Appeal 6003956

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for Installation of 1No. [address] [name] and associated advertisement panels on either side of the unit at the [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00870/FUL, subject to the following

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 existing phone box structures on [address] as shown on the Proposed Site Plan (ref: 002) and on the footpath outside the [name], [name], Wolverhampton [postcode] , shall both be removed in their Appeal Decisions 6003955 & 6003956 entirety and disposed of responsibly. The respective street surfaces should then be made good to match the adjoining footway surface materials.

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 the [site address] , in accordance with the terms of application ref: 25/00871/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 advertisements 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 issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance/amenity of the area, including the setting of the Wolverhampton City Centre Conservation Area (CA) and a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The appeal site is located on the footpath lining the west side of [address] in the centre of Wolverhampton. Appeal A relates to the erection of a freestanding smart street hub which would 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. An existing BT phone box unit is installed to the rear of the footpath adjacent the appeal site which would be removed to make way for the street hub. As part of the scheme, another older phone box unit would be removed on [address]. Appeal Decisions 6003955 & 6003956

[address] is a commercial area which includes a number of businesses located at ground levels of predominantly three storey buildings, although the street is dominated by the M&S building to which the street hub and advertisement displays would be located in close proximity. The path includes existing street furniture including bus stops, refuse bins, streetlights and benches which are generally located to the front of the path closer to the road.

The appeal site is not within the CA but is in close proximity, with the southern boundary located at the junction of [address] and [address] a short distance to the north. As such it is not disputed that the proposal would lie within it setting. While the statutory duty to preserve the character or appearance of a conservation area does not apply to its setting, I have had regard to paragraph 208 of the Framework which requires a decision maker to identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal, including by development affecting its setting.

I have had regard to the CA appraisal, which advises that the general character and appearance, and thereby significance, of the CA is derived in part from its historic street patterns, in particular the main thoroughfares of [address], [address] and [address]; landmark buildings and general architectural quality of built form found within; and prevalence of materials such as sandstone and terracotta along with intricate detailing to buildings. Given the importance of [address] as a trading and retail area, and its historic connection to the development of the city centre economically, its setting therefore makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA.

Furthermore, the appeal site is directly outside of the Marks and Spencer’s (M&S) building which is locally listed. I have been provided with a description of the building by both parties and there is no dispute that it is a NDHA. The building is an imposing structure of significant height and width. The elevation facing [address] against which the street hub would be positioned is a striking red brick façade with a strong vertical emphasis enforced by a tall central column delineating the two distinct sections of the building which both feature recurring patterns of fenestration.

Much of the significance of the NDHA is therefore drawn from its historic connection to the development of the commercial and retail development of the city centre in the last century, alongside its imposing classic architectural style. Given its location on [address] in a busy commercial area, the setting of the building therefore makes a positive contribution to its significance.

The proposed street hub would be of significant height, while its modern appearance generally would be incongruent with the strong character of the red brick facade of the M&S building, as well as existing street furniture such as the refuse bins and streetlights. The large digital displays of the advertisement screens to the front and back of the unit would draw the eye to the unit, further emphasising its incongruity. In isolation, the proposed hub with advertisements displays would appear as a prominent addition to this section of [address], harming the character and appearance/amenity of the area. Given the location within the setting of the CA this would also harm the significance of the designated heritage asset, while also causing indirect harm to the NDHA through its setting. Appeal Decisions 6003955 & 6003956

Conversely, the existing phone box unit at the appeal site is a large, bulky and generally negative influence on the street scene. It has a dated design and has clearly not been maintained by the operator causing its neglected appearance. Furthermore, it is positioned towards the rear of the footpath almost touching the M&S building, covering part of the striking façade while all other street furniture on the footway is located closer to the road.

As such, there is merit to its removal as the proposed unit would be aligned with other street furniture to the front of the path and away from the brick façade of the NDHA, while the proposed advertisement displays would be of a similar size to those already covering the existing unit. When compared to the existing situation, the floor coverage would be significantly decreased, although there is also a trade-off given the increased height and slightly increased width of the proposed unit. The proposed hub and advertisement display would also be of similar dark colouration of the existing street furniture in the area.

Furthermore, the proposal would also see the removal of another older phone box unit on [address] around the corner from the appeal site. That unit is positioned outside of a police station and adjacent bus stops to the front of the footway. While that unit is less harmful in its location given the colour palette is similar to the bus stops and is aligned with that and other street furniture, it would remove clutter generally speaking. There would also be some further limited benefits from the proposed unit in terms of increased access to the internet, emergency phone calls, free advertising to the Council for set periods and device charging.

On balance, although the design of the proposed unit itself would be incongruous, I find that the removal of the existing phone boxes would be of significant benefit to the street scene, which would overall be less harmful than the existing scenario. 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 box to be removed from the appeal site, which has 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 the street hub would not harm the character and appearance of the area, including the settings of the CA and 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 6003955 & 6003956

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.

There is reference in the Council’s appeal statement to impacts of the proposal on pedestrian mobility. However, the Council made clear through correspondence that it does not produce separate officer reports and that its reasons for refusal are given full in the decision notice. This was not a reason for refusal. I note the appellant has addressed this matter in their submissions, but the late introduction of such a matter would not be procedurally fair or reasonable. I have therefore not considered this further.

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.