Appeal 6004194

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 1No. [address] [name] and associated advertisement panels on either side of the unit at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00874/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the schedule at the end of this decision.

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for two digital 75-inch LCD display screen, one on each side of the [name] unit at [site address] . The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the additional conditions in the schedule at the end of this decision.

There are two appeals before me relating to the same site. Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission, while Appeal B relates to the refusal of advertisement consent. As both appeals are intrinsically linked, raise similar planning considerations and have been submitted by the same operator, I have addressed them together within a single decision to avoid unnecessary duplication. That said, I have considered each proposal on its own individual merits.

In respect of Appeal B, I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice, as it more accurately reflects the proposal, which relates solely to the display of advertisements.

The Regulations set out that powers shall be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors. Whilst the development plan policies cited by the Council are not determinative to this appeal, I have had regard to these policies in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to the matters before me.

An adequate width of footway would be retained thereby ensuring that pedestrian movement would not be impeded. Although the advertisement includes illuminated, moving images, the siting of the [name] would not obstruct the visibility of road users or present a distraction. The Council raised no objections on public safety grounds and based on my own observations on site, I see no reason to reach a different conclusion. I have therefore framed the main issue accordingly.

As far as the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is concerned when determining advertisement consent appeals within a conservation area, the question of less than substantial or substantial harm is not relevant, as the policy only applies to the heritage-related consent regimes under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The main issue in Appeal A is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Wolverhampton Conservation Area.

The main issue In Appeal B is the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity, with particular regard to the character and appearance of the Wolverhampton Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises an area of pavement adjacent to [site address] and is within the Wolverhampton Conservation Area (WCA). It also lies within the curtilage of the locally listed Wolverhampton University Buildings, principally located on a nearby street.

The character and appearance of the WCA is associated in part from the historic street pattern that underpins the city’s evolution. This is further reinforced by the strong architectural and historic quality of the area’s buildings, which span a variety of periods reflecting successive phases of the city’s development. [site address] forms part of Character Area 3, an area that has experienced relatively little change to its built fabric since the early twentieth century. The area is characterised by a strong and cohesive architectural identity reinforced by the presence of the University campus.

[site address] is a wide, straight, pedestrianised route located on the fringe of the city centre. The street functions as one of the principal gateways into the city and is characterised by a mix of traditional and contemporary buildings including the Wolverhampton University buildings and commercial premises. Street furniture, including bus stops, directional signage, street lighting and public seating, is a well-established feature of this part of the WCA and is arranged in a manner that maintains a sense of openness and uncluttered environment. Together with the nearby traffic junction, these elements contribute to a busy and distinctly urban street scene within which the proposal would be experienced. Insofar as is relevant to the appeal before me, the appeal site makes a neutral contribution to the WCA.

The proposed [address] Hub would be positioned along the back edge of the pavement, perpendicular to the existing railings and opposite a grass verge incorporating public seating and university-related signage. The plans indicate that the proposal would replace the existing phone box, albeit in a marginally altered position. By virtue of its simple, slender proportions and muted finish, the [name] would present a streamlined form and would be noticeably slimmer than the existing street furniture. Accordingly, notwithstanding its height, when seen in the context of the multi-storey university buildings to the rear of the site and the surrounding street furniture, it would not appear unduly bulky or visually prominent.

While reference is made to the removal of the adjacent phone box and an additional structure on a neighbouring street, neither are identified within the application site boundary and there is no other mechanism before me to secure their removal. Even if the existing phone box were to remain, for the reasons above, when considered alongside the existing street furniture in the area, the proposal would not result in an unacceptable accumulation of street clutter or unacceptably erode the openness of the street. As the second box mentioned is not located within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, its removal would not be determinative to the appeal in any event.

The advertisement displays would be illuminated and digital in format and would therefore change more frequently than the predominantly static signage found nearby. Although the surrounding area presents a relatively restrained and well-ordered approach to signage, fascia and projecting signs associated with existing premises are nevertheless a recognised feature of this area. The street is also well lit by street lighting, traffic controls and surrounding buildings. In this context, and subject to conditions controlling the specification of the displays and levels of illumination during hours of darkness, the digital advertisements would not appear unduly dominant or incongruous such that they would harm visual amenity.

Poor management or inadequate maintenance of the [address] Hub has the potential to detract from the character and appearance of the WCA. However, the submitted management arrangements clearly set out measures to ensure that the installation would be properly maintained, and these provisions could be secured by condition. There is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that such a condition would be ineffective or unenforceable. Therefore, whilst mindful of the concerns put to me by the Council, they do not lead me to a different conclusion.

