Appeal 6001558

The appeal is dismissed.

I have also determined the appeal against the Council’s refusal of the corresponding application for express advertisement consent1. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal site is located within the Lower Marsh Conservation Area (CA) and it is within the setting of 2 Grade II Listed Buildings, the [address] Fire Station2 ([name]) and The Old Vic Theatre3. In determining this appeal I have a statutory duty, under Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), to have special regard to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA and the desirability of preserving the setting of these listed buildings, and any features of special architectural and historic interest which they possess.

The main issues in respect of this appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including its effect upon nearby listed buildings and the conservation area.

The appeal proposal is for a new telephone kiosk hub featuring a digital display on one side. The digital advertisement screen would portray static adverts that could be changed remotely as required.

The appeal site is within the CA towards the outer edge of the pavement outside [address], close to the intersection of [address], [address] and 1 APP/N5660/Z/25/3375629 2 1249651 3 1068710 The Cut. The Grade II Listed Building the [name] is across the road to the southeast and the [address] [name] is a few metres along the pavement from the appeal site.

The site is situated within a predominantly commercial setting, consisting of a range of food and drink establishments, offices, and public buildings, as well as residential apartments and transport links.

There are various items of existing street furniture within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, including Sheffield cycle stands, lighting columns, CCTV columns, bins, railings, and bollards. The presence of street furniture is therefore an established characteristic of this area, and I found the balance between the proliferation of items on the pavement and a clear and welcoming area for pedestrians to be delicately poised.

As detailed above the appeal site is also within the CA, which extends from [address] in the north, along [name] to [address]. The area is primarily commercial, and its significance is partly derived from its historical importance as a primary route within the Borough. The present use of the CA as a strong retail and commercial hub has continually evolved since the Victorian period, resulting in varying architectural style and ages of the buildings in the area.

Neighbouring the appeal site is the [name] which was constructed around 1910 and has a distinctive façade that incorporates brown glazed bricks and Portland stone dressings. The building is a well preserved example of Victorian public architecture, and its significance is derived, in part, from its finely detailed, decorative exterior, which is an example of the distinctive and high quality architecture that was adopted for fire stations at that time.

The Old Vic Theatre was originally constructed between 1816 and 1818 and was subsequently remodelled several times since. The position and scale of the theatre is such that it forms a commanding presence within the street scene and open, landscaped areas at Waterloo Millenium Green, and the [name] allow clear views of the building from surrounding streets, including [address]. The significance of The Old Vic is in part due to its architectural, historical and cultural significance as one of the oldest surviving theatres in England and a rare example of the work of [name], one of the first theatre architects.

As a result of their age, style, materials and form, these buildings reflect substantial elements of the CA, including through their traditional functional character and uses. Furthermore, the attractive and traditional shop fronts and areas of hard and soft landscaping make an important contribution to the street scene in this part of the CA.

Consequently, the section of [address] within which the appeal site is situated, consisting of a number of attractive nearby properties, quality public realm and its vibrant commercial character, makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA.

The proposed kiosk would occupy a prominent position close to a busy junction. Through a combination of both its height and width, the hub would be a visually intrusive and bulky addition to the street scene in comparison to other existing items of street furniture in the immediate area. Furthermore, the introduction of this new piece of street furniture, would result in a reduction in the space between existing street items along this section of [address], adding visual clutter to this part of the street.

Additionally, the position of the hub, along with its bulky appearance, would dominate and partially obscure the sight lines and views along [address] to the detriment of the visual amenity of the street scene and the character and appearance of the CA. The design and siting of the hub would also partially impede views of the nearby listed buildings.

Due to the largely commercial character of the area I observed various signs and adverts on nearby buildings, across the road from the appeal site is a large digital advertisement display that is incorporated into the structure of a bus shelter and there is a similar communications kiosk on [address], closer to the [name]

The appellant has drawn my attention to the fact that these signs were granted permission by the Council4. However, one of these existing adverts is incorporated within the structure of a bus shelter and the other digital display was part of a replacement kiosk. In each instance the adverts did not result in additional street furniture or contribute to a proliferation of visual clutter within their respective areas. Therefore, the circumstances in each of these examples do not reflect the appeal before me.

