Appeal 6003954

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 1No. [address] [name] at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application ref: 25/00868/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: 001 – Existing Site Plan, [name]; 002 - Proposed Site Plan, [name]; 003 – Existing Site Elevation, [name]; 004 – Proposed Site Elevation, [name]; and Document V2.1 February 2025 ‘[name].

The development hereby permitted shall at all times be operated in full accordance with the following documents: [name] Plan Version 3; Street Hub Noise Management Plan Version 2.

Prior to the installation of the street hub hereby approved, the two existing phone box structures shall be removed in their entirety and disposed of responsibly. The street surface should then be made good to match the adjoining footway surface materials. Appeal Decisions 6003952 & 6003954

Should the street hub hereby permitted no longer be required or become defunct, it shall be removed as soon as practicable thereafter and the land reinstated to its former condition.

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of associated advertisement panels on either side of the unit at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of application ref: 25/0869/ADV. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the following additional condition:

The intensity of the illumination of the advertisement screens permitted by this consent shall be within that recommended by the Institute of [name] in its [name] 05/23 ‘The Brightness of [name].

There are 2 appeals concerning refused applications for planning permission for a street hub and express consent for integrated advertisement displays in the hub respectively. Although the appeals are determined under separate legislation, they are intrinsically linked. Therefore, for the sake of expediency, and to avoid duplication, I have dealt with both appeals in the same decision letter.

With regards to Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the regulations) require that advertisement appeal decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) confirm this approach. The development plan policies referred to by the Council in the decision notice for Appeal B are therefore not determinative, but I have taken them into account as a material consideration.

The main issues are the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance/ amenity of the area, and on designated and non-designated heritage assets (NDHA).

The appeal site is located to the front of the footway lining the south side of [address] in the city centre of Wolverhampton. Appeal A relates to the erection of a freestanding smart street hub which measure approximately 3 metres (m) high, 1.2m wide and 0.35m deep. Both sides would include integral illuminated screens for the purposes of displaying advertisements which are the subject of Appeal B. Two existing BT phone box units currently occupy part of the space intended for the hub and would be removed to make way for the proposals.

[address] is a commercial area which runs broadly east to west between [address] and [address], with an intersection with Princess/[address]. The appeal site is located roughly halfway between the intersection and [address] and includes a mix of 2, 3 and 4 storey buildings to both sides. The south Appeal Decisions 6003952 & 6003954 side of [address] was likely developed earlier given its buildings are more muted in tone and materials than the north side, which includes a mixture of business types at street level with some positive and negative influences on the street scene.

There is some existing street furniture to the south side of the road, including bollards, streetlights, a post box and refuse bins aligned along the front edge of the path. The appeal site includes two existing BT phone boxes which would be removed to accommodate the proposed hub and advertising unit.

The appeal site is located within the Wolverhampton City Centre Conservation Area (CA). As such, with respect to both appeals I have had regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which requires the decision maker to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. To inform this I have had regard to the CA appraisal supplied by the Council as well as my own observations on my site visit.

The character of this part of the CA is influenced by the numerous 19th century buildings along the south side of [address] in particular. This includes a mix of red brick and stuccoed buildings which have a strong linear sense of enclosure created by hard frontage set back from the road and lightwells enclosed by railings. As such, part of the significance of the CA as a designated heritage asset lies in its strong, imposing and formal character of the development fronting [address] and the buildings of varying ages and styles reflecting the commercial and economic development of the city. The northern side of the road is identified in the appraisal as being of less historic interest due to some modern developments and garish shopfronts, although it does include listed and locally listed buildings.

With regards to Appeal A, I have had regard to section 66(1) of the Act which requires me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. Although Appeal B does not relate to the refusal of planning permission and is therefore not subject to the statutory duty in section 66(1) of the Act, section 3(2)(a) of the Regulations state that factors relevant to amenity include the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest.

No.25, No.26, and No’s 27 and 28 Queen Street1 are located on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site and comprise three separate grade II listed buildings of similar early to mid-19th century origin. They include a mix of painted brick and stucco facing elevations. Although the ground levels of all 3 have lost much of their original features due to commercial frontages, the upper floors are still largely legible and include either original or original style fenestration and spacing between windows as well as decorative features such as pilasters and lintels.

The special interest and significance of the listed buildings is therefore mainly derived from similar architectural qualities and historic interests as parts of an early to mid-19th century terraced block representative of the style of the time. Their 1 25, [address]: [name] 1201859 26, [address]: [name] 1207765 27 and 28, [address]: [name] 1201860 Appeal Decisions 6003952 & 6003954 formal frontages allow the properties to be experienced, and their heritage merit appreciated. As such, the immediate settings of the assets, particularly from [address] in proximity to the appeal site also contribute significantly to the relative special interest and significance of all 3 listed buildings. They also have inherent group interest as a terrace of 3 from the same time period and style.

The Former Wolverhampton County Court2 is grade II* listed and has had a number of uses since its construction in the early 19th century. It has a stucco frontage with stone dressings in the regency style. It is notable for its colonnade and first floor portico, alongside its more traditional sash windows, fanlights and its county court relief with a royal coat of arms. No’s 47,48 and 49 and Attached Railings3 is a grade II listed building of early 19th century origin and is of red brick construction with stone dressings. The building is notable for its traditional sash windows, round headed entrances with fanlights and attached metal railings. 56 and 57 Queen Street4 is also grade II listed and is of similar early 19th century origin, formed of three storeys with a red brick façade, rendered ground floor frontage, stone detailing and round headed entrance with fanlight.

