Appeal 6002896

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 1No. [address] [name] and associated advertisement panels on either side of the unit at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/03444/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for advertisement consent for two digital 75 inch LCD display screens, one on each side of the [name] at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/03445/ADV. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations and the additional conditions set out in the attached schedule.

I have used the descriptions from the respective application forms in the banner headings above. However, in my formal decision for Appeal B I have amended the description to match the description used by the Council on the decision notice, as this more accurately describes the proposed advertisement. Appeal Decisions 6002896, 6003348

The two appeals are made in relation to the same appeal site and to each other. Appeal A relates to the refusal of planning permission for the installation of 1No. [address] [name] (the development). Appeal B relates to the refusal of advertisement consent for advertisement panels on either side of the development (the advertisements). I have determined both appeals on their merits but, to avoid duplication, dealt with the two together below.

The appeal site is within the Harrogate Conservation Area (HCA). In respect of both appeals, I have therefore had special regard to Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), which requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

The appeal site is within the setting of [address] ([name] as referred to in the Council’s submissions), which is a grade II listed building. In respect of Appeal A I have a statutory duty under Section 66 (1) of the Act to have special regard to preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest. However, this duty does not apply to Appeal B because Section 66 (1) only applies to a grant of planning permission.

In respect of Appeal B, the Council has drawn my attention to Policies HP2 and HP3 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 – 2035 adopted March 2020 (LP), and I have taken them into account as a material consideration where relevant. However, powers under the Regulations1 to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interest of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) reiterates this approach. Therefore, in my consideration of Appeal B, the Council’s policies have not, by themselves, been decisive. The Council has not raised any issues of public safety. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree.

For Appeal A, the main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the listed building, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the HCA.

For Appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the advertisements on amenity.

The appeal site is positioned on the pavement, outside [address], within the HCA, a designated area whose special interest derives from the high-quality historic townscape of Harrogate’s centre, characterised by its coherent built form, strong architectural character, and the valued visual qualities of its streets and public spaces. The surrounding area has a distinctly commercial character, comprising a mix of retail, office, food and drink uses. During my visit, the immediate vicinity of the appeal site appeared active and busy, with continuous footfall.

[address], a grade II listed building, occupies a prominent corner location at the junction of [address] and [name] and lies a short distance from the appeal site along the same street frontage. Insofar as it is 1 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) Appeal Decisions 6002896, 6003348 relevant to this development, its significance derives from its architectural and historic interest, notably its red‐brick and stone‐dressed façades, octagonal tower and cupola, and its role as a recognisable townscape feature within the wider commercial centre. Its setting is principally experienced at street level, where views of its corner tower and frontage unfold gradually along the linear route of [address].

Across the area surrounding the appeal site, the street scene contains a wide variety of established street furniture of differing heights, including bollards, pedestrian guard railings, streetlamps, a Harrogate wayfinding and information board, multiple litter bins, a raised planter with a mature tree, a phone kiosk, a domed info kiosk, and various shopfront features such as portable signage. Collectively, these contribute to a visually busy and mixed street scene in which modern street equipment is already an established characteristic of this part of the HCA. The BT phone and cashpoint shown on the submitted plans as to be removed were not in place anymore at the time of my site visit.

The proposal would introduce a new structure into this context. While its modern and sleek appearance would contrast with the traditional architecture of the surrounding older buildings, its presence would be read alongside the existing cluster of street furniture. When viewed within its immediate surroundings, the hub’s slim profile, modest footprint, and positioning adjacent to the mature tree would avoid it appearing as an isolated or intrusive addition. Although taller than the now‐removed BT phone and cashpoint, its height and scale remain broadly consistent with nearby vertical elements such as streetlamps and the information board. The unit would not obstruct or compete with key views towards notable buildings, including the [address], nor would it detract from their architectural qualities. I therefore find that the proposal would preserve the significance of both the HCA and the setting of the listed building.

The hub would incorporate a display screen on each side, with one facing [address] and the other facing towards the junction of [name] with [name]. The displays would be illuminated and would show a series of static imagines.

