Appeal 6004348

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 Banbury 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.

Of relevance to Appeal A, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) provides at s66(1) that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, Appeal Decisions 6004348, 6004349 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 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 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 and the settings and thereby the significance of nearby listed buildings; and • pedestrian safety.

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 within Banbury’s historic town centre, which is an often busy shopping destination. The site is part of an area where much of the historic street pattern and townscape remains largely intact. [address], on which the site is located, forms an important historic route through the town centre and provides a key approach towards Banbury Town Hall (a [name] listed building). [address] has retained its character of a historic shopping street, with several 18th and 19th century buildings positioned along it close to Banbury Town Hall.

The significance of the conservation area within which the site is located derives in part from its architectural and historic interest, including (as explained in the Banbury Conservation Area Appraisal (2018) (CAA)) an intact medieval street pattern populated with buildings principally from the 18th and 19th centuries, with this central core being immediately surrounded by suburbs which grew out of the economic resurgence of the town during the 18th and 19th centuries.

The heritage significance of Banbury Town Hall arises in part due to its age (built in 1854), its imposing architecture in the Gothic style, and its centralised siting within [address]. It is a key focal point when seen from the public space in which the site is located. It is also a landmark building within the conservation area when considered as a whole. 25, 26, and [address] are all [name] listed buildings located near to the site. Their significance includes their historic interest, with [address] being constructed in the 18th century, and [address] and [address] being of 19th century origin.

Their significance also includes their architectural interest, through period-appropriate features. These include [address]’s steeply-pitched slate roof, a 4-window range incorporating sashes with glazing bars, and 3 gabled attic dormers. [address] incorporates a brick with stucco front, a 3-window Appeal Decisions 6004348, 6004349 range, and a central entrance with a panelled door, patterned overlight, and Ionic fluted columns to the doorcase (albeit part of the door was obscured by a temporary panel at the time of my site visit). [address] also exhibits architectural interest through its use of brick and stucco, a 3-window range, and a central entrance with overlight flanked by sashes with glazing bars.

On the opposite side of [address] to these listed buildings is [address] (a [name] listed building). Its significance arises in part due its historic interest from its 19th century period of construction, and its architectural interest which includes buff coloured brick, a slate roof, a 3-window range, and a central doorway with 6-panelled door and plain fanlight.

In the vicinity of the site [address] splits into 2 sections leading up to a roundabout, with a large area of footway with 2 bus stops located in-between each section of carriageway. A wide area of footway is present in front of [name] shopping centre. This overall layout ensures that a sense of spaciousness prevails in the settings of the above-mentioned listed buildings along [address]. This enables their visual qualities, including their architectural significance, to be readily appreciated in the street scene.

The site is near to the entrance to [name] shopping centre, which has a modern retail frontage and signage. I observed that the site is located near to public seating, bus shelters, lamp posts, and cycle stands. Contemporary shop frontages are present in the vicinity. Fascia signage is present on several commercial units on [address], some of which is less than sympathetic to its historic context. In this regard, the CAA recognises that [address] currently suffers from a plethora of ill-matched signage and street furniture, some of which is in poor condition, which creates a high level of visual intrusion. Such features along [address] within the settings of these listed buildings negatively impact on the ability to appreciate their significance.

The proposed [address] Hub would be approximately 3 metres tall and approximately 1.2 metres wide. As such, it would be large in scale, with a vertical monolithic form which would bear little stylistic relationship with the historic streetscape in which it would sit. Taking account of the proposed 2 large digital display screens incorporated within it, the structure as a whole would constitute a visually dominant and incongruous element in the street scene which would add to visual clutter. This would be contrary to the guidance in the CAA, which seeks to reduce street clutter of various kinds within Banbury’s historic core.

Moreover, even taking account of the presence of the [address] to the site, due to its scale, proposed siting in a prominent location on the footway, and the changing nature of the proposed advertisements (at a minimum of every 10 seconds), the proposed [address] Hub would reduce the sense of openness referred to above and would draw attention away from the above-mentioned listed buildings. 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.

The existing kiosks which are proposed to be removed are located several minutes walk from the site. As they are not viewed within the same visual context as the site, their removal would have little-to-no bearing on the sense of clutter and visual Appeal Decisions 6004348, 6004349 amenities of the local area in which the site is located. It follows that their proposed removal would not mitigate the adverse impacts identified above.

I observed the double-sided digital advertising panels incorporated within bus shelters located on [address] and [address] in Banbury. As these advertisements form part-and-parcel of the much larger bus shelters in which they are incorporated, their visual prominence is not as pronounced as the proposed advertisements, which would take up a considerable proportion of the surface area of the proposed [address] Hub. Their presence does not alter my findings above.

