Appeal 6004280

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

The two appeals relate to the same site. Appeal A relates to the refusal of planning permission for the installation of a [name] (the [name]). Appeal B is against the refusal of advertisement consent for illuminated digital signs on either side of the [name]. However, as the [name] and the digital advertisements are inextricably linked, I will deal with the two appeals in a single document to avoid duplication but shall consider each appeal on its individual merits.

Whilst the Council has refused Appeal B against a number of development plan policies it considers are relevant, section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 does not apply to advertisement appeals. The Regulations1 and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) make it clear that control of advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts. [name] have taken these policies into account, they have not been a decisive consideration in my determination of this appeal. 1 Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007

The Highway Authority raises no objection and the Council has not raised any concerns with regards public safety. I have therefore confined my assessment to matters of visual amenity.

In the exercise of planning functions, section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 requires me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the [listed] building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the visual amenity of the area, having regard to the setting of the nearby [name]* listed building, known as Greyhound and Punchbowl Inn2.

The appeal site forms part of the pavement along [address] close to a Lidl supermarket. [address] is predominantly retail/commercial in nature with a mix of single and two storey buildings of varying styles and designs. The supermarket building is large and runs along the back edge of the pavement for a considerable distance and has a deep overhanging canopy supported at regular intervals by brick pillars. Close to the supermarket’s glazed pedestrian canopy entrance there are a number of concrete bollards under the canopy and between the brick pillars. There are also bollards, just over 1 metre in height, along both sides of the [address] at regular intervals and sited close to the kerb edge.

Not all of the submitted plans accurately portray the existing situation, as they do not show the dropped kerb crossing and pedestrian refuge that have been installed in close proximity to the proposed [name]. Indeed, the “Existing & [name]” showing a montage image of how the [name] would look as part of the street scene show The Swan public house. However, this building has since been demolished, and thus the montage images do not accurately reflect the current street scene that I saw on my site visit.

The proposal would be a freestanding, double-sided, internally illuminated, LED digital advertising board with display screens on each side. The Hub Unit would measure about 2.98 metres tall, 1.236 metres wide and be relatively slender with a depth of about 0.35 metres. On each side of the unit there would be a digital screen, slightly smaller than the overall side of the [name] and surrounded by a sleek contemporary black frame. The Hub Unit would be sited at 90-degrees to the kerb, about 0.5 metres away from it. It would sit between a bollard and the litter bin. However, between the litter bin and bollard there is now a dropped kerb and pedestrian crossing leading to a pedestrian refuge in the middle of the [address] as part of the pedestrian pathway into the supermarket car park, which is not shown on the submitted plans/montage.

By reason of its size and height (taller than the average person) and being a freestanding structure so close to the kerbside edge of the pavement, the [name] would loom large and be an unduly dominant feature in the street scene, 2 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1201819 exacerbated by the bright and changing digital images. It would be a visually and physically overbearing feature in this pedestrian scale environment, particularly for passing pedestrians in this relatively limited pavement space and those using the dropped kerb crossing having to stand and almost rub shoulders with the [name].

I accept that illuminated advertisements are not uncommon in town centres, but I saw that these are mainly located at fascia level and contained within shopfronts and generally running parallel to the street. The biggest nearby illuminated sign is the ‘[name] projecting sign, but this is attached to the side of the supermarket elevation. The nearby McDonalds is at the far side of the car park, set well back from the [address] and its signage is within the confines of the building and does not form part of the general street scene. In contrast, the proposed [name] would be sited across the pavement, and illuminated images would be lower and at eye level and in close proximity to the pavement edge such that it would be a visually disruptive and incongruous feature in the street scene. Its siting would also disrupt the strong alignment of bollards along the pavement edge. Sited between a bollard and litter bin in such close proximity to the pavement edge and dropped kerb crossing, it would also introduce additional large street furniture and create clutter at this part of the pavement and [address]. Even if the brightness of the digital screens was set to a technical minimum and was within industry-approved luminance levels, and brightness adjusted at nighttime, this would not sufficiently mitigate against the overall visual intrusion and harm to the visual amenity of the area the proposal would cause.

The Grade II* listed Greyhound and [name] is a public house located some 60 metres to the east of the site, further along the [address]. It is an imposing black and white, timber-framed, two storey building dating from the mid-16th century, with possible earlier origins, and was formerly known as [address]. It retains a number of Jacobean features inside and out. From the evidence before me, the special interest and significance of the building is largely derived from its architectural and historic interests in illustrating a mid-16th century timber-framed vernacular dwelling of some status.

