Appeal 6004754

Appeal A: The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal B: The appeal is dismissed.

These appeals relate to the same scheme under different, complementary legislation. As such, I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning except where stipulated. The description given in the application forms refer to the removal of two payphones. However, none are present at the appeal site, and the appellant has referred to a single payphone to be removed elsewhere, in [name]. I have considered the scheme on this basis.

As the site is within the setting of the listed building known as [name], I have had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) in respect of Appeal A. This requires decision makers to have special regard to preserving the setting of a listed building or any features of special architectural or historic interest. However, this statutory duty does not apply in relation to Appeal B as it only applies to whether to grant planning permission. Appeal Decisions 6004754, 6004757

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 advertisements (Appeal B) in relation to heritage assets is relevant to the consideration of ‘amenity’.

The main issue in both appeals is the effects of the proposals on the visual amenity of the area, having regard to the setting of [name].

The appeal site relates to an area of footway along [address] adjacent to a supermarket car park. This part of the road is characterised by a mixture of commercial and residential premises. The footway around the appeal site is wide and open in nature with some seating arranged adjacent to the low boundary walls of the supermarket.

The straight alignment of [address] allows for long reaching views toward [name] (referred to as the [name] of [name] and Cloisters and [address] and Libraries in the official listing). The Cathedral originates from 1072 and was rebuilt in the twelfth century following a fire, with numerous later alterations. Its historical use as a religious site from the eleventh century, surviving medieval fabric, its landmark towers, and its external Gothic architectural character all contribute to its special historical and architectural interest and significance.

In so far as it relates to these appeals, the Cathedral is an imposing building and due to its elevated location within the city is highly visible from the surrounding area, including roads leading into the city. Such views, although much altered, are part of the experience of understanding and appreciating the significance of the Cathedral as a building of considerable social and cultural importance. Therefore, the views, including those from this part of [address], form part of the setting of this building and make a positive contribution to its significance.

At the seating area views of the Cathedral can be experienced. Due to the form, appearance and use of the other buildings in the immediate street scene, in my view, the views of the Cathedral make a significant contribution to the enjoyment of the seating area despite the distance.

The proposed [name] would be positioned on a part of the footway where it would be seen in the foreground, in combination with the Cathedral, for those resting at the seating area. Due to the vibrancy of the digital images and the frequency of new advertisements appearing, the proposals would be an eye-catching feature in this view. Here, the modern vibrant nature of the [name], combined with its height, width and positioning would intrude significantly into views of the Cathedral. The extent of harm would be localised to this seating area, and to a lesser extent part of the footway and [address] to the south of the 1 Regulation 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 Appeal Decisions 6004754, 6004757 appeal site, where it would also intrude into the views and experience of the Cathedral. Nonetheless, there would still be harm.

Within the view from the seating area and part of the footway to the south of the appeal site, the [name] position, and appearance with its vibrant digital advertisements, would also jar injuriously with its immediate setting in relation to the adjacent residential flats, and the modest but verdant qualities of the trees and associated landscaping at the supermarket car park.

I recognise that the level of illumination proposed could be controlled by way of a condition. As could controls on aspects such as the content, rotation and moving images. However, and although not determinative, the illumination at night would accentuate the harm from its position and immediate setting in relation to the residential flats and landscaping.

Whilst there are advertisements nearby, they are generally closely linked to the businesses and buildings they serve and not, in this regard, as isolated as the proposals before me would appear. Moreover, whilst there are other elements along the footway such as cabinets, lamp posts, traffic signals and signs the appeal scheme would not, due to its positioning, form and appearance assimilate well with these other elements.

I therefore find that the proposals in both appeals would have a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area, having regard to the setting of [name]. Accordingly, the proposed development (Appeal A) would not preserve the setting of [name] and thus its significance. As a result, the expectations of the Act have not been met.

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.

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. Due to the distance to the Cathedral, its broad setting and the size of the [name] relative to this setting, the harm to the significance of the Cathedral, would be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lowest end of the spectrum. Nonetheless, this harm carries great weight that should be considered against the public benefits of the proposed development.

There would be a range of social, economic and potential environmental benefits from the accessible [name]. This would include accessible free phone calls, Wi-Fi, public and emergency services, maps and wayfinding, device charging facilities, public messaging and business advertising and the capacity to provide environmental monitoring.

The appellant also intends to remove a payphone adjacent to [address] in [name]. The cumulative public benefits from the functions provided by a wide network of [name] replacing underused payphones would be Appeal Decisions 6004754, 6004757 significant. However, individually, the proposals would have more local benefits, moderating the weight I give to them. Moreover, given that the site selected is a vacant part of the footway, I am not persuaded that similar public benefits could not be achieved by a scheme or site, which would be less harmful to the significance of the designated heritage asset. In these respects, clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the setting of the Cathedral.

Overall, the weight that I ascribe to the public benefits that would accrue from the proposals, is not sufficient to outweigh the great weight that I attach to the harm I have found. As such, the proposals, in relation to Appeal A, would 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].

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 proposed advertisements do not outweigh my findings of harm to the amenity of the area in relation to Appeal B. Likewise the policies of the CLLP or the Framework have not, in themselves, been decisive in my determination of Appeal B.

The St. Catherines Conservation Area lies to the north of the appeal site along [address] and to the east along the A607. However, due to the distance, topography, intervening buildings and scale of the proposals I am satisfied that there would be no impact on the setting of this CA.

My attention has been drawn to other appeals involving [name]. However, I do not have the full details of these schemes and so can not be certain that the circumstances are the same. Moreover, each scheme is assessed on its own merits, and my concerns relate to the specific location of the appeal site and the relationship of the scheme to the Cathedral from this area.

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.