The Inspector in appeal decision [name]/Z4310/W/18/3205104 referred to long-range views of the upper floors of certain listed buildings in Liverpool, rather than making a wider statement about how heritage assets are viewed in general. That appeal decision is of little relevance to the proposals before me. No plans / drawings illustrating the context of the local area have been provided in relation to appeal decision [name]/P4605/H/22/3311746, and accordingly it has not been demonstrated that the site-specific circumstances involved are directly comparable with the proposals before me. None of these appeal decisions alter my findings on this main issue.

As a visually intrusive element in the street scene which would harm the character and appearance of the area and detract from the visual appreciation of the above-mentioned listed buildings, the proposed [address] Hub would not preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, nor the settings of the listed buildings. Consequently, harm to their significance would be caused.

These adverse impacts would entail a limited degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the above-mentioned heritage assets. 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 ultra-fast Wi-Fi, free telephone calls, free 5G services for the EE network, wayfinding services, public access to emergency services, device charging capabilities, the potential to install environmental sensors providing real-time data, 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.

I acknowledge that Policy BSC 9 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011 – 2031 (adopted

provides support for proposals which involve new or improvements to public services / utilities, and likewise Policy C39 of the Cherwell Local Plan (adopted

provides support for telecommunications structures. Emerging Policy COM 22 of the emerging Cherwell Local Plan supports access to high-speed broadband and mobile data connectivity from a range of providers.

However, no data has been presented to demonstrate that there is any particular need in this location for the free services on offer. No commitment from any of the relevant authorities to use any of the data potentially provided by the environmental sensors has been provided. It has not been demonstrated that the proposals would provide significant benefits to the locality. The public benefits of the proposals merit no more than moderate weight in their favour. Appeal Decisions 6004348, 6004349

Planning law requires that each individual incidence of harm to a designated heritage asset must be given considerable importance and weight. Considering the great weight which must be given to the conservation of each of the designated heritage assets mentioned above, the totality of the public benefits would not outweigh the combined harms identified to the significance of the conservation area and to the significance of the above-mentioned listed buildings.

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, that it would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, and that it would harm, and therefore fail to preserve, the settings and thereby the significance of the above-mentioned listed buildings. It would conflict with the 1st, 4th, and 5th parts of Policy ESD 15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011 – 2031 which provide that, amongst other things, new development proposals should be designed to deliver high quality and attractive places to live and work in, contribute positively to an area’s character and identity by creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness, and conserve, sustain and enhance designated and non-designated ‘heritage assets’, including buildings, conservation areas and their settings.

In relation to Appeal A, the proposed development would also conflict with Policy C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan (adopted 1996) which provides that, amongst other things, control will be exercised over all new development to ensure that the standards of design and external appearance are sympathetic to the character of the urban or rural context of that development.

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.

Policy C18 of the Cherwell Local Plan (adopted 1996) relates to listed building consent and Policy C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan (adopted 1996) relates to housing development and extensions / conversions of existing dwellings, and so these policies are not directly relevant to this main issue. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned policies are sufficient for me to come to a view on this main issue.

The site is located on a wide area of footway. It is close to 2 mature trees, and several items of street furniture, including public seating, bus shelters, lamp posts, and cycle stands. Although the proposed [address] Hub would be an additional physical and visual obstruction on the footway, its positioning in line with an existing lamp post and the 2 trees mentioned above would ensure that the risk of conflict with pedestrians, including people with visual impairments, would not be significant. Moreover, the proposed [address] Hub would have contrast-edged surfaces and tactilely identifiable edges, which would provide assistance to people with visual impairments in navigating around it. Its limited footprint would ensure that it would not undermine pedestrian comfort, permeability, and inclusive access to an unacceptable degree.

In relation to Appeal A, I therefore find that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on pedestrian safety. In relation to this main issue, it would Appeal Decisions 6004348, 6004349 comply with Policy ESD 15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011 – 2031 which provides that, amongst other things, new development proposals should promote permeable, accessible and easily understandable places by creating spaces that connect with each other, are easy to move through and have recognisable landmark features.

In relation to Appeal B, I find that the proposed advertisements would have an acceptable effect on public safety. In accordance with Regulation 3(1) of the 2007 Regulations, material to my findings is the same policy which I have referred to with respect to Appeal A, above. Whilst not determinative, in relation to this main issue the proposed advertisements would comply with this policy.

The finding on the 2nd main issue above, in relation to pedestrian / public safety, is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development for Appeal A.

The fallback position of the existing kiosks being retained would merely maintain the status quo. Although they are in a state of disrepair, I observed that their negative visual impacts on their respective street scenes 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 (including Policy PSD 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011 – 2031 which seeks to, amongst other things, secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area) 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 first main issue 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.

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