Appeal 6006091

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.

The application was made retrospectively. On my site visit, I observed that the advertisement was displayed in accordance with the plans submitted and I have considered the appeal on this basis.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) set out that powers under those Regulations shall be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety. Neither the Council nor any other party has raised any objection to the proposed advertisement from a public safety perspective, and I find no reason to disagree.

The Council has drawn my attention to the policies it considers to be relevant to this appeal, and I have taken them into account as material considerations where relevant and they have not, by themselves, been decisive.

The main issue is the effect of the advertisement on amenity. Appeal Planning Officer 6006091

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area (WHRCA). This part of the WHRCA is largely characterised by three-storey, semi-detached houses of pale or red brick, with white render detailing. The WHRCA derives considerable significance from its residential feel and the grand, historic design of houses built with traditional materials.

The appeal site is a single-storey detached property with a grey render principal elevation, currently in use as a vehicle service centre. Due to the appeal property’s commercial use, height, and design, it differs from the surrounding residential character and has a neutral impact on the WHRCA.

The advertisement extends the entire width of the appeal property’s principal elevation. The large white lettering extending over half of the advertisement, and the white grid covering the bright blue background, are internally illuminated. The size, colour, and illumination of the advertisement makes it appear prominent in the street scene, detracting from the primarily residential character of the WHRCA. Consequently, the advertisement harms amenity by not preserving the character or appearance of the area or the WHRCA.

As the surrounding area is primarily residential, the only source of artificial light in the public realm comes from streetlights. The advertisement’s internal illumination significantly increases the levels of light pollution in the area. The advertisement’s illumination, together with its siting, both directly and indirectly facing windows of multiple properties on [address] and Wimbledon Park Road, makes it appear visually intrusive, harming the amenity of neighbouring occupants.

The appellant has suggested conditions to reduce the brightness of the internal illumination, or to turn off the internal illumination during specified hours. Whilst this would overcome the harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupants, with regard to light pollution, it would not overcome the harm of the advertisement to the character and appearance of the WHRCA. Even if the advertisement was not internally illuminated, its size and bright blue colour would appear disproportionate to, and discordant with, the muted colours, traditional materials, and primarily residential feel of area and WHRCA. Furthermore, a condition to not illuminate the advertisement is not reasonable as it results in changes to the advertisement applied for.

For these reasons, the advertisement harms amenity. I have taken into account Policy LP9 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2028 (2023) (LP), and the guidance contained within the Council’s Shopfronts: A guide to good design (1988), insofar as they relate to amenity. [name] have concluded that the advertisement harms amenity, it conflicts with this policy and guidance.

to the Council refer to [name] LP1, LP2 and LP3, however these refer to development, and as advertisements are not development for the purposes of planning legislation, they are not directly relevant to the appeal before me. Nevertheless, there is conflict with those elements of the policies which collectively seek to ensure that proposals respect their surroundings, preserving or enhancing heritage assets, and not resulting in unacceptable harm to current and future occupants of neighbouring properties due to light pollution. Appeal Planning Officer 6006091

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.