Appeal 6004403

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for planning permission (Appeal A) and advertisement consent (Appeal B) was made for the same site. The advertisement would be on the proposed hub and the two elements would be inter-related. I have therefore dealt with them together in my reasoning.

The above description for Appeal B is taken from the application form, however, the decision notice describes the advertisement as ‘display of internally illuminated digital LCD screen to both sides of freestanding street hub unit’. This is a more accurate description of the advertisement and I am satisfied that the cases of the main parties would not be prejudiced by the use of the description from the decision notice. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

In respect of the advertisement appeal, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) regulations 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) both make it clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of public safety and amenity, taking into account cumulative impacts. Regard does not need to be had to the development plan. I have taken relevant policies into account as a material consideration. However, they have not by themselves, been determinative for this appeal.

The main issues common to both appeals are: • The effect of the proposal on amenity; and • The effect of the proposal on public safety, with particular reference to highway safety.

The appeal site is an area of the public footway on the west side of [name], at the top of a flight of stairs leading down to [address], within the Hove Station Conservation Area (CA). The site is adjacent to the locally listed public house ‘The Station’ and south of the Grade II Listed Hove Railway Station. There is a modern bus stop featuring a double-sided LCD advertisement hoarding north of the appeal site.

Appeal A seeks planning permission for the removal of an existing public payphone box and installation of a freestanding ‘[address] Hub’. Both faces of the [name] would feature LCD displays and the hub would also provide a public telephone service.

Appeal B is an application for express advertisement consent for the LCD screens.

The proposed development would be a dominant addition to the streetscene by virtue of its scale and form. The proposal would be of a standard design, and, given its large scale, functional appearance and digital nature would appear incongruous within its setting. [name] note the proposal would replace an existing phone box, it would be larger in scale than the existing and would result in an unacceptable level of visual clutter, to the detriment of the character of the area within which it would be located.

The proposed illuminated advertisement would be designed to attract the attention of pedestrians and, combined with its digital nature would be at odds with the predominantly traditional character and architecture of the CA.

In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, I have a statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural interest or historic interest which it possesses. When considering whether to grant planning permission for development in a CA, I have a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The special character of the CA derives from the relationship between the station and the surrounding late Victorian buildings which connect the station with the main part of the town along [name]. This is a busy, tree-lined road and additional modern street furniture surrounding the station would, when considered cumulatively with the screens at the nearby bus stop, detract from the wider CA.

[name] is a [name] listed building dating from several building periods. The location of the hub would be to the front of the [name] listed station, but due to the separation distance between the station and the proposed hub, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the setting of the [name] listed building.

The scheme would therefore harm the amenity of the CA when considered as a whole. The harm to the designated heritage asset would be less than substantial and towards the lower end of the range and should be weighed against any public benefits. I return to this in my balance below.

In conclusion the proposal would cause harm to the visual amenity of the area and would be in conflict with policies DA6, CP12 and CP13 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One; DM18, DM24 and DM26 of the City Plan Part Two; and Policy 8 of the Hove Station Neighbourhood Plan which seek to improve the quality, legibility and accessibility of the public urban realm, reduce the clutter of street furniture and signage and preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. Whilst development plan policies are not determinative in respect of applications for advertisement consent, I have taken them into account as a material consideration.

Paragraph 116 of the Framework states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.

The proposed hub with associated advertisement which is designed to draw attention would be located on land classified as public highway. The width of the hub would be wider than the phone box it would replace and as a result, would reduce the usable width of the footway in a very busy location and adjacent to the top of a flight of stairs. The location of the proposal would impact the free flow of pedestrian movements as pedestrians would need to negotiate street furniture which would prejudice highway safety.

The scale of the hub would also restrict views of pedestrians standing behind the hub waiting to cross the road which could pose a highway safety issue if pedestrians were to step out from the behind the hub. There is a taxi rank opposite and a bus top close by making this a busy area for pedestrians.

In conclusion, the proposed hub would impact the free flow of pedestrian movements and prejudice highway safety. It would therefore result in unacceptable harm to public safety. For the foregoing reasons the proposal is considered to be in conflict with policies DA6 and CP9 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One; DM24 and DM33 of the City Plan Part Two; and Policy 8 of the Hove Station Neighbourhood Plan which seek to improve the permeability of the area and improvements to the public realm. Whilst development plan policies are not determinative in respect of applications for advertisement consent, I have taken them into account as a material consideration.

The removal of the existing street furniture to accommodate the proposal would be neutral in my consideration of the appeal as the removal could take place without the benefit of planning permission.

I note the contractual obligation BT has under the [name] ‘USO’ with Ofcom, however, this is a neutral factor in my decision. Planning Balance and Conclusion

The proposed hub would result in clutter on the street scene and harm to the character and appearance of the CA. This harm lies at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial harm but any harm to heritage assets attracts significant importance and weight. The proposal would also result in harm to highway safety.

The identified benefits of the proposal include making telephone calls for free, access local information and navigation via built in screens on each side of the unit; electrical device charging; access free ultra fast Wifi; an emergency button to contact the emergency services and public messaging capabilities. I note the units can also collect data which can benefit the local authority. I acknowledge the obligation BT has with Ofcom to provide a universally available service, however, I have not been provided with substantive evidence that this facility is required in this location. This tempers the weight I can attach to the benefits, alongside device charging, public community messaging and the capturing of data.

Overall, I consider that the benefits of the hub do not outweigh the less than substantial harm that would be caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset, visual amenity and the harm to highway safety. For these reasons, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.

The proposed advertisement would have a harmful effect on visual amenity and public safety. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.