Appeal 6006623

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is located within the [site address] Town Centre Conservation Area (CA) and I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), in so far as it relates to the consideration of amenity.

The appeal building is also a [name] listed building. However, the statutory duty from Section 66 of the Act, requiring decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest does not apply to applications or appeals for express advertisement consent, which is not ‘development’ under the Act.

As far as the National Planning Policy Framework is concerned when determining advertisement consent appeals affecting a conservation area, or in relation to a listed building, the question of less than substantial or substantial harm in paragraphs 212-215 is not relevant, as the policy only applies to the heritage-related consent regimes under the Act. It is also not necessary to undertake the weighing of public benefits against any heritage harm.

Powers under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) to control advertisements may only be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material; and (b) any other relevant factors. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reiterates this approach. I have therefore taken Policies LP32, LP35 and LP37 of the West Suffolk Local Plan 2025 (WSLP) into account insofar as it is material, but they have not, in themselves, been decisive.

The Council has raised no concerns regarding public safety in this case and from the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisements on the visual amenity of the area.

The PPG advises that the local characteristics of an area should be considered when assessing amenity, including any features of historic, architectural or cultural interest.

The host property is a [name] listed building in a prominent location within the CA. The significance of the CA is derived, in part, from its architectural and historic interest, seen in the historic grid street arrangement and the quality of the historic buildings in a mix of residential, religious and commercial uses. Many shops within the CA feature traditional hanging signs and shopfronts with stallrisers and pilasters. Fascia signage is typically well proportioned relative to the shopfront window. These characteristics positively contribute to the character and appearance of the CA and its significance.

The significance of the listed building, is partly historic; originally a house with an early 19th century frontage with 20th century alterations. Although the property does not feature a traditional shop front with pilasters and stallrisers, it has a well-proportioned, centrally positioned shop window on the front elevation. With doors either side of the shop window and a window on the floor above, there is a pleasing symmetry to the front elevation.

The installed non-illuminated fascia sign spans almost the full width of the front elevation of the host property, extending significantly beyond the width of the ground floor shop window below. The depth of the sign also fills almost the entire space between the top of the ground floor shop window and the bottom of the first floor window. The sign consequently appears oversized, failing to relate positively to the shop window and shop front as a whole.

An advertisement panel displaying various products has been positioned over one of the existing front doors. This completely obscures the door and harmfully disrupts the symmetry of the host building, appearing as an incongruous addition.

Finally, unlike the traditional hanging signs seen on many of the surrounding commercial properties, the projecting metal advertisement sign is of a modern box design. It therefore appears as an incongruous addition in this prominent location.

Individually and collectively, for the above reasons, the advertisements appear as discordant and incongruous additions in the context of the listed building and the CA. As such, they detract from the appearance of the listed building and fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. The fact that the signage may be temporary in nature and non-illuminated does not alter my

The appellant has referred to several nearby shop fronts with large fascia signage. However, in those examples, the signage appears proportionate to the shop window it relates to. [name] note the nearby examples of fixed projecting signage, these appear to be in the minority rather than the norm. Furthermore, I have limited information as to their planning history. These examples, therefore, do not lead me to conclude in favour of the appeal.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to two previous images of the shop front dating back to 2014, which show fascia and projecting signage on the host property. However, in both examples, the projecting signage was of a traditional hanging design, the fascia signage was significantly narrower in width, and one of the doors was not covered by an advertisement panel. These images only serve to highlight the harm arising from the advertisements installed that are the subject of this appeal.

For the above reasons, the proposed advertisements are harmful to visual amenity. Accordingly, they conflict with development plan policies LP32 ([name] and Advertisements), LP35 (Listed Buildings) and LP37 (Conservation Areas) of the WSLP, which, amongst other things, seek to protect visual amenity and so are material.

I note the benefits the appellant cites arising from the advertisement, including necessary business identification which would assist with the continued use of a commercial unit, contributing to the vitality of the town centre. However, I am not persuaded that the form of the advertisements that have been installed is the only way in which these objectives can be achieved. Notwithstanding this, as the power to control advertisements under the Regulations can only be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety, these matters do not form part of my consideration.

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