Appeal 6009742

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has drawn my attention to the policies of the Redcar & Cleveland Local Plan Adopted May 2018 (the Local Plan) that it considers relevant to this appeal, and I have taken them into account as material considerations. However, powers under the Regulations may be exercised only in the interests 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. In my determination of this appeal the Council’s policies have not therefore, by themselves, been decisive.

The Council’s decision does not refer to public safety as a reason for refusal. No concerns have been raised by the Local Highway Authority in this respect. There is no evidence before me that would lead me to a different conclusion on this issue.

The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposed advert on amenity, including that of the occupiers of [address] (No 44), with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site adjoins the western side boundary of No 44. It sits adjacent to the front garden area, and the proposed advert would replace 2 smaller free-standing adverts in this location. This side boundary features a tall timber fence above a brick wall. The height of this boundary enclosure steps down as it approaches the footpath. Nevertheless, the existing adverts both remain below the lower fence height and so have no material impact on the outlook from No 44.

The proposed advert would be considerably larger than the 2 existing adverts combined, with the proposed digital display alone measuring approximately 6m x 3m in area. This would sit on top of a 1.5-metre-tall stand, and so would extend a considerable distance above the existing lower fence at No 44 and would also stand taller than the tallest part of the existing boundary enclosure.

The proposed advert would become a prominent feature in views from the front elevation windows of the dwelling at No 44, though such views would be oblique. It would however significantly increase the level of enclosure to the front garden area, dominating the outlook from it and curtailing the enjoyment of this space by residents of the property. This is also the primary access to the dwelling, and occupiers would thus be presented with the obtrusive and oppressively tall and wide blank rear elevation of the advert every time they entered or exited their front door. This would have a deleterious effect on living conditions.

[name] recognise there is a totem sign on the opposite side of the petrol filling station forecourt to where the appeal advert would sit, the dimensions of this are not comparable to the proposal before me, and its relationship to the residential dwelling adjacent to it is materially different. Likewise, the petrol station canopy is a significant distance from the boundary of No 44.

The Council did not identify any harm to wider public amenity, including with respect to the illuminated nature of the display. There is no evidence before me that would lead me to a different conclusion.

Nevertheless, the proposed advert would have a harmful effect on the amenity of the occupiers of No 44, with particular regard to outlook. It would conflict with Policy ED5 of the Local Plan. This policy, among other provisions, seeks to ensure that advertisements are of a suitable size, scale, design and positioning, and are carefully controlled with regard to visual amenity where a residential location is proposed. The proposal would also conflict with Paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that regard should be had to amenity when considering advertisements, and the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed.

The proposed advert would harm the amenity of the occupiers of No 44. It would thus be contrary to the development plan and the Framework, taken as a whole. It would also conflict with the provisions of the Regulations.

It is acknowledged that a digital advertisement may have provided some benefits, including ongoing maintenance of the site, uplift in business rates, reduced vehicle trips and waste, and opportunities for public and emergency messaging, public art displays and integration of additional hardware. In the first instance however, there is already advertisements in this location, and so the net benefits are reduced. Moreover, where such benefits do not relate to the matters of amenity and public safety referred to in the Regulations, then they carry little weight.

There are no material considerations in this case that would outweigh the identified harm and development plan conflict. For the reasons given above I therefore conclude that the appeal is dismissed.