**Document:** Inspector's Report **Application:** 13/01352/D — Erection of illuminated and non illuminated advertising signage **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2014-07-29 **Parish:** Braddan **Document Type:** report / inspectors_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/42563-braddan-1-3-5-walpole-signage/documents/1097234 --- # Inspector's Report Appeal No. AP14/0065 Application No. 13/01352/D REPORT ON AN APPEAL BY PH ISLE OF MAN LTD AGAINST REFUSAL OF EXPRESS CONSENT FOR THE ERECTION OF ILLUMINATED AND NON ILLUMINATED ADVERTISING SIGNAGE AT 1,3 & 5 WALPOLE AVENUE, DOUGLAS, ISLE OF MAN 1. This appeal is being considered by written representations. I visited the site during the day on 13 October 2014. I also visited during hours of darkness on 12 and 14 October 2014. THE APPEAL SITE AND SURROUNDINGS, THE PROPOSAL AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS 2. The appeal relates to ground floor and basement corner premises in a 5-storey building, on the east side of Walpole Avenue and the south side of Loch Promenade at their junction. The premises are in use as a Pizza Hut franchise. The business' focus is the sale of pizzas for takeaway collection and delivery. The 1st floor above the Pizza Hut unit is in use as an Italian restaurant known as La Piazza, the entrance to which is from Loch Promenade on the east side of the appeal premises. To the east of that entrance there are premises which signage indicates are used as a restaurant and club known as Bordello's. Upper floors appear to be in use as residential flats. The site is in the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. The Jubilee Clock, which is a Registered Building, has been repositioned on the pavement at the junction of Victoria Street with Loch Promenade, about 30m or so from the appeal site. 3. The principal signage has already been installed. The main elements comprise fascia signs above the shop windows. These span the width of the fascia (about 6.5m) on the Loch Promenade frontage and of the short angled section of fascia at the junction (about 1.2m), and then continue down part of the return frontage of Walpole Avenue (about 5m). These signs would be made of aluminium and would have fret cut lettering with acrylic inserts, lit from behind. The drawings also indicate the provision of halo illumination by white LED strip lighting along the bottom edges and in the vertical gaps between the individual fascias. The lettering comprises the words "Pizza Hut" (in black edged opal vinyl) with "Delivery" (in yellow vinyl) below on the 2 main fascias. There is a "hat" symbol" on the corner fascia, with details of the Pizza Hut UK website address in opal colour below. The main part of the fascias' background is coloured poppy red, and there are black bands along the lower edge of the fascias. The "delivery" lettering and the website address is within that black band. The scheme also includes a blade shaped projecting sign on the Walpole Avenue frontage. This is at the same height just beyond the end of the fascia sign. The faces of this sign are poppy red, with black coloured material around most of the containing edges. This sign is internally illuminated and each face bears a "hat" symbol and "Pizza Hut" and "Delivery" wording. 4. The drawings also show the attachment of graphic film to the rear of some of the shop windows, the provision of poster adverts within the shop window to the east of the entrance, and some vinyl signs on the door (the Planning Authority refer to some of these elements as "decals"). THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT The main points are: 5. The application for consent was made 12 days before the signage was erected, and so was not made for retrospective consent, although the proposal is now retrospective. The design of the signage has been carried out in strict accordance with Pizza Hut regulations, using company approved materials and lighting. Following a meeting with the Planning Officer, at which concerns were raised that the signage did not comply with guidance in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan regarding advertisements in a Conservation Area, Pizza Hut was asked if variations from the company approved signage and AppealNo. AP14/0065 Page 1 materials would be allowed. It was confirmed that no deviation would be permitted and that to do so might invalidate the franchise agreement. A submitted letter from the company confirms that the signage erected has been designed and installed in compliance with current Pizza Hut branding. 6. The Planning Authority has accepted that exceptions to Environment Policy 37 of the Strategic Plan have been agreed in the past. Consent has been granted for similar signs. Photographs of examples are provided, including some internally illuminated box fascia signage on buildings in the immediate vicinity. The proposal does not adhere strictly to Environment Policy 37, but it is necessary to comply with the tight control that Pizza Hut exercises over the company's corporate branding. If the signage had not been designed in accordance with the company's design guidance, and installed by an approved contractor, the premises would not have been allowed to trade until any discrepancy was rectified. Copies of relevant correspondence from the Pizza Hut company are provided. 7. Only the lettering on the signs is illuminated, not the whole of the fascias. At night the signage, together with the painting of the frontage, blends into the whole block. The premises had illuminated and non-illuminated signage when used as a restaurant prior to the conversion into Pizza Hut. That signage did not have consent, but no enforcement action was taken. Other planning approvals have been granted during 2014- PA14/00369/B for creation of outside seating area; PA14/00370/D for advertisement barriers to seating area; and 14/00691/B for change to opening hours. 