Appeal 6004105

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed advertisements for Appeal B would be an integral part of the proposed development for Appeal A. As such, to avoid repetition I have provided one reasoning section, detailing my findings for both appeals. Notwithstanding this, each proposal and appeal has been considered individually, and on its own merits.

The appeal site is located within the Torquay Harbour Conservation Area (conservation area). Of relevance to both appeals, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) provides at s72(1) that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The 2007 Regulations specify that control may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. In relation to Appeal B, the relevant policies of the Appeal Decisions 6004105, 6004106 development plan have been taken into account so as they are material, but they have not been determinative.

The main issues with respect to Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, including the conservation area; • crime safety; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and • climate change.

The main issues with respect to Appeal B are the effect of the proposed advertisements on amenity and public safety.

The appeal site comprises an area of footway located outside Poundland on [address] in Torquay, near to one of the entrances serving [address] [name]. [address] [name] was developed in the 1980’s. Despite its age, it is an attractive feature in the street scene, due to its long rows of well-maintained shopfronts which have a notable consistency in terms of their overall visual impact, and due to the fact that (as explained in the [name] 1) [address] regard to the original 19th century frontage with semi-circular arched first-floor windows and second-floor mansard dormers.

The Torquay Harbour Conservation Area [name] explains that the conservation area is the most architecturally significant and diverse within the Torbay area; it has a large proportion of listed buildings and other features, and many other key buildings, or building groups, which contribute to the overall quality of urban design. Hence, the significance of the conservation area derives in part from its 19th century urban topography, the large proportion of the earlier 19th century developments which remains significantly unaltered in form and spatial arrangement; and the often imaginative use of natural stone and/or brick and terracotta in combination, which characterises much of the development that took place between the early 19th to early 20th centuries.

The proposed [address] Hub would be positioned slightly beyond 2 existing benches and a bin. Due to its height and width it would appear to be significantly larger than these existing items of street furniture. Its prominence in the street scene would be exacerbated by the proposed 2 large digital display screens. Its monolithic design would bear little stylistic relationship with the architecture of [address] [name]. As an overly-dominant feature in the street scene it would detract from its attractive visual qualities. As this harm would persist even with the proposed 2 digital display screens having a reasonable level of brightness relative to their surroundings, condition(s) limiting the luminance of the proposed 2 digital display screens would not be sufficient to overcome these adverse impacts. 1 Torquay Harbour Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2004) Appeal Decisions 6004105, 6004106

Due to its large scale in its context and its siting near the centre of the footway, it would appear as an imposing feature upon it. It would interrupt views of the sweeping frontage of [address] [name] which leads towards the harbour area. It would thereby undermine the quality of the experience of users of [address] in the vicinity of the site.

I observed the kiosks which are proposed to be removed. Due to their siting against a retaining wall and being positioned amongst a number of waste bins and near to a bus stop, they are not particularly prominent features in the street scene. Due to their distance from the site, their influence on the street scene around the site is limited. As such, their removal would reduce a modest amount of street clutter in the locality, but this would do little to minimise the significant adverse impacts upon the character and appearance of the area caused by the proposals before me, identified above.

As an incongruous and intrusive feature in the street scene which would harm the character and appearance of the area, the proposed [address] Hub would not preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. Harm to the significance of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset would result.

No plans / drawings illustrating the context of the local area have been provided in relation to appeal decision [name]/P4605/H/22/3311746. Appeal decision [name]/G3110/W/22/3308266 and APP/G3110/H/22/3308267 did not involve a site in a conservation area. As such, it has not been demonstrated that the site-specific circumstances involved in those appeals are directly comparable with the proposals now before me. None of these appeal decisions alter my findings on this

The localised harm caused would result in a limited degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the conservation area. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires such harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposals.

The public benefits of the proposed [address] Hub include (amongst other benefits) free ultrafast Wi-Fi, free phone calls, wayfinding, device charging, an emergency 999 call button, and public messaging capabilities. The appellant has an [name] license and a [name] governed by Ofcom to provide and maintain publicly accessible call boxes on the street. In this regard, Policy IF1 of the Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030 (adopted

(Local Plan) provides that, amongst other things, the introduction and installation of the most up-to-date and fastest telecom and other Information and [name] (ICT) will be supported by the Local Plan.

However, it has not been demonstrated that any particular local need for additional internet connectivity exists (including free Wi-Fi), nor that internet speeds are prohibitively slow in the local area. Nor has it been shown that 5G connectivity is presently lacking in the local area. Hence, the evidence does not indicate that the scale of the identified benefits to the local area would be substantial, including with respect to assisting Torbay’s tourism offer (which is supported in principle by Policy TO1 of the Local Plan). Mention has been made of the [address] Hub providing a platform for interactive technologies on the streets (such as air quality monitoring), but it has not been shown that this technology would in reality be used by the relevant authorities. Appeal Decisions 6004105, 6004106

Taking account of the great weight which must be given to the conservation of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset, the totality of the public benefits would not outweigh the harm identified to its significance.

In relation to Appeal A, I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, and that it would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. It would conflict with Policy DE1 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development should be well-designed, respecting and enhancing Torbay’s special qualities, and with Policy TH8 of the Torquay Neighbourhood Plan (adopted 2019) which provides that development must be of good quality design, respect the local character in terms of height, scale and bulk; and reflect the identity of its surroundings.

In relation to Appeal A, the proposed development would conflict with Policy SS10 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development will be required to sustain and enhance those monuments, buildings, areas, walls and other features which make an important contribution to Torbay’s built and natural setting and heritage.

