Appeal 6004406

There are two appeals on this site. They differ only in that appeal A relates to planning permission and appeal B to express advertisement consent. Both appeals have been considered on their individual merits. However, as they raise similar issues, and to avoid duplication, they are addressed in a single decision, except where otherwise indicated. Appeal Decisions 6004406 and 6004408

In respect of Appeal B, the Regulations and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) both make it clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account cumulative impacts. Regard does not need to be had to the development plan. Therefore, while I have taken relevant policies of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) (the CLP) into account as a material consideration, they have not been determinative.

The appeal site is located within the Kite Conservation Area, which is part of the larger Cambridge Central Conservation Area and proximate to 17 Fitzroy Street1, a [name] listed building. Accordingly, in my consideration of these appeals I have been mindful of my statutory duties under Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which require special regard be paid to the desirability of preserving a listed building, its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses and special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. For advertisement appeals (Appeal B) this is only relevant in so far as it relates to visual amenity.

I have used the descriptions from the respective application forms in the banner headings above. However, in my formal decisions I have omitted superfluous details that do not relate to an act of development and for appeal [name] have amended the description to match the description used by the Council on the decision notice, as this more accurately describes the proposed advertisements.

For Appeal A, the main issues are (i) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and (ii) whether the proposal takes opportunities to integrate sustainable design and construction principles.

For Appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on the visual amenity of the area.

The appeal site relates to a section of [address] which is reasonably close to the junction with [address]/[address]. [address] is part of a busy pedestrianised route which contains mostly modern buildings and commercial units at street level which lead down to the [name], a large, modern, commercial building. The street also contains various street furniture such as lighting columns, seating, waste bins, existing telephone boxes and stretches of cycle racks. Collectively these features, along with various illuminated and non-illuminated signage along the street, provide a modern, commercial context which defines the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal scheme proposes the installation of a [address] Hub, incorporating internally illuminated digital advert screens on either side. An existing telephone kiosk on [address] is also proposed to be removed, which aligns with the aims of Policy 12 of the CLP which seeks to improve the public realm along [address] and [address] by removing unnecessary signage and street furniture. This would also mitigate any concerns about the impediment of pedestrian flows and comply with 1 [name]: 1392720 Appeal Decisions 6004406 and 6004408 the requirements of Policy 25 of the CLP which seeks to create a more comfortable and simplified pedestrian environment and could be controlled by a suitably worded condition. I note reference to the removal of two other kiosks in the wider area; however, as they are not close to the appeal site, their removal has not been determinative in my consideration of this appeal.

The hub and its integrated signage would introduce a new, modern element into the street scene in a prominent location. However, it would be sited amongst existing street furniture and set against the backdrop of the commercial units on either side of the street which contain various illuminated signage. Accordingly, it would be viewed within the modern, commercial context of the immediate area and would assimilate well with its surroundings. As the hub would have a different scale, form and function to the existing street furniture closest to it, it would not result in excessive visual clutter either and the removal of the existing telephone kiosk close by would also assist in this respect

Despite its height and positioning, the hub would not appear dominating in the street scene and the contemporary design would assimilate with the more modern architecture in the area and variety of colours and styles of nearby shopfronts. Similarly, the appearance of the advertisement displays within the hub would not be unusual in this commercial context and given their size, they would not appear prominent or incongruous when viewed against the scale of the buildings in the immediate vicinity. As there are other examples of illuminated signage and the street is well-lit by streetlamps, the illumination of the advertisements would not appear out of place either.

The Council has referred to a lack of public benefits to demonstrate the proposed street furniture is necessary. However, I have not been directed to any policy where this is a specific requirement. Nevertheless, I note the development would deliver various public benefits including providing accessible digital services to visitors of the area.

The Council has also drawn my attention to several recent appeal decisions in the city. However, I do not have the full details of each of these cases and therefore cannot be certain how comparable they are to the schemes before me. Nevertheless, I note one decision relates to a section of Burleigh Street2 near the [name] which is relatively close to this appeal site. However, in this case, the Inspector found that the appeal site contained a notable cluster of digital advertising installations close to each other and the appeal site which, in combination with the appeal scheme, was considered to intensify visual clutter and create a more congested streetscape. This is materially different to the appeal schemes before me, which are at the opposite end of [address].

