Appeal 6008140

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by the appellant against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main parties have referred to various planning policies and to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Regulations to control advertisements require that decisions be made only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts. As such, the planning policies cited cannot, therefore, be decisive, but I have taken them into account as a material consideration.

The Council raises no objection in relation to public safety. From the submitted evidence, I have no reason to disagree with that finding. Consequently, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity.

The site occupies a prominent position to one side of [address], which is a busy route leading to Sheffield city centre. The surrounding area is mixed in character and contains shops, commercial premises and associated signage. I observed that the streetscape along [address] close to the site includes fascia signs, street lighting columns, road signs, traffic signals and some larger advertising displays.

The proposal seeks advertisement consent for a freestanding double-sided digital display mounted on a single central support situated towards a corner of the site. The new display would be internally illuminated and present changing static advertisements primarily to oncoming users of [address], in both directions, and nearby side streets.

The appellant places substantial reliance on the planning history of the site, which includes 2 recent consents for LED and digital advertising displays. The principle of large-format advertising has, therefore, been accepted at this location, which is a relevant consideration in this appeal.

The earlier of the two consents was not implemented, and there is no evidence that it ever became an established part of the street scene. It therefore attracts limited weight. The later consent is a more significant consideration, but it was granted at a time when the Council says that an adjoining commercial terrace and a timber structure were still in place. The Council's acceptance of a digital display in those circumstances reflected the physical context of the site as it then existed. The former hoarding would have been viewed at that time in close association with adjoining built development that would have visually contained the advertisement within part of a built-up highway frontage.

Since then, the adjoining buildings and timber structure have been demolished and removed. As a result, the new display would stand in isolation with undeveloped land to one side and a partly open car sales display area on the other. It would therefore appear far more exposed and visually prominent within a largely open setting than the previous arrangement.

In its current context, the new advertisement would be a highly conspicuous feature, appearing incongruous and visually intrusive to users of [address] and nearby streets. The illuminated digital display would further exacerbate its visual effect, particularly during hours of darkness, when the large, illuminated panel would stand out as unduly dominant with little enclosing built form to contextualise or visually contain it.

The Framework states that poorly placed advertisements can have a negative impact on the appearance of the environment. That would be the case with the advertisement before me.

I acknowledge that the proposal broadly replicates the dimensions, orientation and function of the former hoarding that was previously in place. However, a similarity in dimensions does not in itself indicate that the visual effects would be comparable. Due to the removal of adjoining development, the new display, with its double sided panels, would be a substantially more dominant and visually assertive feature within the street scene than would have previously existed.

I also note that the proposed display would be lower than the former hoarding at the site. The reduced gap between the underside of the display and the ground would increase the perceived bulk and immediacy of the proposed structure from the adjacent footway. It would further contribute to the visually intrusive appearance of the appeal scheme when experienced along [address].

The appellant contends that the commercial and visually active nature of [address] means that large-format advertising is a characteristic of the area. [name] accept that the wider road corridor contains a variety of commercial signage and advertisement displays, the acceptability of advertisements depends not simply upon the presence of signage elsewhere, but upon the effect of the proposal within its immediate context. Unlike the appeal scheme, the large format displays at the junction between [address] and [address], for instance, are closely associated with the adjacent built form and form part of the commercial frontage. They are therefore not directly comparable to the proposal, which would be double sided and occupy a far more open and isolated position within the local street scene.

I have carefully considered the appellant’s argument that the proposed unipole design would reduce visual clutter and provide a cleaner modern form of advertisement structure. Whilst the simplified support arrangement is noted, this arrangement would not outweigh the undue prominence arising from the elevated and illuminated display itself.

The proposal would incorporate controls relating to luminance levels, automatic dimming, hours of operation and the absence of moving images. Conditions could cover all these matters. However, such controls would not overcome the fundamental concern that the large illuminated digital display, occupying an exposed roadside position, would appear visually intrusive and incongruous within its immediate surroundings.

Reference is made to appeal decisions concerning replacement digital displays, although few details have been provided. I acknowledge that Inspectors have in some circumstances accepted replacement displays by comparing the proposal against the established baseline and finding that no additional harm results. However, in this case, the baseline conditions that supported the earlier consents at this site — specifically the enclosing commercial terrace and timber screen that contained and contextualised the former display — no longer exist. In this case, it is the context of the site that has changed. While the planning history of the site is relevant, and I note the findings of Inspectors at appeal elsewhere, I have assessed the proposal on its own merits and taken into account current circumstances.

For the reasons given above I conclude on the main issue that the display of the proposed advertisement would be detrimental to the interests of amenity. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.