Appeal 6005968

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has raised no concern regarding the effect of the proposed advertisement on public safety. I have no reason to disagree. The main issue therefore is the effect of the proposed advertisement on the visual amenity of the area.

The appeal relates to part of a site operating as a petrol filling station (PFS) located on the east side of [address] and immediately north of a railway embankment, with a funeral director’s business sandwiched in-between. On the opposite side of the road to the west is a water treatment plant and associated buildings. Immediately north of the appeal site is a semi-detached pair of dwellings (Nos 81 and [address]). Further north, beyond the junction with [address] to the side of No 81, [address] is distinctly residential in character to both sides.

The proposal is for the installation of a 6m wide by 3m high single-sided freestanding digital LED display to be positioned 1.7m above ground level and set to the north side of the PFS forecourt. The display would be angled to face towards oncoming traffic travelling north along [address] and would be illuminated with static images that would change every 10 seconds and operate within the guidelines set by the Institute of [name] 05/23 - The Brightness of [name].

The proposal would comprise a new installation on an unkempt grass verge within the curtilage of the PFS to the side of a vehicular entrance/exit from [address] and adjacent to the residential boundary fence to the side of the front garden to No 83. At the time of my visit the space was occupied by a modest sized automated parcel drop-off/pick-up facility.

The appellants point out that controls would regulate the function of the advertisement in order to mimic a traditional externally illuminated poster and paste display. They argue that this format would sit comfortable within the commercial setting of the PFS along with its associated paraphernalia and illuminated structures. I disagree.

I accept that the PFS has a typically commercial appearance, but this is largely contained to the immediate setting of the canopy and shop. There is an obvious and appropriate transition away from the site’s commercial function towards its northern boundary where it adjoins the two neighbouring dwellings. Within this context, the proposed advertisement would be seen to stand alone and proud, being set significantly forward of the residential building line immediately adjacent to the north, to which it would appear most associated. When viewed from the south, looking north, it would be incongruously set against a wider residential backdrop, whilst simultaneously obscuring the immediately adjacent dwelling largely from view. It would loom large and intrusive within the street scene, bearing little relationship to the functionality of the PFS or the wider context of its setting. Rather than complementing the commerciality of the PFS, it would introduce a poorly related, large, and cumbersome form of advertising.

When seen on the approach along [address] from the opposite direction to the north, and from the front gardens of Nos 81 and 83, its utilitarian back side would be exposed to clear view. This too would have a significantly intrusive and overbearing presence within the street scene and would be significantly out of keeping with the residential context of the adjoining properties. Overall, due to its nature, scale, and siting, I find the advertisement would have a negative impact that would detract from the amenity of the area.

I have taken into account Policies 37 and 102 of the Bromley Local Plan, January

Between them, amongst other things, these seek to protect the character and amenity of the area and so they are material in this case. Given that I have concluded that the proposal would harm amenity, there would be conflict with these policies.

Paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts. It also states that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed. Having viewed the site from various aspects along [address], for the reasons given I find that the proposed advertisement would appear poorly sited and poorly designed within the street scene. This would be to the detriment of amenity. Other factors put to me by the appellants are not relevant to my assessment. Consequently, based upon the harm that I have identified, the appeal is dismissed.