Appeal 6004731

Appeal A: The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal B: The appeal is dismissed.

[name] and B relate to the same scheme under different, complementary legislation. As such, I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning except where stipulated. Although the descriptions given in the application forms refer to the removal of two BT payphones, the plans and supporting evidence indicate the removal of one. I have assessed the scheme on this basis.

The site is within the setting of several listed buildings, a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) and is located in a Conservation Area (CA). As such, I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) in relation to the listed buildings and CA in respect of Appeal A.

The statutory duty in s72(1) of the Act, in relation to the CA, also applies in relation to Appeal B in so far as it relates to the consideration of ‘amenity’. However, the statutory duty in s66(1) of the Act requiring decision makers to “have special regard to preserving the building or its setting or any features of special Appeal Decisions 6004730, 6004731 architectural or historic interest” does not apply in relation to Appeal B as it only applies to whether to grant planning permission.

Nonetheless, the Regulations1 advise that factors relevant to ‘amenity’ include the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest. Therefore, the location of the advertisement displays (Appeal B) in relation to the heritage assets is relevant to the consideration of ‘amenity’.

The main issues in both appeals are the effects of the proposals on the visual amenity of the area, having regard to whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name] and the effects on the setting of [name] ([name] listed and SAM), the Church of St. Botolph ([name] listed) and Nos 53 and [address] ([name] listed).

This part of [address] lies within the [name]. It is a long straight road characterised by predominantly two and three storey buildings. The buildings include blocks of terraces with commercial premises at the ground floor creating a busy vibrant street. Despite variations in architectural style, the street layout, building alignment and scale create a cohesive character. The footway contains various street furniture such as bus shelters, cycle racks, and the appeal payphone. Advertisements in the CA are predominantly associated with the commercial premises that front onto the [address].

The tower of the Church of St. Botolph (the Church) dates from the eighteenth century and rises above nearby trees and is a highly visible feature within the CA. This reflects its historical and cultural importance in the community as a place of worship. The listed building known as Nos 53 and [address] (Nos 53 and 54) dates to the early eighteenth century and is experienced more locally within the [address] due to its modest scale. In so far as it relates to these appeals, the significance of the listed buildings is derived from their respective historical and architectural interests, including their use, age, form, and fabric.

[name] (the Castle) dates from 1068 and was built for William the Conqueror. It lies some distance outside of the CA. However, due to its elevated position and the alignment of [address] it is highly visible from within the CA. In so far as it relates to these appeals, the special interest of the Castle is derived from its dominating position within the city and the long-distance views from which it can be experienced, including from key routes into the city. These include views from part of the [address] around the appeal site.

In so far as it relates to these appeals, the significance of the [name] is derived from the diversity of its architecture, layout and views of focal point features outside of the CA. In this regard, the Castle, the Church and Nos 53 and 54 all make positive contributions to the character and appearance and thus the significance of the CA. 1 Regulation 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 Appeal Decisions 6004730, 6004731

The existing payphone is somewhat unkempt but has a muted appearance that assimilates relatively discretely into the footway. In this regard, it contributes neither negatively or positively to the character and appearance of the CA and thus its significance or to the setting of the Castle, the Church, or Nos 53 and 54.

[address] Hub would be taller and wider than the existing payphone to be removed. Moreover, it would have a large digital display on both sides. It would be an eye-catching feature due to its position in the footway, the size of the display, combined with the sharpness and richness of the images displayed by the digital technology on the advertisement screens along with the rotation of new images vying for attention.

This would detract and draw the eye away from views encompassing the built environment within the CA, and views beyond toward the focal features of the Castle and the Church. In doing so it would erode the neutral contribution that the appeal site’s more understated appearance makes to the setting and thus the significance of the Castle and Church. Due to the modest scale of Nos 53 and 54 and the distance from the appeal site to this listed building I do not find that the appeal proposals would form a distracting, incongruous feature within the setting of this heritage asset.

The proposals would be well related to other street furniture such as the cycle racks, bus shelter and street cabinet and would have a smaller footprint than the existing payphone. Moreover, there is an existing rotating advertisement within the bus shelter. However, it is discretely located within the bus shelter frame such that its roof limits the prominence of the advertisements. In contrast the appeal proposals would be a standalone element that would be a much more distracting and detracting feature in this part of the CA.

In this regard, due to its overall size and position it would be visually discordant and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area, even having regard to the presence of existing advertisements and other street furniture. I have reached this conclusion having regard to the controls that could be put in place on the displays for example to manage the levels of illumination, the speed of rotation of images or to ensure that the displays do not contain moving images.

Drawing the above together, the proposals would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name] and would have a harmful effect on the setting of [name] and the Church of St. Botolph. As such, the proposals would harm the significance of these designated heritage assets. In this regard, the expectations of the Act have not been met in so far as it is relevant to these appeals and heritage assets. Moreover, the proposals would have a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that great weight be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting and that this should have clear and convincing justification. Appeal Decisions 6004730, 6004731

With reference to paragraphs 214 and 215 of the Framework, in finding harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. Although, for the purposes of undertaking the heritage balance, the Framework does not require the decision maker to place the harm on a spectrum, within each category of harm, the extent of the harm can vary.

In this instance, due to the size of the appeal proposals relative to the CA and the wider setting of both the Castle and the Church, the harm to the significance of the respective heritage assets, individually and together, would be ‘less than substantial’ and toward the lower end of the spectrum but, nevertheless, of great weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development (Appeal A).

Any benefits to the street scene from the removal of the existing payphone would be outweighed by the harm from the introduction of the taller and wider hub. However, public benefits would arise from the provision of accessible free phone calls, Wi-Fi, the ability to support environmental monitoring such as air quality, public and emergency services, maps and wayfinding, device charging facilities, public messaging, and business advertising. [address] Hub is proposed to form part of a wider network, which would cumulatively have significant public benefits. However, individually, the appeal proposals would have localised benefits. As such, I give the overall benefits from this scheme moderate weight.

Overall, the weight that I ascribe to the public benefits resulting from the proposed development in Appeal A, are not sufficient to outweigh the great weight that I attach to the harm I have identified in this appeal. As such, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed development does not comply with paragraph 215 of the Framework.

Accordingly, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed development would be contrary to the requirements of the Act, the Framework and Policies S53, NS55, S57 and S58 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP), when taken together and in so far as they relate to this main issue. These say, amongst other things, that development proposals should protect, conserve and seek opportunities to enhance the historic environment of [name].

In relation to Appeal B, the Council has cited Policy NS55 of the CLLP and national planning policy in its decision notice. I have taken them into account as material considerations. However, the power to control advertisements under the Regulations may be exercised only in the interests of public safety and amenity. Consequently, they have not, in themselves, been decisive in my determination of Appeal B. Moreover, as the power to control advertisements under the Regulations is exercised in the interests of public safety and amenity, the environmental, social, or economic benefits emanating from the advertisement screens do not outweigh my findings of harm to the amenity of the area in this main issue.

I have been referred to two appeal decisions for similar proposals but in different cities. However, I do not have the full details of these other schemes before me. Moreover, my concerns relate to the specific scheme before me and its location in relation to the respective heritage assets in this city. In this regard, whilst noting the Inspectors findings in these appeals, I have considered the scheme before me on its own merits. Appeal Decisions 6004730, 6004731

Appeal A: The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed.

Appeal B: For the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.