Appeal 6003879

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

The two appeals relate to the same site and to each other. Appeal A is concerned with the refusal of planning permission for a proposed communication kiosk. Appeal B is in respect of refusal of advertisement consent for a digital advertisement display which would be an integral part of the proposed kiosk. I have considered each appeal on its individual merits but in order to avoid duplication I have combined them into a single decision letter as they raise similar issues.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) stipulate that advertisement control may only be exercised in the interests of ‘amenity’ and ‘public safety’. 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. Appeal Decision 6003879 & 6003878

The main issue relating to Appeal A is the effect of the kiosk on the character and appearance of the area. For Appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the proposal on visual amenity. The Council has not raised concerns regarding public safety.

The site is located within the town centre of Eastbourne. This part of [address] has a spacious and pleasant character, which is enhanced by the co-ordinated surfacing of the footways/road, the areas of planting and the small groupings of street furniture. The area has a commercial retail character with advertisements generally limited to retail fascias and projecting signs above existing shopfronts.

Whilst the proposal’s modern appearance would not in itself be harmful to the surrounding area, its height and form would mark it out as being a visually prominent and intrusive feature in views in either direction. It would be positioned close to an existing grouping of street tree and furniture. The kiosk would very obviously extend their linear progression, which would undermine the considered, planned feel described above and lead to a cluttered appearance. Overall, it would not relate well to other street furniture in the vicinity or integrate well within the public realm.

The proposal would be seen in the wider context of other advertisements. However, the proposed illuminated advertisement would highlight the presence of the kiosk, particularly when approaching from the station, thereby exacerbating its visual intrusion. Despite its automated luminance control, and the ability to control the brightness of the screen via a condition, it would inevitably draw the eye, further accentuating the proposal’s visual prominence. The screen would thereby appear as an overly dominant and visually intrusive feature in this location which would detract from the amenity of the area.

There are modern, freestanding information boards positioned along [address]. Nevertheless, they are not digital displays of the sort proposed here and are set well apart from each other to avoid an over proliferation of such structures. They also have a different form and scale to the kiosk which helps them to assimilate into the street scene. As such, they are not harmful to the street scene in the way the proposal would be.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) supports high quality communications infrastructure. The public telephone provided by the kiosk can offer a lifeline to some people and would be more accessible to those with mobility impairments than traditional telephone boxes. The kiosk would also provide other facilities, such as, mapping information and a defibrillator. Furthermore, the advertisement panel could be used to display public information, health messages, alerts or be utilised by local businesses for advertisement purposes. Working alongside Trees for Cities there is the future possibility of a tree being planted on an urban street.

However, some of these benefits could not be guaranteed through the planning process and for other benefits there is no information to demonstrate the scale of need, such as local mobile phone coverage. As noted above, there are already a Appeal Decision 6003879 & 6003878 series of display boards in the town centre which offer local travel/mapping/way finding information.

Despite concerns from some interested parties, the kiosk is said to meet the necessary requirements in relation to public health. The kiosk would also be regularly maintained and would be subject to a management plan designed to avoid anti-social behaviours. However, these matters would at best represent an absence of harm and so would not weigh positively in favour of the proposal.

Nevertheless, there would be some positive aspects of the proposal and conditions have been put forward that could control the timing and images displayed and/or the level of illumination. The advertisement proposal would also be subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations.

However, given my findings, I do not consider the stated benefits, and proposed conditions would sufficiently mitigate or overcome my concerns to allow planning permission or advertisement consent to be forthcoming.

Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed kiosk and advertisement would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area (Appeal A) and its visual amenity (Appeal B). As such, there would be conflict with Policy D10a of the [name] 2013 and saved Policies UHT1, UHT4 and UHT12 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan 2003. These policies collectively, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to the townscape and harmonises with the local environment, thereby having an acceptable effect on visual amenity. There is also a requirement to ensure advertisements are sensitive to their locality.

There would also be conflict with 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.

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