Appeal 6005134

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

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 Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (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. Appeal Decisions 6005134 and 6005135

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 part of the pavement adjacent to [address], close to the junction with [address]. There is presently a public telephone and cash point, housed in a traditional style telephone kiosk at the appeal site.

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. These reflect the growth of the city, with many of the buildings and spaces playing an important civic role.

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.

The Council contends that the existing phone box at the appeal site does not benefit from express consent. Nevertheless, it was present at the time of my site visit, and based on the evidence before me, has been in situ for a considerable period of time. Although the existing phone box is of a traditional form, it has been adapted to accommodate a cash point, has been painted bright pink and has suffered from vandalism and graffiti. As such the existing phone box does not contribute positively to the character and appearance of the CA.

Compared to the existing phone box, the proposed street hub would be significantly taller and wider and as such would appear as a more monolithic element within the street scene.

Although the ground floor units within the adjacent building have modern shop fronts and large adverts, the hub would nevertheless contrast unacceptably with the fine grain and traditional character of the nearby buildings in [address].

Although there are some road signs and streetlamps in the vicinity, there are not significant amounts of street furniture in the area and as such the hub would appear incongruous, especially as it would be on a relatively wide section of pavement where it would be excessively prominent and visible from many surrounding vantage points.

From vantage points to the northwest the structure would be seen in the context of the overtly modern [name] building which incorporates highly reflective materials and glazed elements on the ground floor. However, this is located outside of the conservation area and is very different from the immediate context of the appeal site which is characterised by more traditional buildings.

Overall, the proposed hub would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. Appeal Decisions 6005134 and 6005135

From some vantage points to the southeast of the structure, it would be in the foreground of views towards the [name]* building, referred to by the Council as the Council House1 (LB). Under Section 66(1) of the Act, I have a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the LB or its setting.

The LB dates from the 1870’s with later additions. It is an imposing three storey building which derives its significance from its historic function as an important civil building within the city along with its architecture. Features of note include the central three storey projection with port-cochere, balcony, Corinthian columns and decorative panels, its domed roof and clock tower, known as [name].

To the front of the LB is a large area of public open space. This is in an elevated position in respect of the appeal site and limits views towards it from immediately outside the front of the building, although there would be some intervisibility from some windows within the building. The southwest corner of the LB and its clock tower are visible from [address]. The manner that the prominent features of the LB interact with the surrounding public space, streets and vistas point to its civic importance, and thus are aspects of its setting that contribute to its significance.

[address] and Environs Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Supplementary Planning Policies (Adopted 2006) document identifies the vista from [address] ‘where the view uphill from the conservation area boundary is closed by the [address] and [name]. Whilst significant development has taken place nearby since the adoption of this appraisal, this accords with my experience of the setting of the LB and the character of the CA.

As a result of it significant size and scale the hub would be an eye-catching feature in the foreground of this identified vista. It would detract from the dominance of the LB at the terminus of this view and would distract the viewer experiencing it from the area surrounding the appeal site.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm aspects of the setting of the [name]* LB that contribute to its significance.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of the level of harm. In this instance the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the CA and the LB which I adjudge would be of a moderate degree of magnitude.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that in such circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I recognise that the proposal would bring about benefits in respect of the provision of wi-fi connectivity, device charging, internet access and improved 4G and 5G coverage. The hub would also facilitate access to the emergency services and other functions such as housing sensors and displaying community information, utilising carbon-free technology.

The Framework seeks to facilitate the provision of digital infrastructure in suitable locations. Policy TP46 of the Birmingham Development Plan ([name]

(BDP) also recognises that the access to digital services is critical to 1 [name]: [address], City Museum and [name] and [address] Extension. [name]: 1210333. Appeal Decisions 6005134 and 6005135 Birmingham’s economic, environmental and social development. I therefore recognise that the proposal would help to achieve some of the aims of these policies. However, I am not convinced that these benefits could not be achieved in a way which would be less harmful to heritage assets. Overall, I give moderate weight to these benefits. The proposal would also result in the removal of the existing phone box, however given that the replacement would be more visually harmful I attach no weight to this as a benefit of the scheme, or to its retention as a fallback position.

Given the great weight that I must give to the conservation of heritage assets I do not consider that the public benefits of the development outweigh the less than substantial harm that would arise to the CA and the LB.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, and result in harm to designated heritage assets. It would therefore conflict with Policies PG3, GA1, TP12 and TP39 of the 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 – Visual amenity.

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 appeal site is in an area of transition between the busy, highly commercial area around [name] and the more genteel, civic character of the area around and approaching the [address]. Illuminated advertisements are not a common feature in the immediate context of the appeal site and would appear incongruous and jarring in this context.

The advertisements would introduce a distracting and eye-catching feature to the foreground of an important identified view within the CA, towards the [name]* listed [address]. This would harm the significance of the LB and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Consequently, the proposed advertisements would result in harm to the visual amenity of the area.

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. Appeal Decisions 6005134 and 6005135

The appellant has made reference to and provided copies of numerous appeal decisions for similar proposals. These highlight the importance of a consideration of the context in which the proposed development would be situated. Given that this will differ significantly from place to place it is not possible to infer that there are parallels with these appeal schemes that indicate that I should allow the appeals before me. I am also aware that other street hubs exist elsewhere in Birmingham city centre, however this should not be taken to mean that they will be permitted anywhere, given that each case needs to be considered on its own merits.

With regard to Appeal A, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

With regard to Appeal B, I conclude that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of the area.

Accordingly, both Appeal A and Appeal B are dismissed.