Accordingly, I find that the proposed [name] and digital advertisement displays would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area, or amenity with particular regard to the character and appearance of the WCA. For the same reasons, the proposal would not adversely affect the locally listed Wolverhampton University Buildings.

In coming to this view, I have had due regard to the statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in so far as it relates to the consideration of amenity. I have also had regard to Policies CSP4 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011) together with saved Policies D4, D6, D7, D8, D9, HE1, HE3, HE4, HE5 and HE19 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan 2001-2011 (2006) (UDP). Amongst other objectives, these policies collectively seek to ensure that development is of a high standard of design which responds positively to the established pattern of streets, historical character of the area and respect the positive attributes and distinctiveness of the sites surroundings. Given that I have concluded that the proposal does not harm amenity, it does not conflict with these policies.

The Council’s reasons for refusal in both appeals allege conflict with saved UDP Policy HE13 which relates specifically to statutory listed buildings. As no harm is identified to any statutory listed building, I have had limited regard to Policy HE13 in my assessment.

I have had regard to the various planning conditions suggested by the Council and have considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have made such amendments as necessary to comply with those documents and for clarity and consistency.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition listing the approved drawings is necessary to ensure clarity on what has been permitted. In the interests of appearance and visual amenity, I have imposed a condition requiring that the material specification as set out in the supporting documents is adhered to.

In the interests of amenity and the character and appearance of the WCA it is necessary to ensure that the [name] is maintained appropriately. A condition requiring adherence to the Management, Maintenance and [name] is therefore imposed. To reduce the risk of street crime and anti-social behaviour, a condition requiring adherence to the [address] [name] and Management Plan is imposed. To ensure that noise levels are managed appropriately in the interests of amenity, a condition requiring adherence to the [address] Hub Noise Management Plan is included.

For the reasons above, I have found that the structure is acceptable and would not result in an unacceptable accumulation of street clutter. A condition is imposed to ensure that the unit is appropriately managed and maintained and therefore it is not necessary to impose a further condition requiring the unit’s removal should it become defunct. In any event, the Council’s recommended condition lacks sufficient precision and would therefore fail to meet the necessary tests. Although the Planning Supporting Statement sets out a commitment to remove the existing BT phone boxes, as these are not identified within the application site boundary, a condition requiring compliance with the relevant statement would not be appropriate.

In addition to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations, it is necessary to apply a condition to control the intensity of the illuminance of the advertisements so that they do not stand out significantly from the background illumination during the hours of darkness or distract road users. In accordance with the maximum recommended luminance as set out by the Institute of Lighting Professionals1 a condition restricting the maximum of [address] metre (cd/m2) is imposed. For the same I have imposed conditions restricting the display of moving or sequenced images, the minimum display time, the rate of change of the images to instantaneous and that a suitable mechanism to freeze the image in the event of a malfunction is included.

It is not necessary to attach a condition requiring the management of the [name] in accordance with the operation strategy, [name] plan or noise management plan as this does not relate to the advertisement and, in any case would only duplicate a condition of the associated planning permission.

Condition 2 of the standard conditions set out in the Regulations already prohibits the display of any advertisement which would endanger persons using a highway. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary duplication of existing controls, I do not consider it either necessary or appropriate to impose a further condition restricting the display of advertisements resembling traffic signs.

For the reasons set out above, [name] and B are allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans; - [name]-07-B, 002-Proposed Site Plan - [name]-07-B, 004-Proposed Site Elevation - [address] [name]

The external surfaces of the development shall be constructed using the materials finishes and colours as set out in [address] [name] dated February 2025.

[address] Hub shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the Management, Maintenance and [name] as set out in the [address] [name] dated February 2025 for the lifetime of the development.

[address] Hub shall be managed in accordance with the [address] [name] Plan Version 3 for the lifetime of the development.

[address] Hub shall be managed in accordance with the [address] Hub Noise Management Plan Version 2 for the lifetime of the development.

The intensity of the illumination of the advertisements hereby permitted shall not exceed 600 cd/m2 between dusk and dawn, consistent with the guidance set out in the Institute of [name] – The Brightness of [name] 2014.

The minimum display time for each advertisement shall be 10 seconds. There shall be no moving images including animation, flashing, scrolling three dimensional, intermittent or video elements.

The interval between successive displays shall be instantaneous and the complete display screen shall change without visual effects (including swiping or other animated transition methods) between each advertisement. The display shall include a mechanism to free the image in the event of a malfunction.