Appeal 6004610

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

There are two appeals relating to the site, one against a refusal of planning permission and the other against a refusal of advertisement consent. They are intrinsically linked as one concerns the kiosk unit upon which the advertisement would be displayed. Both appeals raise similar issues. Whilst considering each appeal on its own merits this decision letter considers both appeals in one.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 stipulate that advertisement control may only be exercised in the interests of ‘amenity’ and ‘public safety’. With respect to Appeal B, the development plan policies referred to by the Council are not determinative, but I have taken these into account as a material consideration.

Both main parties have acknowledged that the site is within the Town Centre and Seafront Conservation Area (TCSCA) and made observations in relation to this Appeal Decision 6004609 & 6004610 matter. The site being within the TCSCA did not form part of the reason for refusal, but it is clearly a matter both parties have considered and therefore my taking it into account, as is my statutory duty, does not prejudice either party.

The main issue relating to Appeal A is the effect of the kiosk on the character and appearance of the area, including on the significance of the Town Centre and Seafront Conservation Area (TCSCA); and for Appeal B, the effect of the proposal on visual amenity.

In respect of both appeals the Council has not raised concerns with regards to public safety.

The site is located within a pedestrianised area of Eastbourne town centre. There are mainly 3 storey buildings in the immediate surrounding area and which accommodate a range of architectural styles. Some were vacant at the time of my site visit but generally they do, or have previously, accommodated retail and commercial uses on the ground floor.

Advertisements in the area generally relate to retail fascias and projecting signs above existing shopfronts. Within the immediate vicinity of the site, only a small number of these appeared to be internally illuminated. Accordingly, the area surrounding the site has a commercial character and traditional town centre appearance.

The Conservation Area is characterised by buildings from the 19th century and has a spacious character accentuated by its boulevards, areas of formal open space as well as the seafront itself. From what I saw and from what I have read, it seems to me that the special interest and significance of the TCSCA, is in part derived from the architectural value of its historic buildings and spaces. These denote the town’s evolution as a settlement and seaside resort and respond to the topography of the area. As such, there is variation in size and form of buildings within and around the TCSCA.

An existing public telephone kiosk is located near the site as are other items of street furniture and structures including bollards, CCTV columns, metal railings, street signage and streetlights. There were other, temporary features, such as, A-frame signage, tables and chairs and barriers within the street scene. However, given the width of [address] at this point, there is a sense of space which ensures that these various items do not result in an impression of clutter, particularly near the appeal site.

The kiosk would be approximately 1.1m x 0.9m and 2.46m high, in a steel frame with powder coated black steel cladding. The advertisement panel would measure some 1.63m high x 0.92m wide. The overall design takes inspiration from the traditional British phone kiosk. However, although the submission states its materials would be sympathetic to the local palette, it appears to be a standard specification which would not specifically relate to the TCSCA’s significance or its local materials.

The kiosk would thus introduce comparatively significant massing, in a modern design and materials, which would dominate the other street furniture. Although Appeal Decision 6004609 & 6004610 there is a more utilitarian public phone on the opposite side of the road, and outside of the TCSCA, its existence is not in itself a good reason to allow the current proposal. Overall, the scale and location of the kiosk would introduce new and unacceptable clutter which would draw undue attention as an incongruous feature in the wide and mainly open street environment.

The advertisement’s illumination and changing images would further heighten this overall intrusion, detracting from the traditional character and appearance particularly during hours of low natural light or darkness. This impact would not be sufficiently mitigated by the proposed conditions to restrict illumination levels, and to display only static images with controls over their transitions. Whilst there is some illumination and fascia signage in the area, these respect the character of the street. The advertisement on the rear of the existing phone booth was static and not digital at the time of my site visit.

I note the references in the Planning Statement to other decisions in some London boroughs and in Middlesborough where the design of the kiosk was considered acceptable. However, none of these locations are near to the appeal site and I have no further details before me. Accordingly, whilst they may be for similar developments, I cannot be sure that the circumstances and setting are directly comparable in terms of character and appearance to the appeals before me. Therefore, they do not lead me to a different conclusion.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposed kiosk and advertisement would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area (Appeal A) and its visual amenity (Appeal B). In this context it would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the TCSCA.

Given the scale of the proposal and that the site is at the edge of the conservation area it would lead to less than substantial harm that would fall at the lower end of that spectrum of harm. Nevertheless, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation even if there is less than substantial harm to its significance. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The Framework supports high quality communications infrastructure. The public telephone provided by the kiosk can offer a lifeline to some people and would be more accessible to those with mobility impairments than traditional telephone boxes. The kiosk would also provide other facilities, such as, mapping information and a defibrillator. Furthermore, the advertisement panel could be used to display public health messages, alerts or be utilised by local businesses for advertisement purposes. Working alongside Trees for Cities there is the future possibility of a tree being planted on an urban street.

However, some of these benefits could not be guaranteed through the planning process and in some instances the scale of the benefit is unclear. There is for example no detail of local need or mobile signal strength in the area. I also noted an existing public telephone opposite the appeal site which could be used by those with mobility issues. Close by, on [address], information boards already appear to offer some local wayfinding and travel information.

The provision of a defibrillator is a public benefit, but it would not directly mitigate the harm which would be caused. Including it and other functions within a single Appeal Decision 6004609 & 6004610 kiosk might help to limit street clutter in general, but in this instance no other street clutter would be removed.

Taken overall, the weight attributable to the public benefits would be insufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the less than substantial harm to the TCSCA.

Given all of the above, I conclude that there would be conflict with Policy D10a of the [name] 2013 and saved Policies UHT1, UHT4 and UHT12 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan 2003. These collectively, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to the townscape and harmonises with the local environment, thereby having an acceptable effect on visual amenity. There is also a requirement to ensure advertisements are sensitive to their locality.

Overall, the proposal under Appeal A would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no other material considerations which outweigh this conflict, and therefore for the reasons given above I conclude that Appeal A is dismissed.

The display of the advertisement under Appeal B would be detrimental to the interests of the visual amenity of the area. With no other material considerations indicating otherwise, I conclude that Appeal B is dismissed.