8. The works that have been carried out have significantly improved the general appearance of the building at Promenade level. This contrasts with the rest of the building which has had little routine maintenance over the years. It is appreciated that further examples of poor illuminated signage should not be encouraged in the Conservation Area, but it is requested that an exception to the Strategic Plan's guidance should be made in this case in order to enable the Pizza Hut franchise to remain on the Island. THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY The main points are: 9. The site is in an area zoned as Offices in the Douglas Local Plan. General Policy 6 and Environment Policy 37 of the Strategic Plan are relevant. The latter applies as the site is in the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. Planning Policy Statement 1101 is relevant. With respect to advertisement control it states that "Where matters such as corporate image are a consideration; for a conservation area the Department may require a deviation from what might be acceptable in other high street locations and many large corporate bodies do have alternative designs of signage which might be suitable for use in conservation areas. In many cases it will be necessary for signage to adopt traditional design and materials, in keeping with the character of the building and neighbourhood as a whole. Externally illuminated signage with appropriate detailing and colour rendered lamps, may be judged suitable". 10. The key issue is the acceptability of the proposal in the context of the Conservation Area, given the strict provisions of Environment Policy 37. The scheme does not meet any of the 4 criteria in that policy. The box fascia and its materials are inappropriate for this building, with the context of its location in the Conservation Area and in the setting of the nearby Registered Building. The strict adherence to corporate design guidelines should not be a reason to set aside established planning policy which protects against inappropriate signage in sensitive areas. No explicit statement from Pizza Hut has been submitted to confirm that there are no other options with respect to the signage, and no design guidance manual from the company has been provided to allow an assessment of whether any such options are available (Inspector's Note: a guidance manual has been provided with the appeal papers). This site is in one of the more sensitive visual environments, given its prominence in the Conservation Area and its proximity to the Sea Terminal and a Registered Building. The signage would not sit. AppealNo.AP14/0065 Page 2 satisfactorily and respectfully alongside the limited and relatively modest signage relating to other uses in this building, including those advertising the existing restaurants. This is not a building which gives the impression of being predominantly in business use. The proposal would introduce an unnecessarily high level of signage, which with other signage above would result in advertisement clutter. 11. Certain elements of the proposal are considered to be acceptable. These include: - although Environment Policy 37 warns against internally-illuminated box fascia signs, the illumination in this case would on balance be acceptable as light would only "escape" through the lettering and the fascias would not be entirely backlit; if approved a condition would be needed to control the strength of the lighting as no details of that matter have been provided; - the box sign would be acceptable as it is relatively small and not sited on the main elevation; - the window decals are acceptable and add interest to the street scene by comparison with a stark façade of blank windows; - the provision of coloured render on part of the frontage is acceptable; this is so even though the render installed is cream rather than grey as indicated on the submitted drawings; this render has improved the appearance of the building. 12. In response to the examples of other signs cited by the appellant, the presence of examples of poor signage should never be taken as reason to approve further poor quality signs. No other applications for advertisements on the appeal building have been submitted in recent times. 13. The fact that some elements of the proposal are acceptable must be balanced with the significant concerns about the box fascias. There are no reasons strong enough to set aside the conflict with Environment Policy 37. The appeal should be dismissed and the refusal of consent should be upheld. MAIN POINTS FROM THE CASE FOR MR GIOVANNI FERRERA - INTERESTED PARTY 14. Mr Ferrara owns the La Piazza restaurant and the Grand View Hotel, which are part of the same building. He also owns the neighbouring property, comprising Bordello's wine bar and the former hotels above that business. The new signage has a detrimental impact on Mr Ferrara's buildings, on the Conservation Area and on the surrounding neighbourhood. The type of signage is inappropriate to the Conservation Area and this Victorian property, which is highly visible and on a corner site. The signs would have a negative impact on the building and the Conservation Area due to their size, colour and material. The proposal does not comply with Environment Policy 37 of the Strategic Plan. 15. The examples of similar signs referred to by the appellant demonstrate the damaging effect of this type of signage. Many of those signs are in the main shopping areas, and some were installed prior to designation of the Conservation Area and to adoption of the Strategic Plan. Approval of the signage proposed would set a precedent and encourage further similar signage along the Promenade. 16. Preferential treatment should not be given to any particular company. The appellant should respect and adhere to local planning policy. The signage should be refused and the appeal should be dismissed. