Appeal 6004246

[name] and B are dismissed.

As set out above, there are two appeals on the site. Appeal A relates to an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. Appeal B relates to an appeal under section 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Advertisement Regulations) against a refusal to grant express consent. I have considered each on its individual merits, but I have combined these cases into a single decision letter as they are intrinsically linked and raise the same issues.

In respect of Appeal B, the Advertisement Regulations require that decisions are made only in the interest of amenity and public safety. Therefore, whilst I have taken account of the policies the Council refers insofar as they may be relevant, these have not been decisive in my determination of this appeal.

The Council has raised no objection in respect of public safety and based on my observations at the site visit and the evidence provided, I have no reason to take a Appeal Decisions 6004246 and 6004247 different view. The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposal on the visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area, including the [address] Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises a section of wide public footway on [address], to the side of a small single storey, modern parade of shops on the adjoining [address]. There is an existing phone box at the site, but with the exception of a small street light to the corner of Tettenhall and [name], the area is otherwise free of street furniture or clutter.

The flank wall of the shops to [address] has a limited amount of signage, with a fascia sign extending across the full depth of the building, although this is reasonably well set back from [address]. Due to the wide pavements and open nature of the junction of Tettenhall and [name] the small parade of shops to the side street is visible from [address], although their more modern, commercial character contrasts with that of the older residential buildings to [address].

To the south-east of the junction with [address] is a modern petrol station, which has a canopy with fascia signage and a totem towards the junction of Tettenhall and [name]. Given the predominantly residential nature of [address] and the areas immediately adjacent to it, the surroundings are otherwise free from commercial signage or advertisements.

On the opposite side of [address] to the appeal site is a low brick wall, with dense foliage and mature trees forming a high, visually impermeable boundary at the back of pavement edge.

The appeal site is in the [address] Conservation Area, which consists of predominately residential ribbon development along this historic route into Wolverhampton. Properties are generally set back from the roadway, with a mixture of mature street trees and trees to front gardens, giving the route a verdant and spacious character.

The streetscape in this part of the Conservation Area is generally uncluttered and provides a unifying link between the different character areas along the route, which range from late 18th Century terraced houses through to detached Victorian and Edwardian villas. Given that part of the special interest of the Conservation Area is as a historic route into Wolverhampton, views along the thoroughfare are a key component of its significance.

The proposal involves the replacement of the existing phone box on the site with a [name], in a similar location. It would be highly visible in views along [address] from both directions. Although the [name] would be sited on a wide section of public footway, the substantial size and height of the proposed advertisements within their associated structure would appear excessive and visually intrusive in this location, notwithstanding the existence of signage at the petrol station and to the small parade of shops to [address]. Additionally, the use of black, powder coated aluminium materials would appear visually oppressive and discordant within the local environment. The proposed development would therefore harm the visual amenity of the area. Appeal Decisions 6004246 and 6004247

Views along [address] are constrained at this point in the Conservation Area, due to the visually impermeable boundary to the back of pavement edge on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site. The narrow streetscape provides an important visual link between the character areas to either side. The substantial height and scale of the [name] structure, combined with its proposed double-sided illuminated display screens, would impact on the visual continuity between the different areas. It would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

Although the harm would be lessened to a degree by the removal of the existing phone box at the site, its removal does not appear to be contingent on the grant of permission for the [name]. Whilst the level of harm to the Tettenhall Conservation Area would be at the lower end of less than substantial, that harm attracts great weight and requires a clear and convincing justification. I have been provided with insufficient information to demonstrate that the public benefits of the proposal, such as public access to wi-fi or environmental monitoring facilities, could not be provided in a less harmful way and/or in a less sensitive location. Moreover, those benefits do not outweigh the harm that I have identified to the Conservation Area.

There are a number of [name] listed buildings in the vicinity: Nos 64-70 and [address]. The proposed development is some distance from these buildings and, given the existence of the petrol station with its signage in between the listed buildings and the appeal site, it would not harm their setting.

I acknowledge the proposed use of non-glare glass and planning conditions could be used to control the level of brightness, frequency of image change, and hours of illumination, however such measures would not overcome the harm I have found to the amenity of the locality, due to the siting of the proposal in this prominent location. The large, illuminated displays would appear as a conspicuous and discordant feature that would undermine the established character of the area.

For the above reasons, with regard to Appeal A, the development would harm the visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area. It would, therefore, conflict with Policies CSP4 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy, 2011, which taken together seek to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to place-making and provides a high quality and attractive public realm.

Additionally, I find conflict with Policies D6 and D9 of the saved Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (Unitary Development Plan), 2006, which taken together require that development preserves or enhances townscape character and that it makes a positive contribution to the locality through the use of appropriate form and good quality detailing and materials.

The proposed development would also harm the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies HE1, HE4 and HE5 of the Unitary Development Plan, which taken together seek to protect the historic environment including conservation areas.

However, I find no conflict with Policy HE13 of the Unitary Development Plan which relates to the protection of listed buildings, including their settings. Appeal Decisions 6004246 and 6004247

With regard to Appeal B, for the above reasons, the proposed advertisements would harm the amenity of the area. The policies of the development plan have been considered as far as they are relevant.

Policies D4, D7 and D8 of the Unitary Development Plan are cited on the decision notice. These seek to ensure that buildings are of the appropriate height and massing, and respond to the urban grain of their surroundings. They do not appear to relate to the proposal. Therefore, these policies have not been determinative in my decision.

Policy HE3 of the Unitary Development Plan is also cited on the decision notice. It relates to the promotion of the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas through their designation, and does not appear to relate to the proposed development. Therefore, this policy has not been determinative in my decision. Similarly Policy HE19 of the Unitary Development Plan is cited on the decision notice. It relates to the protection of locally listed buildings, and does not appear to relate to the proposed development. Therefore, this policy has not been determinative in my decision.

The appellant has referenced a number of other considerations in support of Appeal A, including the provision of improved and cost-free digital connectivity for the local community such as wi-fi and UK calls, together with phone charging ability, wayfinding assistance and an emergency services button. Additional digital services are also cited as supporting economic growth and productivity, and my attention has been drawn to the sections in the National Planning Policy Framework relating to the provision of telecommunication equipment and digital infrastructure. Safeguarding benefits have also been raised where charity phone lines could be accessed from the installation. I do not dispute that some public benefits would be provided through the proposal. However, as noted above, I have been provided with insufficient information to demonstrate that the benefits of the proposal could not be provided in a less harmful way and/or in a less sensitive location.

The appellant further sets out that the existing kiosk located outside [address] would be removed. I acknowledge that its removal would improve the appearance of the area. However the dilapidated appearance of the kiosks to be removed appears to be due, in part, to a lack of maintenance, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development. The benefits associated with removing the existing ‘legacy units’ does not overcome the harm that I have identified arising from the siting of the [name] in this prominent location. Furthermore, removal of the kiosks does not appear to be contingent on the grant of planning permission at the appeal site.

The appellant has drawn attention to a number of appeal decisions relating to the installation of similar [name] units on the public highway and the removal of existing kiosks. However, any proposal must be assessed on its own merits in accordance with the specific case and site circumstances, and these examples do not lead me to an alternative view in this case. Appeal Decisions 6004246 and 6004247

In Appeal A, although I have identified no harm to the setting of listed building, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole. In Appeal B I have found harm to amenity. Material considerations, including the Framework do not indicate that a decision(s) should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Having considered all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.