Special interest and significance also stem, in part, from the surroundings in which the building is experienced. The Greyhound and [name] is mainly experienced directly outside it and as part of the general commercial street scene, reflecting the economic and social growth, development and fortunes of the town through the years. However, the setting has been much compromised over the years with various more recent buildings around it, including the large modern supermarket building almost directly opposite, much closer to the listed building than the proposed [name]. Due to the separation distance, the appeal site being on the other side of the road and the intervening buildings along the [address], the appeal site contributes little to the setting of the listed building and to its special interest and significance. At the time of my visit the building appeared to be fire-damaged with Heras fencing across its frontage with the street.

The proposed [name] would continue to reinforce the commercial setting of the [address]. However, it would not affect how the building is appreciated as part of the wider street scene. Hence, I am satisfied the setting of the [name]* listed Greyhound and [name] would be preserved.

The Hub’s main function would be to provide free electronic communication services, with a direct 999 emergency call button, free 4G and 5G Wi-Fi coverage that residents, local businesses and visitors could use, and provision of USB ports for rapid and free charging of electronic devices, powered by 100% renewable carbon-free energy. The Local Council would also be able to have 5% total screen time to promote local community or municipal services or display public health messages. Funding for the [name] and its services would come from the digital advertising revenue.

With the increase in mobile phone usage, public phone box use has generally declined. The installation of [name] is part of a national scheme to replace existing pay phones, or those nearby. This would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which supports the expansion of electronic communication networks, which it states are essential for economic growth and social well-being. The Hub Units would being a number of general benefits in that it would help reduce digital inequality and reduce anti-social behaviour that can occur around unused phone boxes. To complement this, the new [name] would be monitored 24/7 and inspected and cleaned at least every 2 weeks. The proposal would also contribute to the expansion of the 4G/5G communication networks, although I have no substantive evidence before me that indicates coverage is particularly lacking in this particularly location.

The appellant refers to two existing payphones that the [name] would replace as part of freeing the streets of clutter. However, there is no payphone in the vicinity of the appeal site and the two phone boxes the appellant refers to are several miles away in other parts of Wolverhampton. Whilst the proposal may well reduce the number of payphone kiosks in Wolverhampton as a whole, there would be no reduction in phone kiosks, or street clutter or visual betterment locally to [address] itself. Indeed, it would introduce street clutter in this part of [address].

Whilst the proposal may be part of a national programme to improve digital communications, as technology and people’s habits have changed, and thus reduce the number of payphone kiosks, there is no substantive evidence to indicate to me that this can only be achieved by the installation of a [name] in this particular location along [address].

The appellant’s evidence includes examples of other [name] in Wolverhampton, including in [address]. However, this is a very different street scene context from the appeal site, including in terms of form, nature and scale of surrounding buildings and the configuration of the public realm and pedestrian network. Examples of a digital 48-sheet billboard and a digital panel on a bus shelter on [address] are of completely different types of digital displays. Therefore, the various examples are not directly comparable. However, they do show that digital advertising in various formats can be acceptable in some locations. However, in any event I must consider the appeal proposal on its own merits.

To conclude, for the reasons above I find the proposal would preserve the setting of the [name]* listed Greyhound and [name], and would not conflict with saved Policies HE1, HE13 and HE17 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (the UDP) that seek to ensure, amongst other things, that heritage assets and their settings are preserved.

However, the proposal would cause harm the visual amenity of the area. The benefits and material considerations identified above, including the Framework, do not outweigh the harm. Accordingly for Appeal A, and insofar as is relevant for Appeal B, the proposal would conflict with [name] CSP4 and ENV3 and saved [name] D4, D6, D7, D8 and D9 of the. Collectively these seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development, including its height, scale and appearance, relates positively to its context and surroundings and local distinctiveness and makes a positive contribution to its locality.

[name] HE3, HE4, HE5 are not directly relevant to either appeal as they relate to proposals within a conservation area, which the site is not. Saved UDP Policy HE19 is also not directly relevant as this relates to a locally listed building, and I have not been directed to any that might be affected.

For the reasons set out above Appeal A and Appeal B are both dismissed.