Appeal 6006983

The appeal is dismissed.

In relation to this advertisement consent appeal, the legislation makes it clear that the powers conferred by the Regulations may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety; the Development Plan may be a material consideration but cannot be determinative. No objections have been put forward in relation to safety issues in this appeal. Thus, the main issue to be determined in the appeal is the visual impact of the proposed advertisements.

The appeal site is located in the centre of the City of Leicester, close to the [name]. It takes up the corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address], with a large multi-storey car park opposite on [address] and a part of the shopping centre on the opposite side of [address]. [address] is a main traffic artery through the City, and the car park and shopping centre are linked by a glazed bridge over the road. The bridge and the gallery that continues it overlook the church opposite. To the north of the church, also facing [address], is another substantial modern building, although this is in need of maintenance and appears to be under-utilised.

The church itself is also a relatively modern building, constructed of brickwork but incorporating ecclesiastical features, notably its tall, pointed windows that echo historic types. The building occupies a roughly triangular plot, and it comprises two main architectural elements, one on each of the street frontages, linked by a single-storey entrance feature, with a curved elevation that turns the corner at the road Appeal Decision: 6006983 junction and joins the two larger elements. Above the single-storey entrance feature, the exposed brickwork of the taller buildings is somewhat disfigured by graffiti on the walls above the flat roof, which are very obvious in views both from ground level and from the glazed bridge and gallery.

It is now proposed to erect an advertisement above the flat roof of the single-storey entrance area of the church. This would be a large scale installation: an illuminated advertising display unit, measuring 13.08 metres wide and 3.08 metres high, shaped in a convex curve. It would be located approximately 4.2 metres above ground level and would comprise a pressed metal frame and a sealed LED screen.

The new advertisement would be illuminated and large in scale, almost comparable in height (at over 3 metres) to an additional storey on the building. It would be visually dominant in the streetscene, in views along [address] as well as from the overhead bridge. Thus, it would be out of keeping with its host building and unduly prominent and intrusive in its wider surroundings.

The surroundings are characterised by large scale, modern buildings in a busy urban centre. Nevertheless, the proposed advertisement would be intrusive and garish and would detract from the visual amenity of the area.

One of the aims of the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ is “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12). It points out that “the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed” (paragraph 141), while recognising that the control regime ought not to be unduly onerous.

Policies in the Development Plan (and the emerging Development Plan) identify similar design considerations, although such policies do not have the same force in advertisement appeals as applies in other types of appeal.

I am conscious that the appeal scheme could bring some economic benefits, but I have no doubt that it would cause real visual harm to the surroundings and that it would conflict with the aim of protecting visual amenities. In reaching that conclusion I have considered the argument that other large signs have been permitted, elsewhere in the country, but I must consider this proposal on its own merits, and I am of the opinion that the advertisement would be out of place in this city centre location.

Hence, I have concluded that the signage which is the subject of this appeal ought not to be allowed and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my