Appeal 6006261

The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of the 1no fascia, 1no projecting sign, ATM surrounds, address panel & night pay at [site address] [site address] , Dudley, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P26/0057, dated 16 January 2026. 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 intensity of the illumination of the advertisements permitted by this consent shall be no greater than 300 candela.

The appellant and the Council acknowledge that the proposed advertisements are already in place, and this was observed during my site visit. The plans are consistent with what has been erected on site, and I have therefore assessed the appeal on this basis.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) sets out that powers shall be exercised 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. Whilst the development plan policies cited by the Council are not determinative to this appeal, I have had regard to these policies in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to the matters before me.

The signage is placed above street level. Given the proposals scale, form and design together with the low intensity illumination and static advertisement it does not compromise pedestrian or highway safety. The Council raised no objection on the grounds of public safety, and based on my own observations on site, I find no reason to take a different view. I have therefore defined the main issue accordingly.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of appeal proposal on amenity, with particular regard to the character and appearance of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site lies within the designated CA which is associated with a medieval street pattern around which the town centre has evolved. This historical layout of the town remains legible through a network of surviving lanes, including the [name] which lies adjacent to the appeal site. The street pattern is reinforced by historic commercial frontages and a cohesive townscape character. [site address] together with [address] functions as a principal thoroughfare within the town centre and continues to serve as a focal point for commercial activity.

The appeal building forms part of a continuous terrace of traditional commercial properties and comprises three storeys, with a modern shopfront at ground-floor level. Fascia and projecting signage are an established feature of this part of the CA and form a key element of the context in which the proposal is seen. Along this section of the [site address] in particular, there is a wide and varied range of signage, differing notably in scale, materials, lettering (including size and font), and overall finish and colour. Further, notwithstanding the presence of external illumination and hanging signs, I observed on site examples of both internally illuminated and projecting box signs within proximity of the appeal site. Insofar as is relevant to the appeal before me, the site’s contribution to the character and appearance of the CA is neutral.

The fascia sign spans the full width of the frontage. However, the scale of the lettering and choice of font are not excessive relative to nearby signage, and the use of green is not discordant with the varied colour palette of the street. Similarly, the projecting sign is in keeping with the proportions of similar examples along the street and neither dominates the frontage nor projects excessively over the pavement. Moreover, its placement on the main fascia consolidates the signage and avoids visual clutter. By reason of their modest scale and discreet siting, the ATM surrounds, address panel and night window are not visually obtrusive. While the advertisements would inevitably be more noticeable during the hours of darkness, the low-level illumination would avoid excessive brightness and would be appropriate within the well-lit town centre environment.

In reaching my decision, I note that the Council’s Shopfront and Advertisement Supplementary Planning Document (2017) seeks to minimise the use of illuminated and projecting box signage. However, for the reasons given, the proposal does not read as an unsympathetic or discordant addition to the host building and wider street scene, nor does it harm the character or appearance of the CA.

Accordingly, I find that the appeal proposal does not harm amenity, with particular regard to the character and appearance of the CA. In reaching this conclusion, I have had due regard to the statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in so far as it relates to the consideration of amenity. I have also had regard to Policies D12 and S9 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017) and Policy 22 of the Dudley Area Action Plan (2017). Collectively, these policies seek to enhance local distinctiveness and historic character and protect amenity. Given that I have concluded that the proposal does not harm amenity, it does not conflict with these policies.

The Council is satisfied that no other conditions beyond the five standard conditions are required. However, to control the brightness level and safeguard amenity, a condition limiting the illumination level as per the application form is necessary.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.