Furthermore, I also find the addition of the rotating digital images on the proposed kiosk, in conjunction with the rotating images on these existing adverts, would result in cumulative visual harm from digital advertisements within the immediate locality. Consequently, the incompatible and prominent siting of the proposed digital advertisement, made more conspicuous by its illumination and changing images, would result in the over proliferation of street furniture in the area, resulting in visual clutter that undermines the attractive qualities of the townscape and public realm within this part of the CA, causing harm to the significance of the [name] and The Old Vic, through development in their settings. My concerns in this regard are not resolved by the position of the screen in relation to those approaching The Old Vic from the northwest.

For the reasons given, I therefore find the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, it would cause less than substantial harm, albeit at the lower end of the scale, to the significance of the nearby listed buildings and the CA. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Paragraph 119 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that an advanced, high quality and reliable communication infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. The Framework also seeks to support the expansion of electronic communication networks. The hub would therefore support the Government’s aim of improving digital infrastructure.

The proposal would also improve the communication provision in this area, provide greater connectivity and enable users to access the digital network. The hub would 4 24/03377/ADV and 21/04834/FUL and 21/04835/ADV incorporate a defibrillator, and I acknowledge the overarching environmental, social and economic benefits of digital advertisements.

The appellant also states that the proposed kiosk would replace three other kiosks in the wider area. [name] have had due regard to the removal of these units, issues relating to the impact of a proposal upon the character and appearance of an area, and designated heritage assets, are matters of planning judgement based on the site-specific circumstances and surroundings.

In this regard, I have been provided with limited information in respect of these kiosks that would enable me to draw any direct comparisons with the specifics of the appeal site and scheme before me, including specific details of the relationship between them and neighbouring heritage assets. Therefore, their removal carries limited weight as a public benefit or in the overall determination of this main issue.

The appellant has also offered to plant a street tree as part of the proposed scheme. While street trees often provide both environmental and visual benefits to an area, I am not certain that a single tree would overcome the harm identified above, which includes a proliferation of street furniture in the area. I therefore afford only limited weight to the planting of a tree as a public benefit.

When taken together the above-mentioned public benefits attract moderate weight in favour of the proposal. However, these public benefits do not outweigh the great weight I must attach to the preservation of the significance of both the CA, the [name] and The Old Vic.

Consequently, the proposed digital advertisement display would be an overly prominent element within the street scene which would distract from the character and appearance of the area and that would harm the significance of the CA and the setting of 2 Grade II Listed Buildings. This would be the case even if the levels of illumination and the speed and frequency of image transitions on the display screen were carefully controlled. My concerns in this regard are not resolved by the position of the kiosk adjacent to [address] which is a building of a contemporary design and noted as making a neutral contribution to the character of the CA.

For the reasons detailed above the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, it would fail to enhance or preserve the character or appearance of the CA and would harm the significance of the nearby listed buildings The Old Vic Theatre and The Former Fire Station, through development within their settings.

Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policies Q6, Q17, Q20 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 which require that development provides an uncluttered public realm that enhances the setting of spaces between buildings; and that advertisements do not add unacceptable street/visual clutter. They also state that development affecting listed buildings would only be supported where it would not harm their significance/setting, and development effecting conservation areas will be permitted only where they preserve or enhance their character or appearance. This approach is consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

My attention has been drawn to applications for planning permission, and advertisement consent, for a kiosk opposite [address]; that were refused by the Council5. Considering the evidence before me, it is acknowledged that there are differences between this previously refused proposal and the scheme before me, including a revised design and a single display rather than a double display. Notwithstanding this, each case is determined on its own merits, based on the site specific circumstances at the time. The amendments to the previous scheme are not sufficient to overcome the harm I have identified above.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.