Appeal 6004351

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

To avoid duplication, I have dealt with the two appeals together in this decision letter, as they are inextricably linked. Each appeal has been assessed on its individual merits.

In respect of Appeal B, Regulation 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, limits my considerations to those relating to amenity and public safety taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material; and any other relevant factors.

In respect of both appeals, I shall have regard to my duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (“the LBCA”) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. In respect of Appeal A, I shall have regard to my duty under Section 66(1) of the LBCA to pay special attention, and have regard to, the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings. Appeal Decisions 6004351 & 6004353

Based on the refusal reasons, the main issues in these appeals are the effects of the proposed development and the display of the proposed advertisement on amenity, the character and appearance of the [name] and Bayle Conservation Area (“the CA”), and the setting of the listed building known as Number 132 Sandgate Road1.

The CA encompasses a sizeable area of the town centre, including the seafront, where commercial uses, particularly retail, are common. The significance of the CA, so far as it relates to these appeals, is partly derived from the high proportion of mostly large, tall buildings built to traditional architectural styles and their relationship with the layout of relatively wide streets. Those buildings, which are usually set in long rows on the back edge of relatively generous footways, tend to enclose the streets and create a sense of traditional grandeur. This is likely to reflect the area’s historic role in the evolution of the town.

[address], in the area of the site for the appeals, is a wide road with generous footways that is enclosed by long rows of tall buildings, mostly in traditional architectural styles with ground floor commercial units, usually with glazed shop-style fronts. They include the [name] listed [address] which is an impressively grand building that derives its significance largely from its highly decorative traditional architecture. The traditional and attractively grand townscape of [address] contributes positively to the CA as a whole.

The appellant’s evidence indicates that the proposed [address] Hub (“the street hub”) is of a standardised design being a free-standing structure with large internally illuminated LCD digital advertisement display screens on either side. They would be set within a dark coloured exterior casing measuring just under 3 metres tall and around 1.2 metres wide, with a depth (or thickness) of about 350 millimetres.

The proposed street hub would be sited fairly centrally within the footway, largely on land currently covered by the larger footprint of 2 x BT telephone kiosks (“the kiosks”) which are proposed to be removed. Compared to those kiosks, the proposed street hub would, despite its lesser volume, be a considerably taller and wider structure with large LCD screens that would be capable of displaying internally illuminated digital advertisement imagery in a multitude of colours. Although static, with no moving imagery or animation, the advertisements would be expected to change regularly.

The proposed street hub would occupy a prominent freestanding position within the footway. Set more or less to face the path of approaching pedestrians, the scale of the proposed street hub, including the size and brightness of its digital advertisement displays, would be far more effective in attracting the attention of passersby than the largely silver/grey colour of the kiosks. Those kiosks are constructed from what appears to be a stainless-steel frame and solid back wall, with permeable glass sides and much smaller non-illuminated poster adverts on their road facing sides. This gives them a functional appearance that largely assimilates into the backdrop of pavement, buildings and shop fronts. 1 [name]: 132, 134, [name] and [name] 134A, [address] Appeal Decisions 6004351 & 6004353

The evidence indicates the advertisement displays would accord with the accepted parameters for illumination2 and I have had regard to the appellant’s assessment of the effects of glare. Nonetheless, when compared to the existing illuminated advertisements in the area, which are generally confined to the shop-style frontages of the businesses they serve, the street hub’s LCD advertisement displays would be bright, colourful and sufficiently large and prominent to be visually obtrusive, including during the hours of daylight. Unlike other adverts in the area, those on the street hub’s displays would blur the clear distinction between the public realm and the rows of buildings enclosing the street.

Adverts are designed to attract the attention of the public. However, by reason of the combination of its prominent freestanding siting, dominant scale and the brightness of its large, illuminated LCD advertising displays, the proposed street hub would be an incongruous feature in the footway that would harmfully detract from the traditional character and appearance of the townscape. It would have a jarring relationship when seen in the context of the impressive traditional architecture of the [name] listed [address] by on the opposite side of the road.

Street furniture in the footway around the site of the appeals tends to consist either of low height bins and planters, or taller, thin profiled street lighting columns and Belisha beacons. They are mostly finished in neutral colours minimising their presence and they tend to be associated with the functionality of the area. The trees growing in the footway are attractively natural features with thin profiled trunks. As such, none of those existing features are comparable to the proposed street hub and they do not justify its harmful effects.

For those reasons, I conclude that the proposed street hub would be detrimental to amenity and to character and appearance of the CA, and the setting of the [name] listed building. Their significance as designated heritage assets would be harmed. Therefore, the proposed street hub would be contrary to Policies HB1 and RL9 of The Folkestone & Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan, adopted September 2020 (“the LP”), so far as they require development to make a positive contribution to its location and surroundings, and for advertisements to be sensitively designed having regard to their scale, means of illumination and visual prominence, and the general characteristics of the area.

