Appeal 6007914

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 control of advertisements is exercisable only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Regulation 3 states that powers in this regard shall be exercised taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors.

The Council has concluded that the advertisement would be acceptable in terms of public safety and, from the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree.

The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity.

The appeal site comprises a four-storey theatre named the [site address] . The theatre is located at the western end of [address], where the road connects with [address], and is more widely situated within the [name] ([name]) Conservation Area. As the [name] ([name]) Conservation Area Statement (1998) sets out, this area derives considerable significance from the layout of its streets and the mixture of building ages, types and uses.

Buildings in the [name] consist primarily of commercial uses at ground floor level, below several stories of varying architectural styles. The architecture of the appeal site is notably more modern in its design and takes minimal cues from the positive elements of character featured on other buildings within the area. For this reason, the appeal site makes a neutral contribution to the significance of the conservation area.

Within this commercial context, advertisements are commonly found throughout the area. Most commercial units feature modest fascia and overhead hanging signs, which are characterised by their fixed display and either non-illumination or external illumination. These features ensure that advertisements do not appear so prominent as to detract from the historic character of the area. In the few instances where internally illuminated digital screens have been installed, these are proportionally smaller in relation to the shopfront than the proposed scheme, making them well-integrated within the local context.

The proposed scheme would install an external LED digital screen at the appeal site. The proposed height and width of this screen would make it significantly larger than other advertisements and digital screens found within the area. In combination with its internal illumination and external location, the advertisement would appear unduly prominent within the nearby area, particularly in views along [address], and cause harm to the character and appearance of the [name] ([name]) Conservation Area, and thereby to amenity.

The advertisement is proposed as a replacement for the existing LED digital screen at the appeal site. In some elements, with particular reference to the proposed mouldings, frame detail design and reduced depth, the design of the proposed advertisement would represent an improvement in comparison to the existing screen, which appears bulky on account of its protruding depth and exposed sides. However, the proposed advertisement would be significantly larger than the existing advertisement, the scale of which is already discordant in relation to other advertisements within the area.

Furthermore, although the appellant has indicated that this existing advertisement has been in situ for many years, I have not been provided evidence to confirm that the existing screen benefits from consent. Even if this existing advertisement was found to be lawful, it does not provide justification for the proposed screen of an even larger scale, despite improved elements of design.

The appellant has made broad reference to the presence of freestanding digital advertisements on [address] and [address]. Although the appeal site is located in close proximity to these streets, the respective areas are of substantially different character. As busy thoroughfares, [address] and [address] represent a more appropriate context for this style and scale of digital advertisement compared to the more pedestrianised [name]. For this reason, such examples do not provide justification for the scale of the proposed advertisement within the context of the appeal site.

Similarly, the appellant has stated that the proposed advertisement is similar to those of other theatres in the [name]. However, I have not been directed to specific examples that are shown to be similar in scale to the proposed digital screen and share a comparable context to the appeal site. Consequently, they do not justify the harm identified.

The appellant has indicated that the digital screen would be used to display advertisements promoting events at the [site address] . If it displayed advertisements that related to the host building, the digital screen would be more directly related to the theatre and the local context. However, I have not been provided with information on how frequently advertisements relating to the theatre would be displayed, taking into account the appellant’s indication that they would be interspersed with commercial advertising. On this basis, I afford this benefit limited weight.

Furthermore, although I have noted the comments that the proposed scheme provides for environmental benefits compared to printed forms of advertising, I afford these environmental benefits very limited weight on the basis that they would likely be minimal.

The appellant has expressed their willingness to accept a condition limiting the luminance to a lower level than applied for if necessary. Such a condition could reduce the visual impact of the proposal and therefore the level of amenity harm caused. However, the appellant has not specified a figure for this lower level of luminance. Therefore, I do not have sufficient information to assess the impact of such a change and whether it would overcome the harm identified. Nor could I draft a precise and reasonable condition given the lack of specific information.

The appellant has also stated their willingness to accept a condition limiting the frequency of advertisement change to once every 30 seconds. However, this condition would not make the screen materially less prominent within the street scene and as such would not reduce the harm caused by the proposed advertisement to amenity.

On balance, therefore, the benefits of the scheme and conditions put forward by the appellant are not sufficient to mitigate the harm that the proposed advertisement would cause to the character and appearance of the [name] ([name]) Conservation Area, and thereby to amenity.

I have taken into account Policy D4 of the Camden Local Plan (adopted 2017) which seeks to protect amenity and so is material in this case. Given that I have concluded that the proposal would harm amenity, the proposal conflicts with this policy.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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