Appeal 6003802

Appeal A and Appeal B are both dismissed.

There are 2 appeals on this site, one against the refusal of planning permission and the other against the refusal of advertisement consent. The appeals are intrinsically linked, and I have considered them together to avoid unnecessary duplication.

The amended Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) limit my assessment of Appeal B to the proposed advertisements on the [address] Hub (the hub) and the matters of ‘amenity’ and ‘public safety’. Furthermore, with respect to Appeal B, the development plan policies referred to by the Council are not determinative, but I have taken these into account as a material consideration.

The appellant’s evidence indicates that 4 telephone kiosks outside of the appeal site are intended to be removed as part of the proposal and I have had regard to this intention in my decision for appeal A as set out in my reasons below.

The application form states that the postcode for the appeals site is [postcode] and this was amended by the Council to [postcode] . I am satisfied from the evidence before me that the postcode is [postcode] and I have used it in my decisions.

The main issue in respect of appeal A is the effect of the proposal on the character, appearance and usability of the space within which the hub is proposed to be sited and, in respect of appeal B, the effect of the proposed advertisements on the visual amenity of the area.

The appeals site is within a hard and soft landscaped public space on the north side of [address]. It includes the pedestrian footway, benches, trees, a bus stop shelter and the existing telephone kiosk. There is an illuminated advertisement integrated into the shelter structure, but the space is otherwise devoid of advertisements, and I observed that the benches are regularly used by people either waiting for buses or taking a break in a walk. Traffic noise and movement are part of the character of the areas all around the appeal site. However, the greenery, width of the footway and the benches provide a planned landscape of visual quality where the public can and do wait and rest within the hustle and bustle of this inner-city location.

The appeals proposal seeks the erection of the hub incorporating 2 digital 75” LCD advert screens which would be clearly visible when approaching from both directions along [address]. It is proposed that the hub would replace the kiosk within the appeals site and [address] adjacent to its intersection with [address]. The appeals site kiosk includes a non-illuminated advertisement.

The existing kiosk at the site provides a significant degree of transparency by reason of its extensive glazing and thin profile frame. As such it is not a visually dominant feature within the space, it does not add visual clutter or detract from the planned landscaped character and appearance. In contrast, the proposed hub would be predominately read as a solid, non-transparent structure, visually reading as 2 large illuminated digital advertisements. Its width, the dominant advertising and proposed siting between 2 benches and adjacent to one of the existing trees, means that it would undermine the visual quality of the space and be harmful to its character and appearance. The proposed width and the lack of transparency also would result in the space appearing more cluttered.

The proximity of the proposed hub to 2 benches would also diminish the usability of the space by partially screening the outlook from these benches. The proposed advertisements would appear as a very close, incongruous feature from these viewpoints, harming the quality of the experience afforded by the trees and long views along [address].

I acknowledge the comments in the appellant’s evidence that consolidating multiple functions into a single structure reduces the need for a number of different structures. This does avoid the potential for further increasing the number of structures within the space. However, no details are before me as to how such structures could appear or be sited.

Finally, I acknowledge the appellant’s comment that the level of illumination of the proposed advertisements would automatically respond to the time of day and weather conditions. For Appeal B, luminance could be controlled by condition, but I find that, even with such measures in place, the extent of advertising proposed, and its positioning would mean that such controls would have negligible effects on the harm to the visual amenity that I have identified.

Overall, in relation to Appeal A, I conclude that there would be significant harm to the character, appearance and usability of the space in which the hub is proposed to be sited, and this would result in conflict with policy DEV20 of the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034 (PSWJLP). This policy seeks to ensure that developments meet good standards of design, contributing positively to the townscape within which they are proposed to be located. In assessing the proposal against this development plan policy, I have had regard to the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document (2020) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

For Appeal B, I conclude that the harm to the visual amenity of the area resulting from the proposed advertisements would lead to conflict with the Regulations. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the provisions of the Framework, particularly paragraph 141 which states that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed.

The appellant’s evidence highlights that there are benefits that would be afforded by the proposal’s functions. These include ultra-fast Wi-Fi access, free charging for mobile devices, wayfinding, emergency 999 call button and public messaging capabilities. I also recognise the social and economic importance of advanced, high quality and reliable telecommunications, including the accessibility that would be provided by the hub in this location, in contrast to the restricted access and usability characteristics of the existing kiosks.

Such benefits support the objectives of policy SPT8 of the PSWJLP which seeks to ensure that growth and change reflect the need to create high quality and technologically advanced methods of communication for businesses and residents as well as a network of shared and open data. This policy has consistency with the provisions of the Framework and specifically paragraph 119 which states that advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. As such, I afford these benefits moderate weight in the overall planning balance.

I have had regard to the proposed removal of the kiosk at the appeals site but the kiosk’s degree of transparency and narrower width in comparison to the proposed hub, means that the visual benefits derived from its removal in its current state of partial disrepair, are negligible. I acknowledge that the siting of this existing kiosk at the top of one of the flights of steps, which leads down to the parade of commercial units, does provide an obstacle to navigation of the space, affecting its usability. This is particularly so for the less ambulant and/or visually impaired pedestrians. However, I find that, given the width of the steps and footway, the benefits derived from the kiosk’s removal would be minor in the overall planning balance.

I have also had regard to the visual benefits that would be afforded by the proposed removal of the [address], acknowledging that they are within the control of the appellant and, for Appeal A, their removal could be secured by condition. However, the visual benefits that would accrue from their removal would be minor and not outweigh the harm arising from the proposal that I have identified. This is because, having visited the [address] location, I find that those kiosks have only a minor harmful effect on the appearance and character of that streetscene.

The appellant’s evidence also includes references to allowed appeals in Birmingham1, the London Borough of Lewisham2 and Oxford3. The appeals are a material consideration confirming the dual benefits that would be afforded from the hub in terms of the communication services and the funding of the hub through its integrated advertising. I have already afforded weight to the former in this decision. I acknowledge that the self-funding ability afforded by the advertising is an additional benefit which I afford minor weight in the overall balance.

The Lewisham and Oxford appeals appear to evidence that hubs such as the one proposed are appropriate for a commercial area with some similarities to the character, including uses and existing advertising, of the area surrounding the appeals site. I do not have the exact details of the context of the Lewisham and Oxford appeals before me. Nevertheless, I have found that there are specific qualities that characterise the appeals site and its immediate surroundings in terms of how it is used by the public as a treed space with benches within which to stop and rest. Such qualities provide a specific context against which I have assessed the effects of the proposal.

Finally, I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that the Council has previously granted consent for a digital illuminated advertisement on the bus shelter adjoining the appeal site. I have had regard to that consent in my decision, acknowledging it is also an example of a dual-purpose structure with advertising providing funding and the structure providing shelter for people waiting for a bus. I also acknowledge that the principle of illuminated advertisements is fully established in the area. Nevertheless, whilst being a material consideration, it does not evidence the acceptability of advertisements in this location per se. In this regard, I have already detailed the harm that would result from this specific proposal including from its proposed siting.

For the reasons given, for Appeal A, the proposal would result in significant harm to the character, appearance, and usability of the space within which the hub is proposed to be sited. I have found that there would be benefits derived from the proposal which I afford moderate weight overall. On balance, these benefits do not outweigh the harm. For Appeal B, I am limited by the Regulations as to what matters I can consider. I have found that there would be significant harm to the visual amenity of the area resulting from the proposal.

I conclude that [name] and B are dismissed.