In this case, while this proposed hub could be simultaneously viewed with the telecommunication kiosk cited close to the [name], it would be sufficiently separate from it to prevent any perception of excessive street furniture or digital clutter. Moreover, it is unlikely to be appreciated in the same vistas as the other kiosk on [address] due to the alignment of the streets and therefore would not result in the perception of there being a proliferation of similar development in close proximity either.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude for Appeal A that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the area. It therefore accords with Policies 1, 12, 25, 55, 56, 65 and 84 of the CLP insofar as they support 2 APP/Q0505/W/25/3372896 & APP/Q0505/H/25/3372897, dated 20 Jan 2026 Appeal Decisions 6004406 and 6004408 sustainable, high-quality development which responds to its context and improves the public realm and that street furniture is sympathetically designed to not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. It would also accord with paragraph 135 of the Framework which requires developments to be sympathetic to local character.

Additionally, for Appeal B, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would not have a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area. I have taken into account Policies 1, 12, 55, 56 and 65 of the CLP and paragraph 135 of the Framework which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that proposals, including advertising and street furniture, respects the character and setting of the area and its visual amenity and avoids an accumulation of street clutter. Given that I have concluded that the proposal would not harm visual amenity, it does not conflict with these local and national policies.

The Council has referred to paragraph 136 of the Framework; however, as this relates to trees it is not determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

Policy 28 of the CLP requires all proposals to take available opportunities to integrate the principles of sustainable design and construction. The Council states that reducing the energy demand of the hub is important in areas where grid capacity is constrained and the development must meet the hierarchy advanced in the Policy.

From the evidence before me, the [name] would incorporate measures consistent with all stages of the energy hierarchy. This includes reducing energy demand with integrated and improved technologies and materials. The Product Statement also confirms that the unit is supplied entirely by renewable, carbon free energy, following the application of demand reduction and efficiency measures.

The Council has not specified the level of energy demand reduction it considers would be appropriate or that the appeal scheme was required to meet. Nor has it explained the alleged conflict it has identified with the [name] and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (2020) (SPD). Nevertheless, the Council has not challenged the effectiveness of the energy specifications described above. There is no substantive evidence before me indicating that the appeal site is located within a constrained capacity area either, or that the proposed hub would place an unacceptable demand on energy supply.

Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the sustainable measures proposed could be secured through a suitably worded planning condition which would ensure the proposal takes appropriate opportunities to integrate sustainable design and construction principles.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude for Appeal A that the proposed development takes appropriate opportunities to integrate sustainable design and construction principles. This accords with Policy 28 of the CLP insofar as it seeks to ensure proposals reduce the need for energy, ensure it is used more efficiently and from renewable sources. It also complies with the overarching aims and objectives of the [name].

The appeal site is situated within the CA, which encompasses much of the city centre. In the vicinity of the appeal site, buildings on the northern side of [address] are outside of the CA, but those on the southern side are within it. Nevertheless, the Kite Appeal Decisions 6004406 and 6004408 Conservation Area Appraisal 2014 identifies these as buildings as detracting elements to the special character and significance of the CA. Insofar as is relevant to these appeals, the significance of the CA derives from its varied historic buildings and architectural interest. However, the appeal site is appreciated in the context of the modern retail and commercial premises that line either side of [address] rather than within a more historic setting and as the appeal site relates to a section of pavement with various street furniture close by, it makes a neutral contribution to the significance of the CA as a whole.

The site is also proximate to [address] ([name]: 1392720), a [name] listed building described in the list entry as a department store of 1903 in an Edwardian 'Wrenaissance' style. Insofar as is relevant to these appeals, as a building with a distinct architectural character above ground floor, its special interest and significance derive from its architectural and historic interest. However, notwithstanding the proximity of the appeal site to this building, as a section of pavement within a modern, commercial context it makes a neutral contribution to its setting and significance.

