Appeal 6006875

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 amenity.

The appeal site is located on a grassed central reservation on the A5081 Parkway within the [site address] [name] area. The verge contains established shrubs and planting. The road environment largely comprises of standard highway infrastructure including lamp posts and traffic signs. A public footpath and a tram line run parallel to the carriageways on either side. Together with the substantial presence of trees to both sides of Parkway and the set back position of the nearest industrial units, this ensures that commercial signage has a low presence in the vicinity of the appeal site.

Whilst the advertising sign would be modest in scale, static, made from durable materials, and finished in a non-reflective surface, its isolated and prominent position within the soft landscaped verge would appear visually intrusive within a section of highway that is currently characterised by a general absence of commercial signage. This would be visible at a distance for those travelling towards the advertisement on Parkway and, given the direction of travel, would not be seen in the context of the advertisement at [name] which is set well away from the site and not within this vista. Therefore, even though the site is not within an ‘Area of Special Control for Advertisements’, the advertisement would appear as an atypical feature within this section of Parkway.

In this context, the advertisement would conflict with the Trafford Metropolitan Borough Planning Guidelines – Advertisements (1995) which, amongst its ‘things to avoid’, includes signs that are visually intrusive due to being sited too prominently, visible over a long range, out of keeping or unrelated to the area as a whole and also advises that signs in industrial areas should have regard to the need to enhance the landscaping and visual attractiveness of these areas for investment.

For the reasons set out, the proposed advertisement would be harmful to the amenity of the area. Insofar as it is material, the advertisement would conflict 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). For the same reasons, the proposal would conflict with paragraph 141 of the Framework, which seeks to avoid poorly sited advertisements.

Several examples of advertisement appeal decisions have been cited by the appellant. These advertisements are all based in different locations. In any case, they do not alter my own observations in respect of the design and siting of the appeal proposal taking into account the site-specific relationship with Parkway.

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.