Appeal 6007905

The appeal is dismissed.

The provisions under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity, having regard to heritage assets including the Brixton Conservation Area (the CA) and the adjacent grade II listed building, [name].

The property is located within the characterful town centre of Brixton and is within the CA. The CA derives it character from its commercial shopping centre function. The building has a 1930’s art deco frontage and is a landmark building in the locality for its characterful vertical detailed frontage. Taken collectively the CA hosts both architectural and historic value and the characteristics of the locality makes the area special, and worthy of CA status. This provides the CA a distinctive quality to both the character and appearance of the area and gives this area architectural significance.

The appeal property also adjoins part of a grade II listed [name]. This early 20th century covered market is significant for its historic communal market role and surviving period fabric, notably its art deco/Egyptian-inspired facades, chrome shopfronts and glazed truss roof.

An enforcement notice has been served on the appeal property to bring the property back to a reasonable standard. The required façade restoration works have not yet been commenced.

The building itself would be hidden from public view during the period the shrouding would be in place. The Council’s Advertising and Signage Guidance 2016 advises that the shrouding of buildings with giant advertisements that would result in a large scale display at high level would generally harm amenity and that permanent proposals will be resisted. This proposal seeks consent to display the shroud advertisement for an 8-month period.

There is a history of appeals at the site pertaining to shroud advertisements that have both been allowed and dismissed on appeal. The Council has highlighted that the current proposal is the same as that submitted in 2022 and 2025 in terms of scale and size. The former was allowed at appeal and the latter dismissed. This current appeal differs from the previous appeals in that it incorporates a full working scaffold.

In the 2025 appeal the Inspector found that the shroud, which would be comparable in size and design to that before me, would appear dominant and out of scale and character with its surroundings thus failing to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

The appeal property occupies a prominent location within the commercial area, and the upper façade retains its distinctive art deco design and appearance. The façade contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA. The advertisement would be some considerable size and would obscure the architectural detailing of the façade. On my own findings the shroud would appear dominant and out of scale and would be visually harmful to both the character and appearance of the CA, therefore, it would neither preserve or enhance the CA.

The supporting text to Policy Q17 of the Lambeth Local Plan (the Local Plan) comments that temporary shroud advertisements are generally only considered appropriate in town centre locations with a full schedule of building works being undertaken and a timescale for these works as part of the assessment. The Advertisement and Signage Guidance further supports this, advising that in the absence of façade refurbishment and/or scaffolding, the display of temporary shroud advertisements would be unacceptable in principle. There is no clear indication of any renovation works at the site.

The appellant explains that there have been issues relating to the shrouding being positioned too close to the building such that this would not facilitate enough room for repairs. Delays in the granting of a scaffold license from Transport for London together with delays and uncertainties of decisions as part of the planning and appeals processes have also played a part. A lease is now in place pertaining to the first floor of the property as a hotel that prohibits shrouding of the windows unless the refurbishment involves a full working scaffold system. However, it is acknowledged that it will take time to progress licenses from Transport for London for the pavement scaffolding and there are on-going discussions concerning the details of the work needed to the façade that is delaying timings of works. As such, no programme of works and time scale has been provided.

The appellant suggests that such matters can be covered by attaching conditions to a consent. However, the Council highlight that the Inspector, in dismissing the 2025 appeal, considered that in the absence of substantive evidence that the works are programmed or otherwise secured, conditions alone cannot be relied upon to secure delivery of the works. Having considered the suggested conditions put forward I do not consider they would be effective in securing the delivery of the works.

In the absence of façade refurbishments and/or scaffolding being satisfactorily secured the display of the temporary shroud advertisement would be unacceptable.

The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA for the 8 months that the shroud would be in place. The possibility of securing public benefits from completion of the works to the building is uncertain and, as such, would not clearly outweigh the harm arising from the proposed advertisement to the CA. [name] before me have found no harm to the significance of the listed building or its setting. On the evidence that is before me, I am not led to come to a different view on this matter.

For these reasons, I conclude the advertisement would have a harmful effect on the amenity of the area as it would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. I have taken into consideration Policies Q2, Q17, Q22 and Q23 of the Borough of Lambeth Local Plan, Policy HC1 of the London Plan and the guidance in the Advisement and Signage Guidance which, amongst other matters, seek to safeguard and promote visual amenity, including within a historic context. I have concluded that the proposal would harm amenity the proposal conflicts with these policies.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed.