Appeal 6007011

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 above mentioned regulations set out that powers thereunder shall be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan so far as they are material considerations relevant to the main issue. The Council has no objections to the scheme on public safety, and I have no reason to disagree. I have therefore focussed on the effect of the advertisement on amenity, with specific regard to heritage assets. This is the main issue in the appeal.

The appeal property is a narrow, five‐storey detached building with a strong vertical emphasis and a traditional sandstone façade. It has decorative stone detailing and a gabled roofline. It is in the City Centre Conservation Area (CA) and located adjacent a [name] listed building and occupies a prominent position at the junction of [address] and [address] with Fargate, within a busy pedestrianised street. The street is defined by active ground-floor commercial frontages and due to the linear nature of the streets allows long important sightlines along the building frontages, including those northwards towards [name]. The Cathedral’s landmark tower and roofscape form a key focal point in the wider townscape. These views make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA, reinforcing a strong sense of place and forming an important component of its significance.

The Planning Practice Guidance indicates that buildings undergoing renovation may, in some circumstances, be suitable for temporary shroud advertisements. However, it also emphasises the importance of responding to the particular characteristics of the local area. Advertisements within the area are typically confined to modestly scaled signage at ground‐floor level, closely associated with individual shopfronts. This consistent approach ensures that the upper storeys remain largely free of visual clutter, allowing their architectural detailing, and overall scale to be readily appreciated.

The proposed advertisement inset would extend across a substantial portion of the building’s frontage between the second and fourth floors, introducing a large expanse of signage at an elevated position. Its considerable scale, siting and prominence, would appear incongruous and visually intrusive when viewed against the established pattern of development and the generally restrained approach to signage within the CA. It would fail to respect the established character of the area and draw the eye away from the cohesive street scene and unacceptably erode the quality and group value of the surrounding heritage assets.

The site is also visible within longer-range views, including those experienced in the vicinity of [name]. In these, the proposed advertisement would be readily perceptible and would compete with, rather than complement, the Cathedral and its setting as a key heritage asset. Instead of forming part of a coherent backdrop, the host building would be dominated by the advertisement, which would detract from the appreciation of the Cathedral and the architectural quality of the upper floors of the more historic buildings along Fargate which contribute positively to the significance of the CA.

The building is to undergo construction works and the proposed decorative shroud would offer modest amenity benefits in screening scaffolding and associated activity. However, such works are not uncommon within a city centre context and are typically of a temporary and visually recessive nature. The proposed advertisement would become a dominant feature, attracting a far greater degree of visual attention than the works it seeks to conceal.

For these reasons, the proposed advertisement would result in unacceptable harm to amenity. As far as they are material, this is contrary to the aims of Policy BE13 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan 1998 and Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy 2009. These seek, amongst other things, advertisements that are well designed, respond appropriately to their context, and do not harm the character or appearance of the area, conservation areas or listed buildings.

Revenue derived from the advertisement may contribute towards the cost of restoration works to the building, as well as providing wider economic benefits through support for the advertising sector. That said, I have not been provided with sufficiently detailed evidence to demonstrate that an advertisement of the proposed scale and design is necessary to secure the delivery of the works. Nor has it been shown that a smaller or less visually harmful form of advertisement would be incapable of generating a comparable benefit. Putting aside the scope of the advertisement regulations to consider other material considerations to weigh in any balance, these matters would not be sufficient to change my findings.

For the reasons given above, the proposed advertisement would cause harm to the visual amenity of the area, contrary to the Regulations. I therefore recommend that the appeal is dismissed.

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