Appeal 6005840

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.

Powers under the Regulations to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material and any other relevant factors. The Council has raised no objection with regards to public safety, and I have no clear reason to disagree. The development plan policy referred to on the decision notice has been taken into account as a material consideration though it has not, by itself, been decisive in my recommendation.

When considering amenity, relevant factors as stated by the Regulations include the general characteristics of the locality, including features of historical or architectural interest. The proposal is nearby to several listed buildings, although neither the statutory duty under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 nor the question of less than substantial harm in paragraphs 212- 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework is relevant to advertisement consent. Nevertheless, the presence of these heritage assets, and the nearby conservation areas are a material consideration.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisements on the amenity of the area.

The appeal site comprises the southern and western elevations of a shopping centre which has a contemporary design. It is located adjacent to, but outside the boundaries of the [address] Conservation Area (BSCA) and Town Centre Conservation Area (TCCA). Both the BSCA and TCCA are characterised by their medieval street layout and historic buildings which reflect Guildford’s development as a market town. The appeal site has a visual connection with both the conservation areas and falls within their settings and makes a neutral contribution to them.

It is proposed that the existing illuminated letter signage would be relocated to the western elevation of the shopping centre facing the [name] listed building known as the [name]. These buildings were constructed by the Dennis Brother Company as the first purpose-built car Factory in England. Now operating as a public house at the ground floor, the buildings retain their special architectural form with simple, neutrally coloured, non-illuminated letter signage which harmonises with their industrial heritage. Its setting includes the streetscape within which it is located and includes the appeal site.

The digital screen would be nearby to the [name] listed building known as 23, 25, 27 and [address], an eighteenth century Baroque former town house. Insofar as it is relevant to this case, its significance is primarily derived from its architectural interest including yellow brick with red brick dressings, fine cornices and panelled bays. Opposite this building is the [name] listed building known as 31, 33, 35 and [address], originally houses now shops with sash windows and slate mansard roof, with architectural and historic significance reflective of the development of Guildford. The settings of these listed buildings includes [address], [address] and [site address] at the appeal site location which terminates the view from [address]. Owing to this visual connection with the designated assets when standing on [address] looking towards [address], the appeal site falls within the setting of the listed buildings.

The area surrounding the proposed digital screen has a commercial character with various fascia and static illuminated letter signage linked to their respective commercial units. There are also several illuminated static panelled cabinets nearby although these are small scale and integrate with other street furniture at ground level. Despite this context, due to its scale and elevated position the digital display would have a dominating presence from several vantage points along [site address] , [address] and [address].

The large screen with rotating static and slow-moving images would be striking and draw more attention than the other advertisements within the street scene and would be noticeably different to the existing commercial signage at the site. It would therefore appear as an incongruous addition in comparison to the smaller, static and comparatively subdued fascia and letter signage in the vicinity. For these reasons, the digital screen would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.

Moreover, by reason of its harm to the amenity of the wider street scene, and given the clear visibility of the proposal in views across [address] from [address], it follows that the digital screen would also unacceptably detract from the setting of the TCCA , the Grade II Listed Buildings at 23, 25, 27 and [address] and 31, 33, 35 and [address], and how these assets are experienced. As such, although the screen has been sited further south than a previous scheme that was dismissed at appeal1 to increase the separation with the [name] and BSCA, it would visually compete with the historic environment and harmfully draw the eye at this appeal site location.

Measures to control the effects of the digital screen have been proposed including levels of luminance and hours of operation. However, as these would not alter the scale and position of the display screen, they would not mitigate the harm identified. Nor has it been shown that the appeal scheme is the only way to achieve the appellant’s aims of rationalising and modernising the existing commercial signage to improve visual coherence.

My attention has been drawn to several examples where digital screens have been permitted. However, there is limited evidence to indicate that they are directly comparable to this appeal scheme and in some cases are in a different local authority with a different development plan. In any event, I have come to my own view, based on the planning merits of the case. The other examples do not therefore lead me away from my above findings.

The area surrounding the appeal site where the commercial signage would be relocated features a range of existing advertisements, comprising shop fascia signs and illuminated advertisements including an illuminated static panelled cabinet, illuminated letter and neon signage, advertisement panels and a colour changing feature above the entrance of the shopping centre. I agree with the Inspector’s findings2 in relation to a nearby scheme that was allowed that the area is vibrant and typical of a town centre.

Due to the road layout and built form, the commercial signage would not be particularly visible when approaching from either direction along [address] until near to the shopping centre. When travelling from the BSCA along [address] towards the shopping centre, the signage would be apparent and would be seen in views with the listed [name] opposite.

The commercial signage would be displayed in different fonts to reflect the branding they advertise creating visual interest on the existing largely blank brick wall. While it would have a lateral spread and be at an elevated level, the signage would have a simple design that would assimilate with the existing letter signage on the [name] rather than compete with it. It would also be comfortably accommodated at the site with sufficient spacings so that the signage would not appear cluttered.

Although illuminated, the neutral white colour and presence of other existing illuminated advertisements within the street scene would ensure that the proposed signage would not be conspicuous or dominate views when seen with the [name], even cumulatively with the existing back lit advertisement panels. The proposal commercial signage would therefore preserve the setting of this listed building and would not diminish outward views from the BSCA and would therefore have an acceptable effect on the visual amenity of the area.

[name] have found that the relocated commercial signage would be acceptable, due to the harm identified by the proposed digital screen, the scheme as a whole 1 Appeal ref : APP/Y3615/H/25/3364063 2 Appeal ref : APP/Y3615/Z/25/3362164 would cause harm to the visual amenity of the area. It would therefore be in conflict with Policy D10 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2023) which amongst other things, requires advertisement proposals to be responsive to, and enhance the appearance, character and vitality of an area. Furthermore, they should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of heritage assets or their setting.

It is indicated that the proposal would make a positive contribution to town centre viability through the provision of flexible display space capable of accommodating community and local business content. Nevertheless, there is no substantive evidence that the display screen would be likely to be used in this way and no mechanism to secure the display of public messages. In any event, matters not relating to amenity and public safety fall outside the scope of the appeal, as defined in the Regulations. The Council’s handling of the application has not affected my consideration of the planning merits of the case.

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.