Appeal 6004361

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 both appeals, I shall have regard to my duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.

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. Appeal Decisions 6004357 & 6004361

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, and on the character and appearance of the [name] and Bayle Conservation Area (“the CA”).

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. 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. It would be a free-standing structure with large internally illuminated LCD digital advertisement display screens on either side and set within a dark coloured exterior casing. The street hub would be 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 within the footway, about [address] of buildings fronting the street and relatively close to the kerb line with the carriageway. It would be positioned about 10 metres away from a pair of 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 and close to the edge of the carriageway, where its scale and 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. The kiosks have a functional appearance that largely assimilates into the backdrop of pavement, buildings and shop fronts. Appeal Decisions 6004357 & 6004361

The evidence indicates the advertisement displays would accord with the accepted parameters for illumination1 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 be set in a somewhat isolated position relative to the row of buildings, thus disrupting 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.

Street furniture in the footway around the site of the appeals tends to consist either of low height planters, including the modest tables and chairs of the nearby cafes, or taller, thin profiled street lighting columns and trees. 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 the character and appearance of the CA, thus harming its significance as a designated heritage asset. 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 as a designated heritage asset 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 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.

Adverts are economically beneficial through encouraging business activity and trade. The functions of the proposed street hub include free ultra-fast Wi-Fi and 1 [name] 2015 by the Institute of Lighting Professionals Appeal Decisions 6004357 & 6004361 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. 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 as a designated heritage asset. Therefore, it would conflict with the Framework’s policies on the preserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Street hubs have been approved on appeal in conservation areas in Liverpool2 and Birmingham3. In the Birmingham appeal the Inspector said that modern design 2 APP/Z4310/W/18/3205104 & APP/Z4310/W/18/3205102 3 APP/P4605/H/22/3311746 & APP/P4605/H/22/3311746 Appeal Decisions 6004357 & 6004361 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 Plymouth4 and within conservation areas in Bristol5 and Dartford6 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.

For the reasons given above the proposals in [name] and B would be detrimental to amenity, and would harm the character and appearance of the CA, 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.