Appeal 6006573

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the address of the appeal site from the Council’s decision notice, as this clearly and succinctly identifies the site’s location. The inclusion of the postcode reflects the details provided on the application form.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (The Regulations) 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.

Regulation 3(2) states that factors relevant to amenity include the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest. The evidence before me does not indicate that there are any such features within the surrounding area.

The proposal would be located on an area of grassed verge and would therefore not impede pedestrian movement or obstruct the visibility of road users. Although the advertisement includes illuminated, moving images, owing to its siting, it would not present a distraction to drivers. The Council raised no objections on public safety grounds and based upon my own observations on site, I see no reason to reach a different conclusion. I have therefore framed the main issue accordingly.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on amenity.

The appeal site occupies a prominent roadside location at one of the principal entrances to the [site address] and comprises an area of grassed verge adjacent to the existing footway. This section of [address] is characterised by industrial and commercial buildings located on the same side of the road as the appeal site. Although these buildings vary in scale, they are not excessively high and are typically set back from the road, behind soft grass verges. On the opposite side of the road is a landfill site, which is screened by a band of mature vegetation. This landscaping, together with the grassed areas soften the prevailing built form and introduces a more verdant element to the street scene. Notwithstanding the presence of residential development further along the road, this does not influence the immediate character of the area, and it is within this predominantly industrial and commercial context that the proposal would be experienced.

[address] is one of the principal routes through the area and features a wide and varied range of signage, which differs notably in terms of scale and siting. Within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, I observed the presence of larger-scale billboards positioned at elevated heights, alongside signage mounted on building facades, associated with the respective premises. Despite their size and elevated positioning, these advertisements are non-illuminated and are viewed against the immediate backdrop of substantial built form. As such, they do not appear unduly prominent or visually intrusive within the street scene. While existing lighting columns introduce a degree of vertical emphasis, their simple monopole design mean that they are not strident features and integrate effectively within the surrounding environment.

The proposed digital display panel would reflect standard industry dimensions and take the form of a simple, portrait structure mounted on a lightweight base. However, at a height of some 8.7 metres above ground level, the advertisement would, significantly exceed the guidance set out within the Council’s Advertisement SPD1. The excessive height of the advertisement, combined with its siting forward of nearby buildings would result in it appearing as a visually dominant and discordant feature within the street scene, particularly during the winter months, when the screening effect provided by nearby tree canopies is substantially reduced. Whilst it is acknowledged that the illumination would comply with relevant industry standards and that conditions could be imposed to control the frequency of image changes, such measures would not sufficiently mitigate the overall dominance and intrusive presence of the structure. The illumination would therefore only serve to intensify its visual prominence, especially during hours of darkness.

In coming to this view, I recognise that there is a freestanding sign of a similar scale to the appeal proposal further along [address]. However, owing to the intervening distance and built form, it does not form part of the immediate site context and is not experienced in association with the appeal site. Moreover, its siting means that it is closely related to, and read in conjunction with, the adjacent buildings such that it is not conspicuous. As such, it is neither directly comparable nor capable of justifying the scale and siting of the proposal before me. 1 Shopfront and Advertisement Supplementary Planning Document (2017)

For these reasons, I find that the proposed advertisement would harm amenity. I have taken into account the provisions of the development plan, insofar as they are relevant. [name] have concluded that the advertisement would harm the amenity of the area, the scheme does not meet with the aims of Policy D12 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017) or Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011) where they seek to ensure that advertisements, by reasons of scale and design fit with their surroundings.

The appeal site lies within a designated Employment Area. Economic growth is a key objective of the National Planning Policy Framework, and advertisements can provide support through direct employment and the promotion of businesses. I recognise the appellant’s aspirations to enhance the delivery of advertising within the Dudley and Kingswinford area, including facilitating sustainable, relevant and locally focused messaging in a location that avoids more sensitive parts of the town. Similarly, the flexibility for the display to incorporate public information and non-commercial content during void periods is noted. Furthermore, I appreciate that the use of digital technology can reduce the need for maintenance visits through remote operation, and such displays limit the waste associated with the printing and disposal of traditional poster advertisements. Nevertheless, it has not been demonstrated that a display of the scale, height and form proposed is the only way of realising these benefits. Accordingly, the identified factors carry only limited weight and do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.