Yesterday the regional Planning Inspectorate based in Bristol, granted the appeal by Velo Lounge on Moorland Road against the Councils refusal on the 17 September 2008, to grant planning approval for 4 bullet spotlights, application ref: 08/02456/AR, dated 1 July 2008.

Appeal Ref: APP/F0114/H/08/2090143
Velo Lounge, 30 Moorland Road , Bath BA2 3PW

• The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 against a refusal to grant express consent.
• The appeal is made by David Read against the decision of Bath & North East Somerset Council.
• The application Ref 08/02456/AR, dated 1 July 2008, was refused by notice dated 17 September 2008.
• The advertisements proposed are 4 bullet spotlights.

Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and consent granted for 4 bullet spotlights, as applied for. The consent is for 5 years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations

Reasons
2. I consider the main issue to be the visual impact of the proposed sign on the premises and the streetscape in general. I inspected the site during the hours of daylight and darkness.

3. The appeal premises comprise a café situated on the northern side of Moorland Road which forms part of a busy shopping area. The locality is characterised by small shops and other business uses. The associated signage is a mixture of non-illuminated, internally and externally illuminated.

4. The proposed sign is unusual in the street in that it is illuminated by swan necked lamps. The appellant says that he was told by a Council Official that 3 lamps would be satisfactory. Although he did not submit a fresh application, the appellant has amended the appeal proposals to 3 lamps. The Council do not comment on the acceptability of 3 lamps, maintaining their objection to the original proposal.

5. The proposed spotlight illumination would not be unique to the street. The principle has already been established at other commercial premises, namely “Bathroom Solutions”; therefore I see no reason to consider this method of illumination inappropriate.

6. From my night time inspection I formed the view that the 4 lamps created an even spread of illumination. In my view if the number were reduced to 3, this would create dark pools which would be undesirable and could only be overcome by a complete redesign. I consider that the fascia is large enough to accommodate all 4 lamps without overburdening the front elevation and creating clutter.

Conclusions
7. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the display of the spotlights would not be detrimental to the interests of amenity.

Terry Emm
Inspector