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS 17. The Director of Highways did not oppose the proposal. Douglas Borough Council had no objections. INSPECTOR'S ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS 18. The powers for determining applications for express consent may only be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. The Planning Authority has no concerns about public safety, and so the main issue concerns the effects of the advertisements in Appeal No. AP14/0065 Page 3 amenity terms, including with regard to the location within the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. Material factors include the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan. 19. The appeal site is in a prominent corner location on the Promenade within close proximity of the Sea Terminal, and so these premises are part of an important gateway location to the Island. Taking into account also that site is within the Conservation Area, and close enough to the Jubilee Clock to be regarded as part of the setting of that Registered Building, this is undoubtedly a very sensitive location. In that context, it is my assessment that the fascia signs in the scheme represent overly strident and intrusive features, having regard to their size, particularly in terms of their depth, the visual dominance of the predominantly poppy red colour of the fascia background, the format and substantial size of the "Pizza Hut" lettering, and the excessive contrast that I observed exists during hours of darkness due to the brightness of the internal illumination of the lettering and the associated LED strip lighting beneath and between the fascia panels. With respect to those points, I noted that there are no other comparable fascia signs on the Loch Promenade frontage of this street block. It is my view that as a result the signage subject of the appeal is significantly at odds with its immediate surroundings, and in particular with the retained Victorian appearance of the particular building. 20. I have taken into account the examples cited through the medium of photographs by the appellant of existing signage on other buildings. However, not all of those signs are within the same Conservation Area, and with respect to those that are I did not observe any which I consider to be directly comparable to those in the appeal scheme. The appellant has not provided any evidence to show whether or when express consent was granted for any of those signs, including for example whether any of them were approved during the currency of current planning policies. There is insufficient evidence available to justify attaching any significant weight to the existence of those signs. In any event, as the Planning Authority has rightly indicated, the existence of poor quality signage elsewhere does not provide a good reason to approve further signage which would be harmful in terms of its effects on amenity. 21. For these reasons, I find that the proposal is in conflict with General Policy 6 of the Strategic Plan. The fascia signs do not meet the expectation in that policy that external advertisements should be of a high standard of design and materials, and should relate well to the building and site on which they are displayed. They do not comply with the requirement that advertisements should be in keeping with, and not detract from, the surrounding area. With reference to Conservation Area, the proposal is also in conflict with Environment Policy 37, as the signage is not in a style appropriate to the character of the area, does not use traditional materials and finishes, and includes internally illuminated box fascias, albeit that the Planning Authority finds the form of illumination to be acceptable, subject to its intensity. With respect to provision i) of Environment Policy 37, this signage would fail to preserve or enhance the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area, where similar signage is not generally characteristic. 22. I have taken account of the arguments to the effect that the form and details of the signage are dictated by the corporate policies of the company whose franchise is being operated from the site. That cannot in my view override the conflict with the policies of the Planning Authority, which must carry greater weight. It would be iniquitous in my opinion to make an exception to the policies of the Strategic Plan in the case of an international company, given that other individuals and companies, including those local to the Island, would be expected to comply. 23. I have taken account of all other matters raised but I have found nothing of overriding significance. I have reached the overall conclusions that the proposal is unacceptable in terms of its effects on amenity, having regard to the visual harm that the signage would cause to the character and appearance of the building and the surrounding area, and the failure to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Appeal No. AP14/0065 Page 4 the Conservation Area. I intend to recommend that the appeal be dismissed. Should it be decided that express consent is to be granted, a condition would be necessary to require the submission and approval of details of the level of illumination to be employed in the fascia and projecting signs, and to require compliance with the approved level. No other conditions would be necessary beyond those standard conditions that apply by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2013. **RECOMMENDATION** 24. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed with the effect that the Planning Authority's decision to refuse express consent be upheld. Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector Appeal No. AP14/0065 Page 5 . --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/42563-braddan-1-3-5-walpole-signage/documents/1097234*