Appeal 6006665

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 proposed advertisement would be located on an area of grassed verge, set back from the pavement. It would not impede pedestrian movement or obstruct visibility at the road junction. The Council raised no objections on the grounds of public safety and based on 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 is the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity.

The appeal site occupies a prominent position at one of the principal entrances to the [site address] and comprises an area of grassed verge adjacent to the pedestrian footway. While the road frontage along this section of [address] is predominantly characterised by large-scale industrial and commercial buildings, there is a row of semi-detached houses on the opposite side of the road junction, which front the road and provide a visual break in both the character and scale of the prevailing built form.

The appeal site sits forward of the adjacent industrial buildings, which are set back from the road, on marginally lower ground behind a line of established trees and fencing. Despite the substantial scale and bulk of the ‘[name] unit which lies on the opposite side of the road, the adjacent industrial building is of a more modest footprint and height, as are the nearby residential dwellings. It is with these more modestly proportioned buildings that the advertisement would be closely aligned in views when approaching the site from either direction. Further, the gradient of [address] places the appeal site at a slightly elevated level, which combined with the set back of buildings, general openness of the junction and verge reinforces the site’s visual prominence.

[address] is a principal thoroughfare through the area, along which there is a wide and varied mix of signage, which differs notably in siting and scale. Whilst there is freestanding signage of a comparable height located at premises further along the road, that within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site including the existing signage to be replaced is non-illuminated and relatively modest in scale, such that it does not appear unduly dominant. Furthermore, whilst a degree of verticality is established by street lighting columns, the monopole form of these features means they are not visually obtrusive and integrate effectively within the surrounding environment.

The digital display panel would accord with standard industry dimensions and would take the form of a simple, portrait structure mounted on a lightweight base. Further, it would be oriented at an angle, such that the principal face and illuminated panel would be directed away from the residential properties. However, notwithstanding this relationship, the advertisement would, at a height of approximately 8.7 metres, significantly exceed the guidance set out within the Council’s Advertisement SPD1. Moreover, it would be conspicuously tall relative to the existing freestanding signage located within the immediate area.

Its excessive scale, when considered alongside its prominent siting forward of the adjacent built form and tree line, would result in the proposal appearing as a highly obtrusive and conspicuous addition to the street scene. The proposed illumination would only serve to reinforce the advertisement’s visual dominance, particularly during the hours of darkness. Whilst the illumination would comply with relevant industry standards, and conditions could be imposed to control the rate of change of images, such measures would do little to mitigate the obtrusive form of the proposal.

For these reasons, I find that the proposed advertisement would harm amenity. In accordance with the Regulations, I have taken into account the provisions of the development plan, insofar as they are relevant. [name] have concluded that the 1 Shopfront and Advertisement Supplementary Planning Document (2017) 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 have had regard to 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. I also acknowledge the flexibility for the display to incorporate public information and non-commercial content during void periods. Furthermore, 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. However, it has not been demonstrated that a display of the scale, height and form proposed is the only way of realising these benefits. Consequently, these factors carry limited weight and do not outweigh the harm identified.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.