Appeal 6005803

The appeal is dismissed.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Regulations) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) make it clear that advertisements are subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 does not apply to advertisement appeals. Even so, relevant development plan policies can be taken into account as a material consideration in advertisement appeals provided that they are relevant, and this is the basis on which I have determined the appeal.

Informed by the consultation response of the highway authority, the Council has identified that the effects of the advertisement on public safety would be acceptable. I agree with this conclusion.

Consequently, the main issue is the effect of the advertisement on visual amenity.

Relatively near the appeal site are some of Morecambe’s more heavily commercialised areas. Within these areas, a wide variety of advertisements are on display. [address], which meets [address], similarly contains a number of businesses and signage. This includes, on the gable end of No. [address], a large, but non-illuminated, paper-and-paste advert.

However, and even though there is a builders’ merchant next door, the appeal site is located within an area where the character has transitioned away from a commercialised one to that which is very much residential. Indeed, the site itself is located at one end of a terraced street containing, for the most part, residential properties. To the south, beyond a railway line, this residential character strengthens further, exhibited by the number of semi-detached houses and bungalows. At the time I conducted my visit, no advert was affixed to the gable end of the host property. The evidence before me demonstrates an advert has been displayed on it, however, being much smaller and non-illuminated, it significantly differed in character from that proposed via this appeal.

In contrast, the proposed advert would be of considerable size, covering a significant proportion of the gable end it would be affixed to. Although the images which would be displayed would be static, it would be required to be well-maintained, and measures would be deployed to control its intensity, given the advert’s size and digital illuminated nature, it would form a forceful and strident feature within the street scene. Within its particular context, the advert would be incongruous, harmfully discordant with the prevailing residential character.

On the opposite side of [address], No. 186’s front elevation faces the appeal site. This elevation contains a number of windows including large bay windows. Although the advert would be set on an angle to this elevation, and the light spillage from the advert may not reach it, owing to its size and stridency, the advert would, visually, be very imposing when viewed from this neighbouring property.

For these reasons, and even though the site is not within a conservation area nor located within close proximity to any heritage assets, the advert would fail to assimilate into its surroundings, and it would unacceptably harm visual amenity.

As a result, the proposed advert conflicts with Policy DM21 of the Lancaster District Local Plan Part Two: Development Management Development Plan Document (the LP) which, amongst other matters, sets out that adverts should be well designed, appropriately sited, and sensitive to the building they are to be sited on and the street scene. It also conflicts with LP Policy DM29 which requires all proposals to make a positive contribution to the townscape and the character of the area. Furthermore, as the advert’s design would fail to be sympathetic to the area, it also conflicts with policy set out at paragraph 141 of the Framework which warns of the visual harm poorly sited and designed adverts can cause.

The consideration of advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Therefore, whilst the appellant asserts that the advert would result in a number of environmental, economic and social benefits, these are not matters which have a bearing on my decision. I also note the cited ability for the advert to display emergency announcements. Factors relevant to public safety are specified in regulation 3 of the Regulations. These factors concern safety in relation to various transport modes and emergency announcements do not seem very relevant to them. That said, neither does regulation 3 include an exhaustive list of safety factors. However, even in a scenario whereby I accepted that the display of emergency announcements is a public safety matter relevant to the control of advertisements, the benefit derived from it would not overcome the harm I have identified to visual amenity.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would unacceptably harm amenity. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.