In relation to Appeal B, I find that the proposed advertisements would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on amenity. In accordance with Regulation 3(1) of the 2007 Regulations, material to my findings are the same policies mentioned with respect to Appeal A. Whilst not determinative, the proposed advertisements would conflict with these policies. Whilst not determinative, conflict would also arise with part 1. of Policy DE6 of the Local Plan which provides that advertisements will not be permitted where they would harm visual or aural amenity.

The Police have mentioned that the proposed [address] Hub would be situated in an anti-social behaviour hotspot policing area which results in extra patrols to reduce anti-social behaviour. However, there is little substantive evidence before me that the services offered by the proposed [address] Hub, including free ultrafast Wi-Fi, would appreciably exacerbate this situation. Nor has any substantive evidence been provided to demonstrate that the proposed [address] Hub would undermine the operation of CCTV in the area.

The Police have raised concerns that the ability to make free calls could allow abuse of that service, including the proposed [address] Hub being used to facilitate the distribution of drugs or nuisance calls, particularly for domestic abuse / stalking victims.

The submitted [name] Plan (Version 3) details how a proprietary algorithm provides for automatic anti-social call restriction based on a range of factors. Whilst this would not immediately prevent ‘one-off’ malicious calls, I am mindful that any mobile telephone connected to the telecommunications network could used to make such calls, with the only difference being that the proposed [address] Hub would allow for calls to be made free of charge. Importantly, the Management Plan allows for the blanket prevention of calls to mobile telephone and landline numbers, should this be warranted in the circumstances. As such, I concur with the Inspector’s finding in appeal decision [name]/L5240/W/21/3285401 that a planning condition requiring adherence to Appeal Decisions 6004105, 6004106 the Management Plan would reduce the risk of the [address] Hub being used for crime to an acceptable degree.

I therefore find that, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed [address] Hub would have an acceptable effect on crime safety, and in relation to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would have an acceptable effect on public safety. No conflict would arise with Policies DE1, DE6, and SS11 of the Local Plan which collectively seek to, amongst other things, help to reduce and prevent crime and the fear of crime whilst designing out opportunities for crime, antisocial behaviour, disorder and community conflict.

The appellant has clarified that the default setting is for the [address] Hub, including its Wi-Fi and phone call elements, to operate throughout the day and night. The proposed maximum daytime luminance for the 2 digital display screens of 5000 cd/m2 would fall within the recommended parameters set out in [name] 05/23: The Brightness of [name] (PLG 05/23). Additionally, the proposed [address] Hub would incorporate controls which would change the brightness of the screens depending on the time of day / weather conditions. Moreover, the proposed 2 digital display screens would not be directly facing the windows of any neighbouring buildings.

If the proposals were acceptable in all other respects, potentially conditions could be imposed to ensure that the proposed 2 digital display screens would not exceed the maximum night-time permitted values of display luminance recommended in PLG 05/23. Considering this, and taking account of my findings above in relation to crime safety, the proposed [address] Hub would not cause a nuisance to neighbours by attracting anti-social and criminal behaviour and due to their level of illumination.

I therefore find that, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed [address] Hub would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and in relation to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would have an acceptable effect on amenity. No conflict would arise with Policy DE3 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that all development should be designed to provide a good level of amenity for future residents or occupiers and should not unduly impact upon the amenity of neighbouring and surrounding uses.

The design of the proposed [address] Hub incorporates energy efficient features, including LCD screens that consume approximately 60% less power than [name], screen filters and industrial-grade components and passive design for cooling that reduce the need for cooling systems, and high-efficiency power supplies. Controls on the luminance levels of the 2 proposed advertisements, including automatic dimming at night (which could be secured by way of conditions) would further minimise energy consumption. All these factors would ensure that the proposed [address] Hub would not be energy intensive.

At the appeal stage, the appellant has explained how the proposed [address] Hub would be powered by 100% renewable electricity. This would minimise carbon emissions. Although concerns have been raised by interested parties as to the Appeal Decisions 6004105, 6004106 effect of the proposed [address] Hub on climate change, no substantive evidence is before me which indicates that the proposed [address] Hub would be harmful in this regard. Accordingly, no conflict would arise with Policy SS14 of the Local Plan, which promotes low carbon development and adaptation to climate change.

I therefore find that, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed [address] Hub would have an acceptable effect on climate change. No conflict would arise with Policy SS14 of the Local Plan, which seeks to, amongst other things, minimise carbon emissions and the use of natural resources expected to arise during the lifetime of the development.

Due to the distances of the proposed [address] Hub from the listed buildings mentioned in Turley’s letter of 10th March 2026 (6, 7 and 8, [address], The Piazza, and The Post Office), and the curvature of [address] which limits inter-visibility between them and the site, the proposed [address] Hub would have a neutral effect on their settings. It follows that their significance as designated heritage assets would be preserved. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposals. In coming to this finding, I have had regard to s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended), which provides that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The findings above in relation to crime safety, living conditions, and climate change are neutral matters, which do not weigh in favour of the proposed development for Appeal A. As Policy ES2 of the Local Plan relates to renewable and low-carbon infrastructure, such as new renewable and low-carbon energy generating systems, which are not proposed, Policy ES2 is not directly relevant to these appeals. None of these matters alters my findings on the main issues above.

The fallback position of the existing kiosks being retained would merely maintain the status quo. I observed that their negative visual impact on the street scene is not any worse than would be caused by the proposals now before me. For these reasons, little weight is given to the fallback position in support of the proposals.

In relation to Appeal A, having considered the development plan as a whole and all matters raised, I find that the benefits of the proposed development would not be sufficient to outweigh the significant weight given to the conflict with the policies of the development plan cited on the main issues above. None of the relevant material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, indicate that Appeal A should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

The 2007 Regulations make clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Appeal B has been assessed on this basis. Therefore, in relation to Appeal B, none of the other considerations raised alters my findings on the main issues above. Appeal Decisions 6004105, 6004106

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