Appeal 6006967

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] on behalf of Elonex Dooh Limited against Birmingham City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The application form contains an incorrect address for the site. I have used the address confirmed as correct by the appellant in correspondence dated 15 April 2026 in the banner header above. This reflects the council’s decision notice.

The regulations require that advertisements are controlled only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan in so far as they are material, in addition to any other relevant factors. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) confirm this approach. In my decision, I have had regard to the development plan only in respect of these matters. The council has raised no objection in respect of public safety, and I observed nothing which would lead me to dispute this conclusion. Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity.

The appeal site is on the forecourt of a vehicle servicing garage on the northern side of [address]. The street scene is urban and formed by large, mainly commercial premises of varying architectural style and appearance. The site fronts onto the major B1400 road, a heavily trafficked approach to the city centre. The site is highly prominent as a result.

The site is within the Digbeth, Deritend and Bordesley High Streets Conservation Area (CA), which encompasses an area to the east of Birmingham’s city centre. The council’s [name] and Supplementary Planning Policies 2009 (CASPP) document indicates the CA derives its significance from its survival as an inner city industrial quarter with a variety of building types, mostly dating from the mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century and characterised by high-quality brickwork, enriched by banded brick, stone, terracotta, faience and clay tile detailing, with pitched roofs covered in slate with a limited use of plain clay and Roman tiles.

To the immediate west of the site is the locally listed [address] (“The Old Bank”), a grand, three storey building of traditional appearance and impressive stature, and to the east by more modern commercial premises at Nos 116-120. “The Old Bank” is included in the council’s local list as a [name] building recognising its importance in the city-wide architectural context or local street scene which warrants positive efforts to ensure its preservation. It is identified in the CASPP as a significant representative of the traditional character and quality of the CA.

The site previously contained a non-digital advertisement display of the same proportions and in the same position as that proposed, but which had been removed at the time of my site visit. In addition, there is a large advertisement on the side elevation of no 128 to the west and nearby commercial premises display a variety of signage. Therefore, commercial signage and advertisements form an existing component of the street scene.

However, the council’s CASPP identifies that along the [address] corridor of the CA, large advertisement hoardings on vacant sites, open yards and the exposed side elevations of buildings are visually intrusive and dilute the character and quality of the CA. Supplementary Policy 1.6 of the CASPP requires new signage to be designed to suit the proportions, design and materials of the host building and immediate streetscape, and states that over-scaled, unsympathetic and visually intrusive signage will not be allowed.

The proposed advertisement would display static images with daytime luminance varying in response to atmospheric light conditions and nighttime luminance restricted to 300cd/M2.

Whilst the display would be turned off between the hours of 23:00 and 06:00, due to its illumination and display of changing images, it would attract significant attention and be visually dominant, especially in views from the south-east and in low light conditions.

Due to its awkward juxtaposition with the locally listed “The Old Bank”, and its size and proximity to that property, the proposed digital display would cause harm to the setting of that non-designated heritage asset, detracting from its architectural qualities and importance in the street scene, thereby eroding its positive contribution to the CA’s character.

As a consequence of its size, siting and visual prominence, the proposed advertisement would appear out of scale and unsympathetic to the features which contribute to the CA’s significance. Therefore, the proposed digital display would cause significant harm to the amenity of the street scene on what is a prominent and busy approach to the city centre.

The council’s evidence confirms that the former sign was displayed unlawfully. I have been provided with no evidence that the site benefits from any lawful consent for the display of advertisements. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the former advertisement comprises a realistic fallback position, and in my decision, I attribute little weight to its earlier presence.

The appellant suggests planning conditions could be imposed to control the duration of images displayed, to prevent the use of animations, to control the brightness of the display, ensure its maintenance, and to specify the hours of operation. However, such conditions would not fully mitigate the harms I have identified above which are associated with the scale, siting and visual prominence of the proposed advertisement.

I have taken into account Policies PG3 and TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) which, amongst other things, require a high standard of design appropriate to its context and the protection of heritage assets, together with paragraph 141 of the Framework which advises that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed. In addition, section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a CA. Regulation 3(2) and the PPG confirm that factors relevant to amenity include the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest.

Having regard to these policies and the duties of the Act, taking all of the above matters into account, I find that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the CA. Therefore, the proposed advertisement would have a harmful effect on amenity.

The appellant has advanced several appeal decisions purporting to weigh in favour of the appeal proposal. As these were incorrectly referenced, the appellant was invited to submit copies of the decisions. However, these have not been forthcoming and I am, accordingly, unable to take them into account in my

For the reasons given above, the display of the advertisement would be detrimental to the interests of amenity, therefore the appeal is dismissed.