The special interest and significance of these listed buildings is therefore drawn primarily from their historic and architectural interests, including their age, links to the development of the city through their former uses, formal frontages, fine architectural detailing and general quality of their retained features. Their relative settings, which include large parts of [address], contribute in a meaningful and positive way to their significance as designated heritage assets.

The Express and Star Building is a NDHA which the appeal site is located directly outside of. It is an imposing, four storey ashlar stone building with a projecting central bay which features a sculpture of Mercury, alongside the six-bay eastern wing. The building was the headquarters of the eponymous newspaper and dates from the 20th century. While noted for its own architectural merit as a fine example of a building of its time, it is also a positive influence on the CA. Its setting therefore makes a positive contribution to its significance as a NDHA.

Outside the Express and Star Building is a Victorian letterbox which is built in the traditional style and likely dates from the late 19th century. It is described as making a valuable contribution to the character and appearance of [address] and is locally listed. Given its history and being a surviving early example of a post box of the period, it setting is important in its continuing legibility.

No’s [address] is also locally listed and described in the CA appraisal as an impressive three storey Edwardian building in a faintly Baroque style. While its ground floor units have again been unfortunately spoiled in part due to poor management of the development of the building, its terracotta frontage at the upper floor levels are evidently representative of some buildings of later 19th century origin. It also includes pleasant decorative features such pilasters and ornate detailing. As such, much of the significance of the NDHA is derived from its historic and architectural interest, including its link to the economic development of the city centre, the evidence of architectural styles of the time and ornate detailing. The setting of [address] therefore makes an important contribution to the significance of the NDHA. 2 [name]: 1207819 3 [name]: 1201861 4 [name]: 1282485 Appeal Decisions 6003952 & 6003954

The street hub would be of significant height and width, while its modern appearance generally would be incongruent with the more traditional tones and colours of built form locally. This would be exacerbated by the large digital displays of the advertisement screens to the front and back of the unit which would draw the eye to the incongruity. Given the sensitive historic context of [address], in isolation the modern intrusion of the hub and advertisement in this manner would be materially harmful to the character and appearance/amenity of the area, the setting of numerous listed buildings and NDHAs.

However, the existing context is material, and I cannot ignore the fact that the current phone boxes at the appeal site are negative influences on the street scene due to their bulky size, dated appearance and general neglect due to a lack of maintenance. As such, there is merit to their removal, while the proposed unit would be of monotone colour which would match existing street furniture. Moreover, the proposed advertisement displays would be of a similar size to those already displayed on the existing units. The floor coverage would be significantly less than the two phone boxes overall, although there is also a trade-off given the increased height and slightly increased width of the proposed unit. However, the amount of street clutter would be reduced overall. There would also be some further limited benefits from increased access to the internet, emergency phone calls, free advertising to the Council for set periods and device charging.

On balance, although the proposed unit and advertisement displays would be incongruous, I find that the removal of the existing phone boxes would be of significant benefit to the street scene, which would create a more beneficial scenario overall. This would be contingent on the removal of the existing boxes prior to erection of the new model, which can be conditioned.

I note the concerns of the Council with regards to the condition of other street hubs approved in the area, which have been subject to vandalism which has affected their appearance in the street scene. I share this concern given my observations of some of these units as well as the phone boxes to be removed from the appeal site, which have been neglected for some time. I agree that these should be maintained in line with guidance documents submitted with the applications and this appeal. Should this not occur when required, suitable enforcement proceedings should be explored.

For these reasons, with regards to Appeal A I conclude that on balance the street hub would not harm the character and appearance of the area, including the CA, the settings of listed buildings or the NDHA. This would therefore accord with policies CSP4 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (adopted February 2011); saved policies D4, D6, D7, D8, D9, HE1, HE3, HE4, HE5, HE13 and HE19 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (adopted June 2006). Collectively, these policies amongst other things, seek to ensure developments preserve and enhance designated heritage assets, including their settings, and incorporates high quality design, promoting the special qualities, historic character and local distinctiveness of the area. The street hub would also accord with the relevant provisions of the Framework, including paragraphs 135, 212 and 216. Appeal Decisions 6003952 & 6003954

The advertisements subject to Appeal B would accord with the relevant provisions of the 2007 Regulations and the policies of the development plan given above insofar as they are material considerations.

The Council has suggested conditions to which I note the appellant has not responded. However, these are considered reasonable and necessary to remove the existing call boxes prior to the installation of the new unit approved, and control matters including maintenance, anti-social behaviour and noise as outlined in the supporting documentation. Standard conditions relating to the time implementation and approved plans are also necessary to provide clarity for all parties.

With regards to Appeal B, I will draw the attention of the main parties to the 5 standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulations which apply to all advertisements granted express consent. Additionally, given the lack of clarity on illumination levels in the supporting documentation, I have attached a non-standard condition to control this matter in the interests of the amenity of the area.

For the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B should be allowed, subject to the conditions in my formal decisions.