Appeal 6006666

The appeal is dismissed.

I have revised the description of the advertisements to more closely reflect the proposal before me and the description of the advertisements on the decision notice. The Council determined the advertisement consent application on a retrospective basis, and I have determined the appeal on the same basis.

The Council issued a split decision in which express advertisement consent was granted for the non illuminated vertical signs to the side of the shopfront of the appeal property which are referred to as ‘vertical signage’ on the decision notice. As such, and, for the avoidance of any doubt, the appeal before me relates only to the proposed advertisement referred to as the ‘illuminated fascia sign’ on the decision notice.

The appellant has sought to submit revised plans as described in their Appeal Statement of Case ‘... incorporating operational controls that directly mitigate the reason for refusal.’ However, the planning appeals: procedural guide is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and there are no provisions within the Rules for amendments to be submitted. Moreover, it states that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council, and by interested parties at the application stage. The revision proposed evolves and materially alters the scheme that was originally submitted. Thus, I do not accept the revision and shall consider the appeal based upon the details that the Council reached their determination upon, which includes plan reference 25:285/ 001 [name] as set out on the decision notice.

In the decision notice, the Council have made reference to development plan policies it considers to be relevant to this appeal. However, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) and the National Planning Policy Framework make clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. In my determination of this appeal, the Council’s policies have not therefore, been decisive, however, I have taken them into account as a material consideration where relevant.

The Council has identified that the effect of the advertisement on public safety is acceptable, on the basis that conditions could be applied controlling levels of illumination and preventing animation or flashing imagery on the signage. From my appraisal of all of the information before me, I agree with this conclusion. Therefore, the main issue is the effects of the advertisement on visual amenity.

The appeal property (No. 1466) is located to the southern side of [address] at a busy roundabout which includes a number of retail, commercial and similar uses with advertisements.

The proposal as shown on plan reference 25:285/ 001 [name], which is reflective of what I observed during my site visit, relates to an internally and externally illuminated LED display board forming an illuminated fascia sign, which displays features of changing content across varying fonts and colours.

During my site visit, whilst it was evident to me that there was signage on numerous properties in the area, the majority of these were relatively modest, and none of these appeared to reflect the degree of illumination as set out on the submitted plans, or include a changing display. In this context, the advertisement appeared noticeably different and conspicuous from the static and lesser illuminated advertisements in the area. It unduly drew the eye and appeared at odds with its surroundings. The effects of such results in harm to the visual amenity of the area. The harmful effects are exacerbated by the positioning of No. 1466 on a busy roundabout.

I therefore find that the proposed advertisement is harmful to visual amenity. Although not determinative, the proposed advertisement also conflicts with the relevant parts of Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] 2012.

For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the display of the advertisement is detrimental to visual amenity, and the appeal should be dismissed.