Appeal 6003700

I have used the description of development for Appeal A as it appears on the application form in the banner heading above. For Appeal B, I have amended the description to match the description used by the Council on their decision notice, as this more accurately describes the proposed advertisement.

Appeal A relates to the refusal of planning permission for a freestanding [address] Hub providing free ultrafast Wi-Fi and other community services. Appeal B is in respect of the refusal of an associated advertisement consent which would be an integral part of the proposed hub sought under Appeal A. While the remit of planning and advertisement consent appeals is different, to reduce repetition and for the avoidance of doubt, I have dealt with the two appeals together within a single decision letter.

The appeal site is within the [address] Conservation Area (CA) wherein I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

In respect of Appeal A only, Section 66(1) of the Act requires special regard to be given to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings. That statutory duty does not apply to Appeal B. Nevertheless, the effect of the proposed advertisement on the setting of a listed building is capable of being a material consideration in assessing amenity. Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (December 2024) make clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Accordingly, the development plan policies cited by the Council are not determinative in Appeal B, but I have taken them into account as material considerations.

The description of development in Appeal A includes reference to the replacement of existing call boxes, the position of which is shown on the accompanying plans. No call box was present in that position at the time of my site visit. However, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the evidence before me.

The main issue for Appeal A is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the [address] Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of the [name] listed building known as ‘[name] (the LB), and the main issue for Appeal B is the effect of the proposed advertisements on amenity, including visual amenity in relation to the CA and setting of the LB.

The appeal site occupies a section of the footway at the western end of [address], a pedestrian-focused commercial street characterised by active ground-floor shopfronts, a busy public realm and a variety of street furniture including bollards, seating and pole-mounted traffic signs. The immediate townscape is defined as much by later 20th century redevelopment as by surviving historic buildings, and the street has a functional, active character associated with its role as part of the town centre shopping area.

[address] Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (April 2010) (CAA) indicates that, in this part of the CA, significance derives principally from the historic street pattern, plot layout and scattered surviving historic buildings rather than from architectural uniformity at street level. It also notes that [address] has been substantially altered by later redevelopment, including extensive rebuilding on its southern side and the construction of the library, such that this area has a greater capacity for change than [address] itself. Within this context, later buildings, modern shopfronts and contemporary elements already form an established part of the street scene.

The LB lies on the opposite side of [address] from the appeal site. Its significance derives from its architectural quality as an [name] civic building and its historic role as a former Carnegie library. While its architectural detailing and civic presence are best appreciated at close range, the building has a notable presence within the street arising from its distinctive form, scale and stylistic contrast with surrounding development. It reads as an identifiable civic landmark within [address], set apart from the more utilitarian commercial frontages that characterise much of the street. The LB therefore makes a positive contribution to the CA while remaining legible as a heritage asset in its own right.

The proposed development would replace an existing telecommunications structure with a freestanding [address] Hub. While it would be marginally taller than the former KX100 telephone kiosks, it would have a noticeably slimmer footprint and would occupy less space within the footway, thereby avoiding any increase in street furniture. Seen against the scale of adjacent shopfronts and other items of street furniture, the structure’s proportions would be commensurate with its surroundings and would not appear over-dominant in the street scene. It would not add to visual clutter within the public realm and would maintain the established function of the site in providing public communications infrastructure. While the [name] contemporary appearance would introduce a modern element, in this location this would not, of itself, be at odds with the character of [address], where later development and utilitarian public-realm elements already form part of the CA’s identified evolution.

In heritage terms, the proposal would not interrupt or erode the historic street pattern that underpins the significance of this part of the CA. Nor would it materially affect the ability to appreciate the LB as a distinct civic building within the street. While the [name] would introduce a modest vertical element into some views along [address], it would not compete with the LB’s scale, form or architectural expression, nor would it diminish its visual presence as an identifiable landmark. Any limited change to the wider streetscape would not affect how the LB is experienced or understood, particularly given the separation distance, the oblique nature of views, and the fact that its significance is most fully revealed at closer range.

The digital advertisement displays would form an integral part of the [name]. Given the generous width of [address] at this point, and the presence of an active pedestrian environment, the advertisements would not appear overtly prominent or result in the proliferation of signage within the street scene. Their size would be modest when read against the scale of adjacent shopfronts and buildings, and they would be experienced as part of the structure itself rather than as freestanding or visually competing elements, particularly as the former KX100 kiosks also appear to have incorporated advertisement panels.

While illuminated advertisements are not a dominant characteristic of [address], the street has a clearly commercial function and contains a variety of modern shopfronts and contemporary elements associated with town centre activity. In that context, the introduction of limited digital display panels within a single item of street furniture would not appear incongruous or visually intrusive. They would not draw undue attention away from the surrounding townscape or from the [name], whose scale, form and architectural expression would remain visually and legibly distinct.

The Council contends that the CAA indicates a clear weight against illuminated advertising in the historic environment. However, I find no specific provision within the appraisal that establishes such a presumption in respect of advertisements forming part of street furniture in this commercial part of the CA. The guidance is directed more generally towards avoiding street clutter and ensuring that new elements are sensitively designed and appropriately located. In this case, for the reasons given above, I find that the proposed advertisements would meet those objectives.

The Council also refers to likely harm to other designated and non-designated heritage assets in the vicinity. However, no specific assets are identified, nor is their significance or the nature of any alleged harm explained. In the absence of such detail, I am unable to attribute meaningful weight to this concern.

Consequently, in respect of Appeal A, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area or the CA, and would preserve the setting of the LB. The proposal therefore accords with Policies LP56, LP63 and LP64 of the Wakefield District Local Plan 2036 (January 2024) (LP), which seek, among other things, to secure high-quality design that responds positively to its context and to ensure that development preserves the significance of designated heritage assets and the character and appearance of conservation areas.

In respect of Appeal B, I conclude that the proposed advertisements would not harm visual amenity, including in relation to the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of the LB. In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to the relevant provisions of Policies LP63 and LP64 of the LP, which, among other things, seek to ensure that development affecting heritage assets preserves their significance and that proposals within conservation areas respond appropriately to their context.

An interested party raises concerns regarding potential noise and light pollution from the proposed [name] and its associated advertisements, including possible effects on shopfront displays, pedestrians with limited mobility, and the availability of alternative, less visually intrusive designs. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposal would give rise to unacceptable noise or light effects, or that it would adversely affect pedestrian movement or accessibility. As set out above, I have found that the advertisements would not be unduly prominent in this commercial street and would not harm visual amenity, the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of the LB. The suggestion that alternative designs may exist does not, therefore, alter my conclusions on the acceptability of the proposal before me.

No planning conditions were suggested by the Council for either Appeal A or Appeal B. For Appeal A, I have, in the interests of certainty, imposed the standard commencement condition and a plans condition. For Appeal B, I impose no additional conditions beyond the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations which are not repeated in this decision letter.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that [name] and B should be allowed.