Appeal 6006512

The appeal is dismissed.

The Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) identifies that the power 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 appeal relates to the removal of two advertisement boards (48-sheet) and the installation of 1no. illuminated digital display (48-sheet).

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

The appeal site is located on a heavily trafficked road leading to the city centre. In the immediate context of the appeal site, the road is primarily lined with rows of traditional terraced buildings comprising commercial uses at ground floor with ancillary or residential uses above, with a school and a small number of purpose-built commercial buildings nearby. Opposite the site is an area of landscaping with established trees, which provides pedestrian routes through to a play park. Behind the site is a commercial yard. Accordingly, the character and appearance of the area is a mixed one, within which the built form is mostly small scale commercial or domestic in size.

The internal illumination of the advertisement combined with its comparatively large scale in this context would appear disproportionate and would be harmfully obtrusive within this modest mixed townscape. I visited the site during daytime and nighttime hours. During the evening visit it was noticeable that [site address] , despite its busy urban location, was modestly lit from external lighting, shop frontages or illuminated signage. The addition of an illuminated screen to the streetscene would be unduly prominent and incongruous. Its harmful effect would be exacerbated owing to the long lines of sight along [site address] from which the proposed advertisement would be visible. For these reasons it would detract from the visual amenity of the area.

The appellant confirms the screen would be illuminated between 06:00 and 23:59 with a static image that would change sequentially every ten seconds. These are matters that could be controlled by conditions in the event of a consent. Such measures may help to reduce the extent of visual impact, but they would not fully overcome my concerns about the more fundamental harm caused by the proposal.

In coming to my findings, I am aware that there have been two longstanding advertisement hoardings at the site, and that these would be displaced by the proposal. The appellant considers the status of those advertisements to have deemed consent, and I have little basis to find otherwise. My observations were that neither hoarding is internally illuminated, and they are static with a matt, much more low key presence in comparison to the proposal. Consequently, I find that, notwithstanding that the amount of advertisement space would be reduced, this would be insufficient to offset the harm to visual amenity that would result from the scale, changing display and illumination of the proposed advertisement.

I acknowledge the appellant’s assertion that the proposed advertisement would provide a number of benefits, such as the reduction in use of paper-based resources, amongst others. Nevertheless, as already set out, the scope of the matters under consideration under the Regulations is limited, the benefits highlighted do not lead me to a different finding in relation to the effect of the proposal on the amenity of the area.

As such, whilst it is not determinative, I find conflict with saved policy BE13(b) of Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (1998), which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that illuminated advertisements do not harm the character or appearance of the area.

I have also taken into account paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which explains that advertisements which are poorly designed and sited can have a negative impact on the appearance of the quality and character of places. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed advertisement demonstrates a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the streetscene and the wider area and, as such, the proposal conflicts with paragraph 141 of the Framework.

I note that the appellant has raised concerns with the conduct of the Council, however, this is a matter that would be dealt with through the Council’s complaints procedure and is not a matter for this appeal.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.