Appeal 6010374

The appeal is dismissed.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) sets out that powers under those Regulations shall 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.

From my reading of the material submitted for the purposes of this appeal the main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisement on the character and appearance of the local area, with reference to Clapham Conservation Area (the CA) and the setting of a [name]* listed structures and buildings.

The proposed advertisement is a non-illuminated fixed panel sign measuring 12.275 metres long and 2.973 metres in height, positioned 0.35 metres above ground level. It would be attached to a curved Portland stone clad wall associated with an entrance stair to the [name], which is positioned in the middle of the footway on the south side of the street at [name].

Through the designation of the CA the Council has recognised the local area within which the appeal site sits as a heritage asset. The significance of the CA predominantly vests in the open common and in the surrounding 18th, 19th and early 20th Century properties, including the [name]* listed main entrance to [name], the [name] and the [name], the settings of which the appeal site forms part.

In line with the duty imposed on me by sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have given considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA’s and preserving the setting of the listed buildings.

Due to its location within the footway, where the roads of [name] and The Pavement meet and flow into [address], the Portland stone wall to which the proposed advertisement would be attached, is prominently positioned and widely visible in street views. As the proposed advertisement would be approximately the same size as this wall, it would be widely visible an prominent within the streetscape.

Whilst the immediate local area has many advertisements, these are generally small scale, restrained and associated with retail and commercial uses, and are mainly at shop fascia level. Although the proposed advertisement would be positioned at ground floor level, the proposed advertisement would be substantially larger and more prominently located than any of the other advertisements within the local area. Consequently, in views from within the local area, the proposed advertisement would not be seen in conjunction with any advertisements of similar prominence or scale.

The proposal would however be seen very prominently in conjunction with and in the setting of the [name]* listed [name] to the [name] and the [name]. Both of which are located across the street, on an area defined by the streets of The Pavement and [name]. Although the area is busy with through traffic across the four lanes of carriageway between the appeal site and the main entrance to the underground, it would also be prominent within the views and the setting of the [name]* [name], when viewed from this area and in wider views from The Pavement and the additional lanes of that street.

Heavy traffic is a reality of this location and is part of the active and vibrant character of the area. Traffic would have been present in the area in various forms for longer than a century, with individual vehicles having a fleeting presence compared to the permanent buildings, structures and trees that make up the fundamental character and appearance of the area, including the wall that forms the appeal site.

Consequently, the large size and visibility of the proposal would result in it appearing as unduly prominent, dominating and incongruous, interrupting the architectural qualities of the area, and distracting from its character and appearance. Unlike the simple form and plain design of the high quality Portland stone wall to which it would be attached. As such the proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA and would, therefore, be harmful in terms of its significance as a heritage asset.

Similarly, the size, undue prominence and obtrusive visual effect of the proposal would also be apparent in views of the [name]* listed buildings I have identified above. This would significantly detract from their setting, which currently benefit from being made up of buildings of architectural quality with limited advertising presence. As such, the proposal would fail to preserve their settings and would be detrimental to the appreciation of their significance as heritage assets.

Consequently, I find that the scale, undue prominence and obtrusive effect of the proposed advertisement would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the local area. This would not accord with the general principles of the guidance set out in the [name] and [name] (2016), which seeks advertisements that respect the character or appearance of the locality, preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and cause no harm to the setting of heritage assets.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the local area, would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA and would cause significant harm to the setting of the identified [name]* listed buildings. In the context of Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework), the harm I have identified to the significance of the CA and the identified [name]* listed buildings would be less than substantial.

This would be in conflict, Policies Q2, Q5, Q17, Q20, Q22 and PN5 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) (the Local Plan). These collectively seek, amongst other matters, to ensure the quality and character of places, including public realm, and that advertisements have regard to the local context and character of an area and its visual amenity, and have due regard to the importance of preserving or enhancing the significance of heritage assets.

The appellant has suggested that the standard 5 year period of a permission for advertisement consent, would provide a period to further assess the effect of the proposed advertisement on visual amenity, and that this could be accompanied by a condition requiring that the proposed sign shall not contain any method of illumination or animation. However, I have considered the effect of the proposal on amenity as a non-illuminated and static sign as applied for, and I have found that the harm I have identified would exist for whatever period the proposal would be in place. Further, the attachment of a condition as suggested would not make an unacceptable advertisement acceptable and would not, therefore, accord with the requirements for conditions set out in Paragraphs 56 and 57 of the Framework.

The recognised economic and social benefits of advertisement of the type proposed do not outweigh the substantial harm to visual amenity that I have identified. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.