Appeal 6004251

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is 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. Appeal Decision 6004251 & 6004254

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 different view. The main issues in dispute in both appeals are: • the effect of the proposal on the amenity and the character and appearance of the area; and, • the effect of the proposal on heritage assets, with particular regards to the settings of The Oaks ( [site address] ) Conservation Area and of the locally listed former Wolverhampton and [name].

The appeal site comprises a section of public footway on [site address] , close to its junction with [address]. The site is to the front of [address], a uniform parade of commercial units with residential uses to upper storeys. The wide public footway continues along [site address] , in front of a further parade of shops, which forms part of a local shopping area. The junction with [address] is spacious. Consequently, the appeal site is prominent in views along [site address] and visible in glimpsed views from [address].

The public realm in the vicinity of the appeal site is defined by the wide, open nature of the footway. There is limited fixed signage in the immediate area, and the footway is otherwise devoid of any street furniture; consequently it has an uncluttered appearance. There is a bus stop, with a shelter, in front of the parade of the shops to the west, but street furniture there is limited to essential highways infrastructure, such as a litter bin, lamp post and a few bollards.

The commercial units adjoining the appeal site have advertisement signage typical of a local parade, with fascia signage and projecting signs that are proportionate to the scale of the shopfronts. At my site visit I observed no shop displays or goods in the public realm to the front of the commercial units, and only a limited number of A-boards in the street.

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. Additionally, the use of black, powder coated aluminium materials would appear visually oppressive and discordant within the local environment.

The proposal would be sited near the highway edge of the footway and consequently would appear unduly prominent within the street scene. Given the substantial height and scale of the [name] structure, combined with its proposed double-sided illuminated display screens, the proposal would be clearly visible in views along [site address] from both directions. It would also be clearly visible from the [address]. Therefore, the proposal would result in a conspicuous and incongruous feature that would undermine the established character of the area.

Whilst the 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, Appeal Decision 6004251 & 6004254 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.

For the above reasons, with regard to Appeal A, the development would harm the amenity and the character and appearance of the area. The proposal in Appeal A would 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 (the UDP), 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.

With regard to Appeal B, for the above reasons, the proposed advertisements would have an unacceptable effect on 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 UDP 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.

The appeal site is within the setting of the Oaks ( [site address] ) Conservation Area, which is focused on the group of historic buildings around the confluence of Merridale and [name]. A prominent feature of the Conservation Area is the locally listed former Wolverhampton and [name], which occupies a triangular site near where the two roads meet. Both are important heritage assets in the vicinity.

At my site visit I observed that the section of the former [name] in closest proximity to the appeal site, the Outpatients’ and Accident and [name] of 1937, has been demolished, and that part of the site has been cleared. The remaining area of significance of the locally listed building is the original Infirmary of 1888, with its landmark turrets, and the [name] of 1927, which are some distance from the appeal site.

The proposed development would be seen in the context of existing modern development around the periphery of the locally listed building and would not harm its setting, as it contributes to its significance. Although close to the boundary of the Conservation Area, the proposed development would again be seen in the context of more modern development around it and would not have an appreciable effect on its setting.

There are a number of [name] listed buildings in the vicinity: The Oaks, [site address] and Nos [address]. The proposal is distant from these buildings and, given the intervening features/development, would not harm their settings.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would not harm the setting of the Conservation Area and former [name]. The proposals would not therefore conflict with Policies HE1, HE4 and HE19 of the UDP which taken Appeal Decision 6004251 & 6004254 together seek to protect the historic environment and the setting of a conservation area, as well as avoiding any adverse impact on the setting of a locally listed building. I also find no conflict with Policy HE13 of the UDP which relates to the protection of listed buildings.

Policy HE3 of the UDP is 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 HE5 of the UDP is cited on the notice. It relates to development in conservation areas, 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. Safeguarding benefits have also been raised where charity phone lines could be accessed from the installation. However, 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. Moreover, their existence does not overcome the harm that I have identified.

The appellant further sets out that existing kiosks located on [address] and [address] would be removed. I acknowledge that the removal of existing and redundant kiosks may enhance the appearance of those areas and the wider localities. However, the benefit 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 those 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, no substantive evidence has been presented in respect of these other proposals, including plans, and I cannot be certain that the circumstances at these other sites are comparable to the proposal before me. In any case, 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.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeals should be dismissed.