice and the healthcare services provided. The appellant also claims that an illuminated advisement of this size with a high degree of contrast, exhibited by its content, is required so that the property and services are easily identifiable to elderly and visually impaired people during darker hours.

However, because of its disproportionate size the lightbox sign visually dominates the side elevation of the modestly sized host property when viewed from the cul-de-sac. Although there is other signage, including illuminated advertisements associated with the supermarket, the size of the lightbox sign results in it being a visually conspicuous and incongruous addition to the streetscene along the road, whether during the daytime or evening periods. The non-illuminated dibond panel banner has also been erected on railings on the same elevation as the lightbox sign and adds to the visual clutter viewed from the road and the visual domination of the of the advertisements on this elevation of the property.

Accordingly, it is concluded that the appeal scheme causes unacceptable harm to the visual amenity of the host property and the streetscene.

The appellant has requested a split decision be considered and because the advisements are distinct and separate consideration has been given to issuing such a decision. For the reasons already given, when the lightbox sign is considered in isolation it is inappropriate to allow this appeal and grant advertisement consent because of the unacceptable harm it causes to the visual amenity of the host property and the streetscene.

However, the non-illuminated dibond panel banner is of a modest size which is proportionate to the scale of the property. This sign is also not disproportionate in size to the scale of other advertisements fronting the cul-de-sac. The panel banner has been erected adjacent to the property’s recessed access and, as such, it is related to the function of the health centre. Further, the advertisement contains information about the services offered by the appellant at the health centre. The conclusion is that, in isolation, the dibond panel banner does not cause unacceptable harm to the visual amenity of the host property and the streetscene.

The appellant has identified that the advertisements are required to ensure that the health centre is easily identifiable to elderly and visually impaired people during darker hours. Accordingly, due regard has been had to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. From the evidence, this appeal decision has the potential to affect people with a protected characteristic for the purposes of the PSED. However, it does not follow that the appeal should necessarily succeed.

No substantive evidence has been provided to indicate that elderly and visually impaired people would not be able identify and access the health centre if the specific advertisements subject of this appeal had not been erected. Further, because of being minded to issue a split decision, the building’s use as a health centre and the types of medical services available will still be identifiable to elderly and visually impaired people, including during the evening period due to the streetlighting.

Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal is dismissed in respect of the wall mounted internally illuminated flex face lightbox sign but allowed for the erection and display of the non-illuminated dibond panel banner.