Appeal 6007725

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the above banner heading has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as this concisely describes the proposal.

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 are 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 issue is 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 effect on the setting of nearby listed buildings.

The appeal site, [site address] , relates to a ground floor commercial premises, currently in use as a barber’s shop. The appeal building is a three-storey, brick-built building, with stone quoins. It has a traditional wooden shopfront featuring a panelled stallriser, pilasters and decorative corbels on either side, painted a muted, cream colour and retains an awning beneath its fascia. The surrounding area in predominantly commercial in character, and the appeal site sits within a row of similar commercial properties.

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 Bullers Green. 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.

Whilst the appeal site itself is not a listed building, it is in proximity to a number of buildings which are. These include 6, 6a and [address], 2 and [address] and [address], which are all Grade II Listed.

The significance of 6, 6a and 8 Newgate Street1 is derived primarily from its architectural and historical interest as an example of a late 17th to early 18th century building, constructed in brick using [name] and featuring a traditional pantiled, steeply pitched roof with shaped gables. Its three-storey, three-bay form, with surviving sash windows, wedge lintels, and historic proportions, contributes to its architectural interest, while the integration of later shopfronts demonstrates the building’s continued commercial use and adaptation over time.

The significance of 2 and 4 Newgate Street2 is derived primarily as an example of an early 18th-century building of brick construction in [name]. Its simple proportions, with sash windows, flat-arched openings, and distinctive half dormers, contribute to its architectural character, while the later shopfront illustrates its continued adaptation for commercial use and ongoing role within the historic streetscape.

The significance of [name], 3 Newgate Street3 is derived primarily as an example of an early 20th-century Arts and Crafts bank, distinguished by its ashlar construction and Lakeland slate roof. Its carefully composed façade, with mullioned windows, decorative pediments, and a mansard roof with dormers, reflects the quality craftsmanship and architectural character of the period.

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 90cm by 480cm. It states that it will be illuminated, with 1 [name]: 1370724 2 [name]: 1042732 3 [name]: 1303026 illuminance levels of 250cd/m2. The application is submitted retrospectively, and I was able to observe the signage in situ.

The signage is brightly coloured, comprising orange lettering, with blue detailing on a black background. The use of these bold, contrasting colours, in combination with the scale and projection of the individual lettering, results in a visually dominant and discordant feature within the CA. Whilst there is some variety in the buildings within this part of the CA, the prevailing character of the shopfronts is traditional, typically comprising timber shopfronts with painted fascias and modest, traditionally styled signage positioned above the ground-floor window. The colour palette is generally more subdued and not internally illuminated. The introduction of a bulky, brightly coloured fascia sign of a modern design is therefore at odds with this established and attractive character of the area.

The fascia sign extends across the full width of the building, occupying a substantial proportion of the historic shopfront and obscuring elements of its traditional detailing. By virtue of its excessive scale and prominent lettering, the advertisement dominates and disrupts the balance of the shopfront. Its unsympathetic design, together with the use of overtly bold colours set against a stark black background, appears incongruous within its surroundings.

The cumulative effect is a form of advertisement that appears visually intrusive and unduly prominent within the street scene. The internally illuminated lettering further increases its visual impact, reinforcing its discordant and contemporary appearance. Consequently, the advertisement causes harm to the visual amenity of the area. Furthermore, 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 statement about the need for advertisement at the business to attract customers, there is no substantive evidence before me that there are any public benefits which would outweigh the harm I have 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. 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.

I have had regard the comments made by the Highways Authority in relation to the absence of sufficient information to make a meaningful assessment. However, the Council has not raised any specific concerns in relation to effect of the advertisement on public safety. Based on the evidence before and my own observations, I am satisfied given its location in relation to the highway that the advertisement does not result in undue distraction to road users. However, the absence of harm in this regard does not affect my conclusions in relation to the impact of the advertisements on amenity.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.