I recognise the Council’s concern that the proposal could introduce visual clutter and unrelated advertising into a prominent location. However, given the commercial nature of the area, the presence of existing illuminated and non‐illuminated signage, both fixed to buildings and free‐standing on the pavement, is already part of the established street scene. The advertisements on the hub would therefore be viewed in the context of, and in keeping with, the surrounding commercial activity. Their illumination would sit comfortably within an environment already lit by existing streetlamps, and the mature tree and raised planter would visually filter views of the displays when approaching from the direction of the listed building. As such, the proposed displays would not appear incongruous, nor would they erode the character or appearance of the HCA or the setting of the [address]. Overall, the visual effect would be neutral.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude in respect of Appeal A that the hub would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, preserving both the character and appearance of the HCA and the setting and significance of the listed building. Accordingly, it accords with [name] HP2, HP3, and TI5, which collectively require developments to be well designed and Appeal Decisions 6002896, 6003348 respect their surroundings and the historic environment. In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to the requirements of the Framework, particularly those outlined within paragraph 212, which relate to the conservation of heritage assets, and I am satisfied that the proposal accords with these aims by preserving the character and appearance of HCA and the setting and significance of the listed building.

In respect of Appeal B, I conclude that the proposed advertisements would not harm the character and appearance of the HCA and would have an acceptable effect on the amenity of the area. Thus, they comply with [name] HP2 and HP3, insofar as these relate to the determination of advertisement consent.

The Council has drawn my attention to several other planning applications for similar developments and advertisements. However, I have not been provided with full details of those cases, and it has not been demonstrated that they are directly comparable with the appeal schemes. In any event, I have considered the appeal schemes on their own merits and site-specific circumstances.

I have had regard to the submitted objections, particularly in relation to the effect of the development and advertisements on the HCA and the listed building. However, they do not alter my findings above. [name] note the concerns that the proposal would lack sufficient control over future use and the content of displayed advertising, I am satisfied that these matters are already governed by the established regulatory framework for advertisement control. Any future change in the nature of the unit’s use that falls outside the scope of this consent would require further permission. Accordingly, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the appeal scheme would give rise to unacceptable impacts as a result of inadequate control over future use or advertising.

Although it is asserted that hubs with digital displays have been associated with anti-social behaviour, this has not been substantiated within the evidence before me. The appellant has provided a detailed Anti‐Social Behaviour Management Plan, which sets out a comprehensive framework for preventing, identifying and responding to any such issues. The plan explains that each hub is remotely monitored 24 hours a day, regularly inspected on‐site, and supported by a reporting system that prioritises concerns raised by councils and the police. It also confirms that BT has developed automated anti‐social call‐restriction technology, enabling the blocking of identified numbers and misuse patterns through a proprietary algorithm. Consequently, I do not consider that the risk of increased anti‐social behaviour weighs against the development.

The Council has suggested several conditions which I have considered against the Framework tests and Planning Practice Guidance. The appellant has not objected to the suggested conditions. Where appropriate, I have adjusted and condensed the wording of the suggested conditions, both to remove repetition and to ensure clarity and precision.

For Appeal A, in addition to the standard time-limit implementation condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans. I have also attached a condition requiring the proposal to be constructed in accordance with the cited details in relation to Appeal Decisions 6002896, 6003348 proposed materials, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. I have not imposed the condition suggested for the removal of the existing BT phone and cashpoint as they have already been removed.

For Appeal B, in addition to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations, which are not repeated in the attached schedule, I have imposed conditions regarding illumination, display, and to ensure the advertisements do not resemble traffic signs, as suggested by both the Council and the appellant, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and public safety.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed Site Plan ([name]. HAR-01 002, [name]), Proposed Site Elevation ([name]. HAR-01 004 [name]), [name] ([name].STH-001).

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the materials and finishes specified in the [address] [name] v2.1 February 2025. Appeal B: 6003348

In daylight hours, the intensity of the illuminance of the advertisements shall be controlled in order to reflect ambient light conditions (to ensure it is neither too bright or too dull), and shall at all times be no greater than the recommended maximum daytime luminance values (in cd/m2) set out within the Institution of [name] - [name] 05/23 'The Brightness of [name] including [name] (2023) (or its equivalent in a replacement guide).

In the hours of darkness (between dusk and dawn), the intensity of the illuminance of the advertisements shall be no greater than the maximum night-time luminance value (in cd/m2) set out within the Institution of [name] - [name] 05/23 'The Brightness of [name] including [name] (2023) (or its equivalent in a replacement guide). Appeal Decisions 6002896, 6003348

The minimum display time for each advertisement shall be 10 seconds. The digital advertisement screens shall display only static images and shall not exhibit any moving, flashing, scrolling, fading, swiping, blending, audible, three dimensional, or video type elements. All changes between static images shall be instantaneous with no animated transitions. The installation shall include a mechanism that freezes the display or shuts the screen down in the event of a malfunction.

No content on the digital display screens shall resemble traffic signs, as defined in section [address] Traffic Regulation Act 1984. End of schedule