Appeal 6002900

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

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 setting of Church of [name], which is a grade II listed building. In respect of Appeal A I have a statutory duty under Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (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), Appeal Decisions 6002899, 6002900 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.

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

The appeal site is located on the pavement, on the northern side of [address], within the setting of Church of [name], which is located on the opposite side of the street. [address] consists generally, in proximity of the appeal site, of commercial units at the ground floor. Upper floors of properties are often populated by residential uses. Advertisements populate the street in conjunction with the commercial premises. Some are externally illuminated while others are non-illuminated. Street furniture, including a post box, phone kiosk, bench, litter bin, utility cabinet and railings populate the immediate vicinity of the appeal site.

Insofar as it relates to this proposal, the significance of the Church of [name] derives from its early 20th century [name] architectural form, its high-quality stone construction and detailed fenestration, and its positive contribution to the historic character and visual coherence of [address]. The setting in which the listed building is experienced includes its position along [address] within a historic street scene defined by early 20th century development, where its scale, detailing, and materiality contribute to the architectural rhythm and character of the area. The wider townscape context forms part of the surroundings in which the significance of the church is understood.

The proposal would replace the existing lightweight and visually recessive phone kiosk with a [address] Hub of markedly greater scale and visual presence. The current kiosk, being partly transparent and unobtrusive, sits discreetly alongside the limited and low-profile street furniture in the vicinity. In contrast, the proposed hub would introduce a tall, solid, and visually assertive structure incorporating large, internally illuminated digital advertising panels. Its increased height, massing, and illuminated screens would draw the eye and appear incongruous within an otherwise traditional and relatively uncluttered streetscape. The modern, block-like structure of the hub would add noticeable visual clutter and erode the simple and coherent character of the area.

Although the appeal site is not immediately adjacent to the Church of [name], the hub would be seen within the wider context of the listed building. The introduction of such a substantial and illuminated unit in the same [address] environment would disrupt the visual coherence and detract from the historic 1 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) Appeal Decisions 6002899, 6002900 qualities that contribute to the setting in which the listed building is experienced, diminishing appreciation of its architectural form and presence. Accordingly, the proposal would cause harm to both the character and appearance of the area and to the setting of the listed building.

The proposal would not, therefore, preserve the setting of the listed building or its significance. The degree of harm, with regard to the Framework, would be low within the less than substantial category. Accordingly, the development’s public benefits need to be weighed against the identified harm.

I have considered the public benefits advanced by the appellant, including the provision of free public Wi‐Fi, enhanced 4G and 5G coverage, renewable energy use, USB charging facilities, emergency‐service access and opportunities for the Council to display public information. I also recognise that Chapter 10 of the Framework emphasises the importance of advanced, high‐quality and reliable digital communications for economic growth and social well‐being. However, the evidence before me does not demonstrate a clear need for additional publicly accessible facilities in this location, nor is it explained whether the Council has a defined need for such a facility or how any use of it for Council messaging would be implemented. While the development would deliver some public benefits, these would be secondary to the advertising function of the structure and therefore attract only limited weight. On this basis, I find that the benefits identified would not outweigh the harm arising from the development.

Given the siting of the proposed hub with its associated advertisements in relation to the edges of the Starbeck Spa Conservation Area, I consider that the development and advertisement panels would not affect the setting of this conservation area. Nevertheless, this does not negate their harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site’s surroundings, and the harm to the setting of the listed building.

I have had regard to the suggested conditions proposed by the appellant, as well as the standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulations, which relate specifically to Appeal B. However, these conditions would not overcome the harm I have identified.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude in respect of Appeal A that the development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, including to the setting of the listed building. Thus, it would not meet the statutory requirements of the Act. Furthermore, it would conflict with the aims of [name] HP2, HP3, and TI5, which collectively require developments to be well designed and respect their surroundings and the historic environment. It would also conflict with the aims of the Framework, as outlined within paragraphs 212 – 215, which relate to the conservation of heritage assets.

In respect of Appeal B, I conclude that the advertisements would cause harm to the amenity of the area, contrary to the provisions of paragraph 141 of the Framework which states, amongst other things, that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited. Although not determinative, there would also be conflict with the amenity aims of [name] HP2 and HP3. Appeal Decisions 6002899, 6002900

The appellant has drawn my attention to several appeal decisions, which concern similar developments and advertisements but in other locations in the country. I do not have full details of those cases, and it has not been demonstrated that they are directly comparable with these appeals development and advertisements. As those examples relate to different contexts to the appeal site due to their geographical locations, they do not justify these appeals development and advertisements which I have considered based on their own merits and site-specific circumstances.

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