The National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) states that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed. For the reasons given above, this would be the case here.

In terms of the Framework the degree of harm to the CA and the listed building as designated heritage assets would be within the ‘less than substantial’ category and low on the spectrum of that harm. The Framework is clear in Paragraph 212 that great weight attaches to the conservation of a designated heritage asset. The harm to the CA and the setting of the listed building is therefore a matter of considerable importance and weight in this instance, requiring clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires the harm to a heritage asset to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal taking account of the scale of harm and the impact on the significance of the asset. 2 [name] 2015 by the Institute of Lighting Professionals Appeal Decisions 6004351 & 6004353

Adverts are economically beneficial through encouraging business activity and trade. The functions of the proposed street hub include free ultra-fast Wi-Fi and phone calls, device charging, access to local information and navigation, a direct connection to emergency services and public messaging capabilities. They are likely to be beneficial to some people in the town centre, including tourists/visitors in search of local information. Data capturing technologies, including air quality monitoring sensors and devices to count pedestrians and vehicles, would be housed within the proposed street hub.

However, the widespread availability and use of personal phones and mobile devices means that most of the public in the area of the proposed street hub are likely to have in their possession convenient options for communicating and receiving information. There is little analysis before me to demonstrate whether there is any realistic demand or need for those functionalities in the area, or a shortage of equipment providing them, including whether they could be provided within a structure that does not cause the harms that I have identified above. Given their retention is identified as the fallback position by the appellant, there is nothing of substance to indicate that some of those functions could not be retrofitted into existing kiosks, which on the face of it appear to be operational and in sound condition.

The Framework supports the expansion of electronic communications networks. 5G small cells could be accommodated within the proposed street hub to boost coverage in line with Government’s guidance and the National Infrastructure Strategy. However, the evidence before me does not demonstrate unsatisfactory 5G coverage in the area around the site of the appeals. There is nothing of substance to indicate that the appellant has explored accommodating such equipment on existing structures that do not cause the harms that I have identified above.

I cannot be satisfied on the evidence before me that the proposed street hub would be the only option in the area for meeting the appellant’s [name], and it has not been shown that the existing kiosks would be unable to function as accessible call boxes for use by the public.

The removal of the existing BT telephone kiosks from the footway would enhance the spaciousness of the public realm, thus resulting in a very modest beneficial effect on the CA and the setting of the listed building opposite. However, for the reasons given above, those benefits would be outweighed by the harmful effects of the proposed street hub which would replace them.

Taking all the above into account, the public benefits of the proposed street hub carry moderate weight in its favour. Great weight attaches to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Accordingly, the public benefits are insufficient to outweigh the proposed street hub’s low level of less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA and listed building as designated heritage assets. Therefore, it would conflict with the Framework’s policies on the preserving and enhancing the historic environment. Appeal Decisions 6004351 & 6004353

Street hubs have been approved on appeal in conservation areas in Liverpool3 and Birmingham4. In the Birmingham appeal the Inspector said that modern design is not inherently inimical to historic character. As a matter of principle, I see no reason to disagree. However, as a broadly framed statement, it does not mean that a standardised design found acceptable in some conservation areas, would be acceptable in all of them, and such decisions are likely to turn on site and context specific assessments of their effects. Dismissed appeal decisions for street hubs at sites in the settings of conservation areas in Plymouth5 and within conservation areas in Bristol6 and Dartford7 appear to show that to be the case.

Some similarities can be drawn between those appeals and the one before me, albeit full details are not before me. However, each case must be determined on its own merits taking account of its context and various site-specific considerations and judgements. There is nothing to show that the contextual factors that applied to those other appeals are directly comparable to the appeals before me. Accordingly, those appeal decisions are of little relevance and carry limited weight in my determination of the appeals.

The appeals before me do not relate to a proposed town centre use, residential development, tourist accommodation and attractions, or sui generis uses with a shop front display. Therefore, [name] HB2, E3, RL1, RL2 and RL6 are not determinative to my considerations in these appeals, and the proposed street hub would not gain material support from those policies.

The proposed street hub would be set some distance away from the tower of the [name] listed Ruins of [name], which is a tall, narrow building that appears to derive its significance from its cultural association with religion and the damage suffered during the second world war. They are reflected in its architecture and its spacious grounds. Given the distance of separation between the listed building and the proposed street hub, there would be no harm to its setting or significance.

For the reasons given above the proposals in [name] and B would be detrimental to amenity. They would harm the character and appearance of the CA, and the setting of the listed building known as [address]. Those harms bring the appeals into conflict with [name] HB1 and RL9, and the development plan as a whole, including so far as relevant to the appeal against the refusal of advertising consent. Those harms are not outweighed by material considerations, including the benefits of the proposals and the provisions of the Framework. Therefore, the proposed development and advertisement are unacceptable and the appeals are dismissed.