Appeal 6004758

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.

As the site is within the setting of several listed buildings and is located in a Conservation Area (CA), I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and s72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) in respect of Appeal A.

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 nearby heritage assets is also relevant to the consideration of ‘amenity’. Moreover, the statutory duty in s72(1) of the Act applies in relation to Appeal B in so far as it relates to the consideration of 1 Regulation 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 ‘amenity’. However, the statutory duty in s66(1) of the Act requiring decision makers to have special regard to preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest does not apply in relation to Appeal B as it only applies to whether to grant planning permission.

The main issues in both appeals are the effects of the proposals on the visual amenity of the area, having regard to the effects on the character or appearance of the Cathedral and City Centre CA and the setting of the Stonebow and Guildhall ([name] listed and Scheduled Ancient Monument), the Church of St. Swithin ([name]* listed) and the [name] ([name] listed).

The appeal site includes an existing payphone located centrally within the city on a pedestrianised part of the street dominated by commercial premises on the ground floor. Other street furniture is located nearby including seating, a refuse bin and lamp posts.

To the west of the appeal site, where Saltergate and [address] meet, lies the Stonebow and Guildhall, and the attached [name]. Its historical use as a medieval gateway to the city from the 15th century, its external architectural character, including from its central arch with single round buttresses either side that contain figures set within ornate niches, all contribute to its special historical and architectural interest and significance. The attached [name] dates from the 19th century but its gothic revival style harmonises well with the Stonebow and Guildhall resulting in an impressive set piece.

The location and prominent position of the Stonebow and Guildhall and the attached [name] at the head of [address] where it meets Saltergate and [address] are important elements in contributing to the understanding and appreciation of the historic use and importance of the buildings and thus form an important part of their setting. In this regard, the current pedestrianised areas of the streets, including around the appeal site make a positive contribution to the significance of these heritage assets.

The Church of St. Swithin is located to the east of Saltergate, in a trafficked part of the city and toward the edge of the CA. Its historical and cultural use as a religious site from the 19th century, designed by a locally renowned architect, its tower with four spire-topped pinnacles surrounding the main spire, and its external ecclesiastical architectural character, all contribute to its special historical and architectural interest and significance.

Despite its location in a heavily built-up environment, large maturing trees and a grassed area provide a pleasing soft buffer around the Church. This, along with the roads results in an open setting enabling the Church to be experienced at close quarters from numerous angles. Its presence in the CA recedes with distance as high density buildings impede views. This is the case along Saltergate where much of the Church is obscured. Near the appeal site this is limited to the spire as it rises above the trees and buildings providing a glimpse of the building and its historical and cultural importance. In this regard, the current pedestrianised area of Saltergate around the appeal site makes a very small but positive contribution to the significance of this heritage asset and how it is experienced.

The CA covers a broad area of the city centre. Its character and appearance, in so far as it relates to these appeals, are influenced by key routes such as the nearby [address], and a mix of well-preserved high density, predominantly three storey development. The high quality and historical importance of individual medieval buildings such as the nearby Stonebow and Guildhall and the Church of St. Swithin are important features seen from within the pedestrianised areas making an important contribution to the character and appearance of this part of the CA.

In so far as it relates to these appeals, the significance of this part of the CA is derived from the high quality of buildings, including the special interest and significance of listed buildings and the quality of the pedestrianised open spaces that connect them. These, and the absence of vehicular traffic, results in an attractive environment that contributes positively, albeit to a small degree, to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole, and thereby to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

The existing payphone along Saltergate has a utilitarian but somewhat muted, understated appearance having neither a positive, nor a negative, contribution to this part of the CA or the setting of the Stonebow and Guildhall, the [name], or the Church of St. Swithin.

The existing payphone in Saltergate would be replaced by the proposed [name] and so there would not be an increase in street clutter in this part of the CA. However, due to its orientation, its vibrant advertisement displays on both sides with rotating images, and the alignment of Saltergate, the proposals would introduce an overtly modern feature that would be highly prominent in the context of the historic environment within the CA. This includes views to and from the Stonebow and Guildhall, the [name] and views looking eastward toward the spire of the Church of St. Swithin. In this context the proposals would appear visually assertive, distracting and incongruous.

Such harm would be reduced but not overcome by controls on the displays, such as the levels of illumination and by its alignment with other street furniture and position in front of a building, which due to its age and architectural detailing contributes little, if anything, to the significance of the CA.

I therefore find that the proposals would have a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area, having regard to the effects on the character or appearance of the CA and the setting of the Stonebow and Guildhall, the Church of St. Swithin and the [name]. As a result, the proposals would harm the significance of these designated heritage assets, and the expectations of the Act have not been met in so far as it is relevant to these appeals.

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. Although, for the purposes of undertaking the heritage balance, the Framework does not require the decision maker to place the harm on a spectrum, I acknowledge that within each category of harm, the extent of the harm may vary.

In this instance, due to the size of the proposals relative to the CA as a whole and due to the angled views of the scheme to and from the Stonebow and Guildhall, the [name] and the Church of St. Swithin, the harm to the significance of the respective heritage assets, individually and collectively, 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.

The proposals would result in two payphones being removed within the CA reducing clutter in the streets. There would also be benefits from the functions of the accessible [name] including free WIFI and calls, access to public services, local wayfinding, device charging, emergency messaging, public and business advertising and the capacity to monitor certain environmental conditions. Individually, despite the potentially significant cumulative benefits of the wider network, the proposals would have localised benefits that I give 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.

To conclude on this matter 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, as the power to control advertisements under the Regulations may be exercised only in the interests of public safety and amenity these policies have not been decisive in my determination. For the same reasons, the public benefits emanating from the proposed advertisement screens do not outweigh my findings of harm to the amenity of the area in this main issue.

The appellant has referred me to two appeal decisions for similar proposals. However, I do not have the full details of these other schemes before me. Nonetheless, they are in different cities, and the circumstances of the appeal site, including the relationship to the respective heritage assets are not so easily repeated. In this regard, whilst noting the findings in those respective appeals, I have considered the scheme before me on its own merits having regard to the specific site circumstances and surrounding context and evidence before me.

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.