Appeal 6009033

The appeal is dismissed.

Consent is sought for the advertisement described in the banner heading above which would be in the form of a billboard attached to the gable end of the appeal property. The unilluminated advertisement would be rectangular, measuring 6m x 3m and set 5.6m above the ground.

The appellant has referred to the history of the site, particularly to the fact that a billboard of a similar size to that proposed now was previously displayed here. It is claimed that the advertisement went unchallenged for several years and would have qualified for a deemed consent under the terms of the Regulations.

However, its display was discontinued around May 2023. To my mind, what appears to be the voluntary discontinuance of the previous display opened a new chapter in the planning history of the site. The suitability of the site for the proposed display is therefore a matter for fresh consideration and assessment.

Reference has been made to the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework). Its guidance underlines the fact that the powers under the current Regulations to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety.

The Council has objected on amenity grounds alone. The development plan policies referred to, which are directed to development generally and not advertisements specifically, have been treated as material considerations.

This is the effect of the proposed advertisement on local amenity.

The appeal property is an end of terrace commercial building situated within the [address] District Centre. The appellant however acknowledges that the area is part residential, and in this respect some residential properties adjoin the appeal site to the north.

The Council suggests that the billboard would utilise the existing frame, being presumably that of the discontinued display. At my site visit however I saw no obvious traces of the previous advertisement. The frame referred to by the Council had been removed and the gable freshly painted, albeit that some graffiti had been applied at the foot of the gable.

Taking account of its height and size1, the advertisement would appear extremely prominent for those travelling by car or on foot along [address] from the north towards the traffic lit junction with [address]. It would appear visually dominating in relation to the scale of the host property and incongruous set alongside and largely above the adjacent two storey Victorian residential properties. It follows that I do not agree with the appellant that this would be an ideal location for advertising of this scale. On the contrary I consider that the advertisement would cause serious visual harm.

I conclude that the appeal should not succeed on account of the damage to local amenity and the public realm that would be caused by the display.

The appellant has referred to what is regarded as a comparable site in [name], where a similar display to that proposed was granted consent by the local planning authority. I note that decision, but each application should be determined on its specific merits, which I have done here.

The appellant claims that social, economic and environmental benefits would arise from the display. The benefits cited would not outweigh the harm I have found.

Objections were raised by third parties, and I note the comments made on the grounds of road safety. However, on the advice of the Transport Development Management arm of the Authority, the Council did not raise an objection for this reason, and I have no convincing reason to question this judgment.

All other matters raised have been taken into account, but they do not outweigh the considerations which led me to my main conclusion.