Appeal 6006841

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The control of advertisements is exercisable only with respect to public safety and amenity. Regulation 3 states that powers in this regard shall be exercised taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors. Therefore, whilst the policy of the development plan referred to by the Council in its decision is not on its own determinative, I have taken it into account as a material consideration.

The Council does not object to the siting of the advertisement on public safety grounds. From the evidence before me and my observations on site, I see no reason to disagree.

Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposal on visual amenity.

The immediate area surrounding the appeal site consists of a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The advertisement would sit on the east side of [address], adjacent to the boundary treatment serving [address] and [address], a four-storey office building. [address] provides residential flats. Whilst positioned at an oblique angle to the principal elevations of the residential buildings, the proposed advertisement would be visible from a number of the flats within [address]. The proposed advertisement would also sit at an elevated position when viewed from the street scene, due to the area of land it sits at being higher than the public footpath and highway. [address], and within the immediate surroundings of the appeal site, there are a number of commercial buildings that incorporate associated signage. However, such signage is generally modest in scale and predominantly relates to the buildings to which it is attached.

The proposed advertisement would be of a significantly larger scale in comparison to existing surrounding advertisements, and taking into account its elevated position and illuminated display, it would be highly visible in long range views. Therefore, it would introduce a heavily prominent feature into the area.

Given the absence of other street furniture or signage in this area, the advert would not create unacceptable visual clutter. However, this would not offset the proposal’s uncharacteristically large size and prominence.

The appellant states that the display’s luminance level of 300 cd/m2 is acceptable in some suburban locations, and that the display would often operate below recommended levels. This does not in itself mean that such a level would necessarily be appropriate in every circumstance. The acceptability of illumination must be assessed in the specific context of the site and its surroundings. I have noted the appellants comment regarding attaching a condition, requiring brightness to be fully controllable and the proposed use of control mechanisms to enable the D-Poster to mimic a traditional paper and paste poster. However this would not address the prominence of the sign’s large scale and elevated position.

While the nearest residential windows are approximately 25 m from the display and positioned at an oblique angle, this separation distance does not preclude harm. Given the scale, and elevated position of the panel, any level of brightness would remain readily perceptible within the view of the occupiers of the flats who look out onto the sign, particularly during hours of darkness.

The appellant has referred to schemes at [address], [address] West and land off [address], which include advertisements of a similar scale. However, only limited information has been provided in respect of these examples. In any event, they appear to be located within more industrial areas and do not share the same site-specific context as the appeal proposal, particularly as they do not appear to have a relationship with any nearby residential properties.

Consequently, the proposed advertisement would harm the visual amenity of the area. Insofar as it is material, the advertisement would fail to be consistent with the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting, size, scale and materials used, contrary to Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (2024).

I acknowledge the appellant’s position that the proposal would support wider regeneration aims and could give rise to environmental benefits through a reduction in vehicle trips associated with reposting at other sites. However, given the limited scale of the proposal, comprising a single advertisement, the extent of such benefits would be modest at best. As such, they are afforded limited weight in the overall planning balance where harm to amenity has been identified.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.