Appeal 6008016

The appeal is dismissed.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Regulations) require that advertisements be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. The Council has not suggested that the proposal would affect public safety, and I see no reason to disagree.

The appeal relates to the display of an advertisement that has already taken place. As the application is retrospective, I have considered the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is the effect of the advertisement on the amenity of the area, including whether it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (the CA).

The appeal site comprises a ground floor retail premises on a prominent corner location at the junction of [address] and [address]. The premises features a modern shopfront design with glazing to the front elevation onto [address] and a fascia with signage above, extending around to [address]. The advertisement has been applied to the side elevation of the appeal premises that faces onto the narrow access road to [address]. There is limited information regarding architectural detailing of the side elevation of the premises, although the evidence indicates the advertisement fully obscures the glazing to this area.

The appeal site is within the CA, which as a whole is a lively area with a prevailing urban character and mixed townscape. [address] is a highly commercial environment on a primary route with a mix of uses, shopfronts and advertisements. There are also commercial premises on [address], and I observed moderate levels of vehicular and pedestrian movements passing the site to and from [address]. This reflects [address]’s character as a more intimate route, created by the narrow, curving streetscape, in contrast to the busier [address]. The significance of the CA therefore derives from its architectural and historic interest, including its overall character and townscape.

The view of [address] from [address] is identified as a notable local view in the [address] Conservation Area Audit 39 (March 2006) (the CAA). The CAA highlights this view is of local importance as an introduction into the narrow streetscape that exists beyond. Consequently, the appeal site occupies a highly prominent position seen from [address] and in the view to [address]. The appeal site therefore contributes to the significance of the CA by occupying a prominent corner position within a notable local viewpoint.

The advertisement covers a substantial area of the ground floor side elevation of the premises, extending into [address]. Although it is non-illuminated, due to its size and prominence, the advertisement appears as a dominant and discordant display to this part of the premises. The adverse visual impact is exacerbated by the narrow and enclosed entrance to [address]. The advertisement also contrasts with the generally more modest form of other fascia and projecting signage in the immediate area. Consequently, it is not sensitively designed on the building, does not respect the predominant character and appearance of the area, and does not make a positive contribution to amenity. The advertisement therefore appears visually harmful within the streetscape and in this part of the CA.

I note the aims to maintain and protect the building from graffiti and deter such vandalism. Notwithstanding this, I observed graffiti on the existing advertisement at the site, as well as to parts of the adjoining building and other premises along [address], which detracts from the appearance of the area. However, graffiti was not evident on all buildings in this area, including the glazing to the premises directly opposite the appeal site at the entrance to [address], or to all nearby shopfronts with glazing. This appeared to be more prevalent to parts of buildings where window areas featured a form of internal or external advertisement/screen rather than clear glazing, as well as boarded up openings or more solid elevations and features.

There is limited evidence before me to sufficiently demonstrate that, in the absence of the advertisement, the building fabric and materials have been, or would be damaged, or that it is essential for the protection, maintenance and appearance of the building. The absence of graffiti would be a clear benefit to visual amenity in this location. However, from the information before me, I am not satisfied that the removal and/or prevention of graffiti and the appellant’s overall aims could only be achieved through the display of the advertisement. Accordingly, these considerations do not outweigh or justify the harm arising from the adverse visual impact in this instance.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the advertisement has a harmful effect on the amenity of the area, and it fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. In accordance with the Regulations, I have taken into account the provisions of the development plan so far as they are relevant to amenity. Amongst other things, Policies 42, 44 and 48 of the City of Westminster City Plan 2019-2040 (January 2026) aim for proposals to positively contribute to amenity, townscape and streetscape, and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas, therefore they are material in this case. [name] have concluded that the proposal would harm amenity, the proposal conflicts with these policies.

For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the advertisement harms amenity, and the appeal should be dismissed.