Appeal 6003872

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

There are two appeals on this site, one against the refusal of planning permission and the other against the refusal of advertisement consent. They are intrinsically linked and raise similar issues. In order to avoid repetition, while considering each on its merits, I have dealt with the schemes in a single decision letter.

The description of development for the planning application refers to the removal of associated BT payphones. For clarity, there are no existing payphones at this location, and I have considered the proposal as a new addition.

The main issue in respect of Appeal A is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, bearing in mind the location of the site within the Keynsham conservation area and near to [name] listed buildings, as well as the effect on public safety.

The main issues in respect of Appeal B are the effect on amenity and public safety.

The appeal site is located along [address], Keynsham, a busy thoroughfare and within a distinctly commercial area of the town. The immediate setting of the proposal is enclosed by two-storey buildings, with commercial frontages to the street, positioned along wide footways. There is some street furniture present within the vicinity, but this tends to be low in height and minor in its nature. The wider area is characterised by wide, pedestrian footways and an attractive, uncluttered public realm.

The site lies within the Keynsham Conservation Area (the CA). I observed that the significance of this designated heritage asset lies, in part, in the quality of the townscape at this location, including the well-established shop frontages and the attractive public realm. Adjacent to the location are 64 and [address], which comprises a [name] listed building (LB). The significance of the LB derives, in part, from the traditionally proportioned and detailed facade set above ground floor shopfronts. The setting of this LB is comprised of the busy, commercial area located along [address]. At this location, this consists of the wide pavements, which are predominantly clutter free, which aids in the appreciation of the LB from the street.

The proposed street hub would introduce a new assertive and imposing feature to the street at this location, which would diminish the sense of openness and width of the footway. As a result, the addition would be a visually inharmonious element within the streetscape. It would be more conspicuous than the existing street furniture, due to its scale and dimensions. It would consequently be an overly prominent addition and have an incongruous appearance.

In terms of the LB, the hub would be located further along the street and not directly in front of it. It would, as a result of the separation, thus not impinge on the appreciation of the LB as a heritage asset. This does not however diminish the harm to the CA that I have identified.

The street hub would include two digital display screens that would display advertisements. These would introduce adverts into the public realm that are dissimilar to other advertisements within the area, which are generally confined to shopfronts. While they would display static images and the transition between displays as well as the level of illumination could be controlled, given the character of the advertisements that I observed within the vicinity, the introduction of what would be prominently sited digital advertisements would be overly dominant and alien within the street.

My attention has been drawn to adverts located on a bus shelter further along [address], however these run parallel to the road and footway, not perpendicular to them as is proposed. They therefore are less prominent in the street and do not convince me of the acceptability of the proposal.

Accordingly, in respect of Appeal A, the Streethub would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, including failing to preserve the character and appearance of the Keynsham Conservation Area. Thus, the scheme conflicts with policies HE1, D1, D2, D4, D9, D10 and LCR7A of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan (the Placemaking Plan) as well as policy CP6 of the Bath and [name] (the [name]) and D8 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan [name].

Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development results in attractive places, contributes positively to local character, enhances the public realm, that signs respect the character of the surrounding area, and that development respects the historic environment.

In respect of Appeal B, the scheme would have an unacceptable effect on the amenity of the area. I have taken into account the policies of the development plan so far as they are material, and the scheme would conflict with the policies referred to above in this respect.

In identifying the harm above, I find that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I have had regard to the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant sets out that the scheme would allow for greater digital communication in the community, support the sustainability of the town centre, include free wi-fi and charging stations, as well as promoting 4G and 5G connectivity. These are all public benefits that would arise from the scheme.

However, I am also conscious that the Framework establishes at paragraph 212 that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. In my view therefore, the public benefits are insufficient to outweigh the harm, including to the significance of the designated heritage asset, that I have identified.

The proposal would be located along [address], which from the information that the local policing team has provided, is a location that is subject to crime and anti-social behaviour. The hub is likely to result in loitering and the gathering of individuals, which has the potential to increase instances of anti-social behaviour. I am also conscious of the comments that the illuminated nature of the advertisements can result in difficulties in the use of CCTV systems in discouraging and dealing with such occurrences. The use of an anti-social behaviour management plan would in my view be unlikely to satisfactorily address these matters.

Therefore, in respect of appeal A the development is likely to result in an adverse effect on public safety, conflicting with policies D2 and D10 of the Placemaking Plan, and policy CP6 of the [name]. Together, and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure development provides safe places and enhances the public realm.

In respect of Appeal B, this scheme would also have an unacceptable effect on public safety. I have taken into account the policies of the development plan so far as they are material, and the scheme would conflict with the policies referred to above in this respect.

I am conscious of the examples of other appeal decisions that have been drawn to my attention. However, the context of each of these is different and I have considered the appeals before me with regard to their specific circumstances, leading to my findings above.

The development subject of Appeal A would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate it should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Appeal scheme B would result in harm to amenity and public safety.

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