Appeal 6008112

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the proposed development from the advertisement consent application form but have limited it to solely reflect the act of development.

There is a previous refused advertisement consent application and dismissed appeal relating to this site for a similar, although larger, proposal (appeal reference: APP/5540/H/25/3365100). I have taken this into consideration in so far as it is relevant to the appeal before me. Nonetheless, I have dealt specifically with the matters that are the subject of this appeal, along with those documents upon which the local planning authority made its decision.

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 issues are the effect of the siting of the proposed advertisement on amenity, that being the character and appearance of the area and on public safety, that being highway safety.

There are existing advertisements within the vicinity of the site. However, those are to the other side of the M4 flyover where modern tall buildings characterise the area. Those existing advertisements either form part of a building or a stand-alone structure within that area.

The appeal site forms part of the Enterprise car hire premises that hosts low rise single storey buildings. The street scene to the appeal side of the M4 flyover is characterised by two-storey terraced houses. The proposal would be seen within this context. Those advertisements within the [site address] locality are few in number and are of small scale. As such, I do not agree with the appellant that the proposal would be located in a predominantly commercial environment as the M4 flyover isolates it from the [address] whereby that area is characterised by modern and tall development.

The proposed tower would have an overall height of approximately 23.6m with the advertisement displays exceeding the height of the M4 flyover by approximately 13.3m. This would create a tall tower structure within this [site address] area. Given its height it would be a visually prominent feature and the advertisement it would host would visibly stand out, especially as it would be illuminated. Within the context of the low-rise development within [site address] the advertisement tower would appear as a discordant and visually dominant feature. Unlike that of the taller development to the other side of the M4 flyover, the proposal would appear unduly conspicuous within the context of the existing development along [site address] . As such, it would visually harm the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal has been reduced in size from that previously proposed and the materials and colour palette have changed. Generated street views have been provided that illustrate how the proposal would appear. I accept that when approaching the site from the wider area the display would be seen in a commercial context from the M4 flyover and at ground level the lower section would be seen. Nonetheless, I have found that the proposal would be visually harmful in the context of the [site address] area.

The Council considers that the advertisement would not form part of the pattern of prevailing development on this elevated part of the M4 flyover and would add clutter to the view and appearance of the skyline. The advertisement would be clearly visible to those travelling in both directions along the M4 flyover. However, being sited to the opposite side of the M4 flyover to that of other existing advertisement, the display would be separated from those existing advertisements and would not be seen within the context of those displays. As such, it would not add to the visual clutter of the skyline or represent an overdevelopment of advertising structures relating to that area.

In accordance with the Regulations, I have taken into account the provisions of the development plan in so far as they are material. Whilst not decisive, the proposal conflicts with Policies D4, D8, T1 and T2 of the London Plan and Policies CC1, CC2, CC5 and EC1 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan (the Local Plan) which together seek, amongst other things, delivery of good design that responds to the local context and is compatible with surrounding buildings. Furthermore, there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed.

I have been provided appeal decisions and advertisement consent approval decision notices relating to similar types and other types of advertisement consent proposals at differing locations along [address]. However, each proposal has to be considered on its own merits having regard to the particular context of the location. I have found visual harm would arise in this case at this site, as notably did a previous Inspector.

Highways England has raised concerns as there is a large pillar supporting the M4 flyover immediately adjacent to the site. Further information had been requested relating to the potential excavation of foundations, drainage requirements, maintenance and management of the advertisement structure, fire risk, amongst

The advertisement consent application was supported by a [name] 03 (5069-HTN03). However, this did not assess the strucutral road safety grounds pertaining to the M4 flyover resulting from the proposed structure, as required by Highways England. A Pryce & Myers Structural Engineering Planning Report (SEPR) has been submitted in support of the appeal. The SEPR concludes that each concern can be satisfactorily resolved through a detailed structural design process guided by way of an Approval in Principle document. Had all other matters been acceptable, this could form part of an appropriately worded planning

Based on the evidence that is before me, there is no substantive evidence that the proposed advertisement would cause harm to public safety. I have taken into account the provisions of the development plan in so far as they are material. The proposal would not conflict with Policies D4, D8, T1 and T2 of London Plan and Policies CC1, CC2, CC5 and EC1 of Local Plan which collectively seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that any impacts on London’s transport networks and supporting infrastructure are mitigated.

The Church of [name] the Evangelist is located to the west of the site. This is a Grade II Listed building. The previous Inspector identified that its significance lies primarily in its historical and architectural interest as a mid-Victorian brick church, built in 1866 to designs by a [name], about whom little is known. It was further identified that the church is characterised by a distinctive squat tower and contains remnants of early work by [name].

The Council has not commented upon the setting of this listed building or identified any harm to its setting. Based upon the evidence that is before me, I see no substantive reason before me that would lead me to deviate from the conclusion of the previous Inspector, therefore I find that the proposed advertisement would preserve the setting of this listed building.

Some concern has been raised about the processing of the advertisement consent application and specifically consultee comments not having been passed onto the applicant, now the appellant, during the course of the Council’s consideration of the application. However, this is matter that, if necessary, should be raised with the Council away from this appeal. In any event, this concern would not lead me to alter my findings above.

[name] have found in favour of the appellant in terms of the second main issue, this does not overcome the identified harm in relation to the first main issue.

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