Appeal 6004579

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for installation of 1No. [address] Hub at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/04309/PA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of 2no. internally illuminated advertisement panels on either side of 1 no. [address] Hub unit at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/04360. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Regulations) and the additional conditions in the attached schedule.

There are two appeals relating to the site, one against the refusal of planning permission and the other against the refusal of advertisement consent. To avoid repetition, while considering each on its own merits, I have dealt with both in a single decision letter.

With regards to Appeal B, the Regulations, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) all make it clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Therefore, I have had regard to the policies of the development plan only in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to the consideration of amenity.

In the banner headings above, I have used the descriptions of development as stated on the Council’s decision notices as these more accurately reflect the proposals.

The main issue in respect of Appeal A is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including its effect on designated heritage assets.

The main issue in respect of Appeal B is the effect of the proposed advertisements on the visual amenity of the area.

The appeal site comprises a section of highway within a pedestrianised shopping street within Birmingham City Centre. Two pairs of existing BT phone boxes are located to the east and west of the appeal site which are proposed to be removed as part of the appeal scheme.

The appeal site is within the [address] and Environs Conservation Area (CA) which encompasses a large part of the city centre. The CA derives its significance in part from its numerous historic buildings, street pattern and open public spaces which reflect the growth of the city. [address] was originally laid out in the thirteenth century and along with [address] formed the origins of the city’s retail function from the middle of the nineteenth century.

I have a duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the CA.

There are several Listed Buildings (LBs) in the vicinity of the appeal site. Under Section 66(1) of the Act, I have a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the LBs or their setting.

To the west of the appeal site is the [name] comprising 92 & [address] and 3 & 5 Ethel Street1. Its significance is derived from its history, dating from the nineteenth century and its architecture including its decorative window surrounds and mouldings. Adjacent to this is the [name] listed 88-91 New Street2 which also dates from the late nineteenth century. It derives its significance in part from its distinctive pattern of curved windows and decorative brick on the front elevation to [address]. 1 List entry number: 1076243 2 List entry number: 1219731

To the north of the appeal site is the [name] listed Grosvenor House3 which dates from the 1950s. This building derives its significance from its historic and architectural interest as a rare example of 1950s contemporary style, built following the lifting of restrictions after the second world war to a design by the firm Cotton, Ballard and Blow. Features of note include its architectural detailing including the curved corner, balconies and balustrades, which have remained largely intact despite alterations at ground floor.

To the northeast of the appeal site is the [name] building comprising 51, 52 & [address] and 18 & 19 Bennett’s Hill4. This building derives its significance from its history, dating from the early twentieth century but built in an [name] style and also from its architectural interest including decorative window surrounds, columns and dome and cupolas at roof level.

The proposed street hub would replace two existing phone boxes to the east of the appeal site and two existing phone boxes to the west. The location of the hub would be close to an adjacent oversailing canopy and glazed projection and as such would not be prominently located in an open section of the street. Consequently, the proposed hub would not appear incongruous or prominent in terms of siting and would not add to street clutter.

The panel would comprise a relatively slim flat panel which would be taller and wider than the telephone boxes it would replace and would not have any element of transparency. This would result in a more solid, monolithic structure which would have a more sleek and modern appearance when compared with the existing phone boxes.

However, the hub would be seen in the context of commercial activity which is present on the ground floor on both sides of [address] continuing for a considerable distance in both directions from the appeal site. It would also be located near to other items of street furniture including benches, bins, bollards, post boxes as well as sizeable street trees. Consequently, the proposed hub would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

The existing setting of the LBs is defined to a significant degree by the commercial setting and activity of [address] and their close relationship with this shopping street is an aspect which contributes to their significance. The proposed street hub would not be directly adjacent to any of the nearby LBs, however it would be present in the foreground of views towards them from various vantage points.

These buildings have commercial activity at the ground floor level with the majority of the features of architectural interest above. Items of street furniture and mature trees already intervene in these views and as such the street hub would not interfere with an appreciation of these buildings. Given the significant level of commercial activity, signage and street furniture in the vicinity, it would not distract from the dominance of the LBs in the street scene. Moreover, the proposal would result in the removal of four phone boxes from the area, reducing the overall level of street clutter in the vicinity overall. As such the proposal would preserve aspects of the setting of the LBs that contribute to their significance. 3 List entry number: 1245547 4 [name] 1343351

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area or upon the significance of heritage assets. As such it would accord with policies PG3, GA1, TP12 and TP39 of the Birmingham Development Plan ([name] 2017) (BDP) which together seek to ensure that developments contribute to a sense of place, that the historic environment is protected, pedestrian routes enhanced and that a high-quality environment is provided in the City Centre.

The Council have referred to Policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (adopted December 2021) (DPD) in the reason for refusal. This refers to the impacts of development on the amenity of occupiers and neighbours of development which is not a matter in dispute. As such this has not been determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

Appeal B relates to the proposed illuminated advertisement panels which would be part of the street hub considered under Appeal A. The advertisement panels would take up the majority of the front and rear facing sides of the hub,

The phone boxes which would be removed as part of the proposals include advertising panels, albeit they are not illuminated. As such advertisements within the street are not an alien feature in the area. The scale of the advertisements and the degree of illumination would not appear untoward in this commercial context which includes various illuminated elements. Given the distance from other street hubs in the area, the proposal would not result in a proliferation of illuminated advertisements of this type in the area.

The proposed advertisements would be appropriate to the commercial context in which they would be located and would not harm the significance of the nearby listed buildings or the character and appearance of the CA.

I therefore conclude that the proposed advertisements would not cause harm to visual amenity and as such would comply with the regulations.

I have taken account of policies PG3, GA1 and TP12 of the BDP and Policy DM7 of the DPD which seek to ensure that developments are appropriate for their location and that advertisements do not result in harm to amenity.

In respect of Appeal B, the Council has raised no concerns in relation to the effect of the appeal proposal on public safety and based on the evidence before me, I have come to the same conclusion.

I have had regard to the suggested conditions put forward by the Council. Where necessary, I have undertaken some minor editing and rationalisation where they meet the tests set out in paragraph 58 of the Framework.

For Appeal A, in addition to the standard time-limit for commencement of development I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring the 4 existing phone boxes to be removed as this reflects the proposal and to prevent excessive street clutter.

For Appeal B, the consent is granted subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulations. In addition, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans in the interests of certainty, and conditions which control the brightness, speed and duration of digital displays in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons outlined above, the appeals are 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 drawing nos 002 [name] and 004 [name].

Within 2 months of the completion of the BT street hub unit hereby approved, the 4no. existing telephone boxes identified (2no. telephone boxes at [site address] [address], Birmingham and 2 no. telephone boxes at [site address] [address], Birmingham) shall be removed and the surface made good in matching materials, in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Appeal B ref: 6004581 – Schedule of Additional Conditions

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 002 [name] and 004 [name].

The intensity of the illumination of the advertisement permitted by this consent shall be no greater than 300cd/m2 between dusk and dawn.

The advertisement hereby granted consent shall not be illuminated by flashing or intermittent lighting.

The minimum length of time for each display shall be 8 seconds and the time interval between successive displays shall be no greater than 0.1 seconds with no fading, swiping or other animated transition methods between successive displays. End of Schedule