The Council has not detailed any specific concerns in relation to the effect of the schemes on the significance of the CA or the listed building. Given the otherwise modern, commercial context of the surrounding area and in light of my conclusions above, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion. I therefore find the appeal schemes would preserve the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of the listed building, the significance of which would not be harmed.

The Council refers in its evidence to concerns raised by the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) in relation to the effect on the living conditions of nearby residents. However, the EHO comments conclude that as the area around the appeal site is already well-lit and the site is approximately 55m from the nearest residential receptor, there would be low risk of any potential artificial light impacts.

The Council has suggested several conditions which I have considered against the Framework tests and Planning Practice Guidance. Where necessary, I have adjusted the wording in the interests of clarity and precision.

For Appeal A, in addition to the standard time-limit implementation condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans and documents in the interests of certainty. A condition is also imposed requiring compliance with the Antisocial Behaviour Management Plan to ensure the safe operation of the hub and deter crime and disorder. To prevent unacceptable street clutter following the installation of the hub, a condition has also been imposed to require the removal of the existing [name] and reinstatement of the pavement at the junction of [address] & [address].

However, I have not imposed a condition requiring the removal of the two other hubs shown in the Kiosk Removal Plan. This is because they are not in the immediate vicinity of or directly linked to the appeal scheme and based on the evidence before me, their removal would not be necessary to make this appeal scheme acceptable. It is also unnecessary to impose a separate materials condition as these are specified on the approved plans and documents.

For Appeal B, in addition to the timescale for implementation and the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations, which are not repeated in Appeal Decisions 6004406 and 6004408 the attached schedule, I have imposed conditions restricting the luminance of the advertisement, restricting the advertisements to static images and the frequency and nature of their changeover in the interests of amenity and public safety. In respect of luminance, I have referred to the relevant table in the Institute of [name] – Professional Lighting Guidance (PLG 05 2015) ‘The Brightness of [name] including [name] in the interest of precision.

I have also imposed conditions as suggested by the appellant to ensure the advertisements do not resemble traffic signs and to include a default freeze mechanism in the event of malfunction, for the same reasons. However, I have added the option to default to a black or blank screen in the event the advertisement display itself malfunctions.

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

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawing nos and documents: • Site Location Maps 001 [name] • [address] [name] 003 [name] • Existing and [name] 003 [name] • Proposed Site Plan 002 [name] • [name] product statement – V2.0 September 2024

The development hereby permitted shall be managed in accordance with the management measures detailed in the [address] Hub Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan Version 3 for the lifetime of the development.

The development hereby permitted shall not become operational until the [name] at the junction of [address] & [address], Cambridge [postcode] as shown on page [address] Hub – Kiosk Removal Plan (CMB-11B) has been removed and the land reinstated to a condition matching the adjacent surface.

In the hours of darkness, the advertisement display luminance shall be no greater than the recommended maximum nighttime luminance value set out in Table 10.4 within the Institute of [name] – Professional Lighting Guidance (PLG 05 2015) ‘The Brightness of [name] including [name] (or its equivalent in a replacement guide) in cd/m2.

In daylight hours, the advertisement display luminance shall be controlled in order to reflect ambient light conditions, and shall at all times be no greater than the recommended maximum daytime luminance values set out in Table 10.5 within the Institute of [name] – Professional Lighting Guidance (PLG 05 2015) ‘The Brightness of [name] including [name] (or its equivalent in a replacement guide) in cd/m2.

The minimum display time for each advertisement shall be 10 seconds, and the advertisement display panels shall display static images only.

The interval between successive advertisements shall be no greater than 1 second and the complete display shall change without effect.

The advertisement digital display screens shall include a mechanism to default to a frozen advertisement or a blank or black screen in the event of any malfunction.

No content on the digital display screens shall resemble traffic signs, as defined in Section [address] Traffic Regulation Act 1984. ** END OF SCHEDULE **