Claimant wishing to erect advertising hoardings on commercial site — Site adjacent to restored railway bridge and main road — Application refused on grounds of visual amenity — Whether use of term “gateway” in inspector’s decision letter referring to specific policies in development plan
The claimant wished to erect advertising hoardings in a prominent position on a well-used route into the city centre. The site, which was of a commercial and industrial nature, was near to a railway bridge and major. There was a proliferation of other signage in the immediate vicinity.
The second defendant council refused consent on the ground that the advertisements would be unduly prominent and detrimental to the visual amenity of the area, and thus contrary to the adopted unitary and development plan (UDP). The first defendant’s inspector upheld that decision. He found, in particular, that the hoardings would detract from the attractiveness of the restored and repainted railway bridge and embankment that formed a “gateway” into the city.
The claimant applied, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to have that decision quashed. It maintained that the use of the term “gateway” in the decision letter raised a new issue that had not been addressed at the inquiry, since specific policies relating to “gateway” sites were contained in the development plans, and issues relating to such policies had not been raised at the hearing. It further maintained that the inspector had had no reason to differentiate between the site in question and comparable sites where such advertising hoardings were permitted.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The inspector was entitled to describe, in his own words, the impression he had formed of the site following his visit. Whether or not the term “gateway” had been used at the original inquiry, the inspector was clearly describing a well-used route through the city, a matter that was not disputed and the circumstances of which had been thoroughly discussed at the inquiry. There was no indication that the term “gateway” had been used in any technical sense; it was no more than a convenient description of the area. Although particular policies could have been applied to “gateway” locations, it was evident that, on the facts of the matter, the inspector had not referred to any such policy, nor had he considered the site in the light of such a policy.
Although the site shared some of the characteristics of others that had been visited, such as the fact that it was situated on a major route and in a predominantly commercial and industrial area, the inspector had pointed out fundamental differences. These included the considerable improvements to the adjoining railway bridge and embankment and the amount of existing street furniture, such as highway directional signage. Adding more signs would have resulted in visual clutter, and would have detracted from the attractive bridge structure. Having identified the fundamental differences between the appeal site and the other sites, the inspector had merely been required to explain the reasons for his decision, and he had done so.
Gregory Jones (instructed by Marons, of Leicester) appeared for the claimant; James Maurici (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants did not appear and were not represented.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
