Appeal 6007723

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit, several advertisements had been placed on the building. However, the advertisements in situ do not reflect the proposed plan with some absent. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the plans determined by the Council, not the advertisements currently in place.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) require that applications for the display of advertisements be considered in terms of amenity and public safety. Although the Council has referred to the development plan policies which it considers relevant to this appeal they cannot, by themselves, be decisive but they are a material consideration in the determination of this appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the advertisement on: • the visual amenity of the area, with particular regard to whether or not the advertisement would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Morpeth Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings; and • public safety.

The appeal site, [site address] , relates to a ground floor commercial premises, currently in use as a barber’s shop. The site is located within Morpeth Conservation Area (the CA) which centres on [address] and the principal routes which radiate from this point, including [address] with is located between [address] and [name] to the east. The boundary of the CA is tightly drawn with emphasis on the 17th to 19th Century commercial core. Whilst there is some variety in the design of shopfronts, the significance of the CA is derived from the architectural style of buildings and, in part, from the traditional form, detailing and materials of its shopfronts.

In accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The appeal site is also in the vicinity of a number of Grade II Listed Buildings, including 57 Bridge Street1. Its significance is derived primarily form its architectural interest as early 18th-century two-storey brick house in irregular bond, with a Welsh slate gabled roof, four bays of 12-pane sash windows, a 4-panel door with over light, brick string courses, raking half-dormers with Yorkshire sashes, and tall brick end stacks.

The significance of 59 Bridge Street2 is derived primarily from its architectural interest as an early-mid C19, three storey Ashlar building, with a Welsh slate roof, brick chimneys and side walls. The main façade features a round-headed doorway with fanlight to the left, a central shopfront with doorway, a round-headed carriage entrance to the right, and a corniced fascia above the ground floor.

Other nearby designated heritage assets include New Bridge3 which is a [name]* Listed Building, built in 1829–31 by [name], comprising three broad segmental arches with rusticated voussoirs, triangular cutwaters with pilasters, a moulded parapet and coping, and cast-iron lamp standards with decorative scrolled ironwork.

The Chantry4 located on the opposite side of [address] to the appeal site is a Grade I Listed Building. It is a former chantry chapel of [name] dating from around 1300 with significant 1738 alterations, combining medieval random-rubble masonry and later ashlar work with Welsh slate roofs, a richly articulated exterior of pointed- and round-arched openings, and an interior retaining an 18th-century arcade and medieval roof timbers. It is now in use as a tourist information centre.

Whilst the duty under Section 66 of the Act does not apply to advertisement consent, the advertisement regulations state that factors relevant to amenity include the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest. These listed buildings contribute positively to the significance of the CA and form key viewpoints within the CA.

The proposal seeks advertisement consent for the display of a fascia sign, which is stated to measure 60cm by 410cm. The application form states that it will be illuminated, with illuminance levels of 250cd/m2. The proposal is submitted retrospectively, and I was able to observe the signage in situ. 1 [name]: 1042755 2 [name]: 1155554 3 [name]: 1303312 4 [name]: 1042759

The signage is brightly coloured, using orange lettering, with blue detailing on a black background. The use of these colours, together with the size and projection of the individual lettering results in a visually dominant and discordant feature within the CA. Whilst there is some variety to the age and architectural style of buildings within this part of the CA the prevailing character of the shopfronts is traditional in form. They are typically timber-framed, with modestly proportioned fascia signage positioned above the ground-floor window. The colour palette is generally subdued, and signage is usually non-illuminated. The introduction of a brightly coloured, internally illuminated fascia sign of a modern design is therefore incongruous and at odds with the established and harmonious character of the area.

In particular, the scale, design, and use of overly bold colours and modern materials render the signage highly prominent within the street scene, detracting from the overall quality of the environment. The internally illuminated lettering further increases its visual impact, reinforcing its incongruous and contemporary appearance. As such, the advertisement causes harm to the visual amenity of the area. It fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA and does not preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings, thereby harming their significance.

[name] have had regard to the appellant’s assertion that the advertisement is necessary to attract customers to the business, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that any public benefits would arise which would outweigh the harm identified.

Therefore, I conclude that the advertisement has a harmful effect on visual amenity including on the setting of the nearby listed buildings and fails to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The Council has drawn my attention to Policies Des1 and Emp1 of the Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2031, adopted 10 May 2016, and [name] 1, QOP 2, ENV 7 and ENV 9 of the Northumberland Local Plan 2016-2036, adopted 31 March 2022 (the NLP). Together these policies, seek amongst other things, to ensure proposals make a positive contribution to the character of the area, are not visually obtrusive or overbearing and respect the historic environment. I have concluded that the advertisements harm amenity and thus do not accord with these policies.

I have also taken account of Paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states, amongst other things, that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) recognises that the purpose of all advertisements is to attract attention. However, it advises that particular care is required where advertisements are proposed in locations where drivers must exercise a high degree of concentration, such as at junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings or other areas of potential hazard. The PPG further identifies that harm to public safety may arise where advertisements, by reason of their size or siting, obstruct or confuse views, or where illuminated signs give rise to glare, dazzle or distraction.

The Council’s reason for refusal refers to insufficient information regarding several elements, including illumination levels, elevations, fixings, and the location of a barber’s pole, pavement sign, neon window sign, digital open/closed signage, and a hanging sign. However, whilst these features are present on site, they do not all form part of the appeal proposal, which relates solely to the fascia signage. Accordingly, my assessment is confined to that element.

The appeal site is located in close proximity to the junction of [address] and [name], which I observed is busy junction. In such a location, there is potential for advertisements to distract drivers, where a high degree of attention is required. Additionally, there is potential for harm arising from excessive brightness or glare during hours of darkness.

However, notwithstanding the limited level of detail provided, the application form indicates an illuminance level of 250 cd/m2. Whilst further technical detail would have been beneficial, the site is located within an area where a variety of advertisements of differing scales and designs are already present. Having regard to the siting, scale and stated level of illumination, I consider it unlikely that the fascia sign would result in a level of distraction sufficient to prejudice highway safety. Furthermore, were the appeal to be allowed, I am satisfied that a condition could reasonably be imposed to control illumination levels so as to prevent undue glare or distraction during hours of darkness.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the advertisement does not cause harm to public safety. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policy TRA2 of the NLP, which, amongst other matters, requires development to incorporate appropriate measures to avoid, mitigate and manage any significant impacts on highway capacity, congestion, and highway safety, including cumulative effects.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.