21 February 2011 · Senior Planning Officer under delegated authority (Regulation 6(2) of the Control of Advertisements Regulations 2005); refusal upheld by Minister following appeal
The Empress Hotel, Central Promenade, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4ra
The proposal sought express consent for erecting advertising banners (retrospective) on the front elevation of the Empress Hotel on Central Promenade, Douglas, measuring approximately 3.96m x 0.8m, made of white plastic with black text.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer concluded the proposed signage is 'not considered to be of a high standard of design and materials and would not relate well to the building to which it is to be displayed, nor would it pr…
General Policy 6
Requires advertisements in towns/villages to be high standard design/materials relating well to building/site, in keeping with surroundings, and not cause highway hazards. Officer assessed the plastic banner as failing on design/materials quality and relation to building, detracting from street scene despite no highway concerns.
Environment Policy 35
Permits only development preserving/enhancing Conservation Area character, protecting special features. Assessed against hotel's prominent Promenade location; banner found to harm rather than preserve/enhance area appearance.
Environment Policy 37
Permits Conservation Area ads only if preserving/enhancing area, appropriate style, traditional materials (excluding glossy/reflective), no illuminated/projecting boxes. Plastic banner failed on materials, style, and enhancement test, introducing incongruous element.
No objection
The original application (11/00038/D) for retrospective consent for an advertising banner on the Empress Hotel, Central Promenade, Douglas, was refused by the Planning Authority primarily because it was not of high design standard, harmed the building's character, and was detrimental to the Conservation Area. The appellant argued that such banners had been used for over 20 years without complaint, were high quality, and similar banners exist nearby. The Planning Authority defended the refusal citing harm to the property and street scene. The inspector, after a site visit, found the banner unduly prominent, temporary in appearance, and not of suitable quality for the Conservation Area building, recommending dismissal. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the refusal.
Precedent Value
This appeal demonstrates that in Conservation Areas, even longstanding temporary advertising banners require express consent and must meet high design standards; appellants should provide detailed material specifications and avoid temporary phrasing to succeed.
Inspector: John S Turner
