Appeal 6005155

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

There are two appeals on this site, one against the refusal of planning permission and the other against the refusal of advertisement consent. They are intrinsically linked and raise similar issues. To avoid repetition, while considering each on its merits, I have dealt with both in a single decision letter.

In respect of Appeal B, powers under the Regulations to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety.

The main issue in respect of Appeal A is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

In relation to Appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on visual amenity.

The appeal site comprises part of the footway close to the carriageway on [address], currently occupied by a traditional BT phone box. This part of the street has office premises on the back edge of the pavement rather than the more commercial frontages on the other side of the road. There is some other street furniture in the vicinity, including a bus shelter, lampposts, postbox and bollards which are typical in a town centre location.

The proposed street hub would provide electronic communications services with digital LCD advertising screens on each side, the revenue from which would make it commercially viable. It would enable the delivery of the appellant’s [name]. As the proposed structure would replace the existing phone box, it would not increase the amount of street furniture.

The phone booth has some graffiti and remnants of posters stuck on its sides but nonetheless has a predominantly glazed appearance. The proposed development would have a slender, modern design, but would be significantly taller, wider and appear sturdier than the existing modest phone box. Due to its overall size, solid appearance and prominent location adjacent to a busy road, the proposed street hub would appear dominant and discordant in the street scene.

As is common in town centres, there are illuminated fascia signs and a mounted advertisement in the locality. There is also a large freestanding pylon sign at the vehicle entrance to the nearby Lidl store, but this relates to the adjacent premises and is set behind the pavement.

The proposed advertisement screens would display content at 10 second intervals, with the illumination in accordance with the [name] 2015. In contrast to other advertisements in the area, they would be close to the road in front of an office building without fascia signs. In this context, freestanding illuminated advertisements would appear intrusive in the street scene, particularly at night. There is no substantive evidence that this additional illumination would improve public safety in a town centre location with street lighting.

The size, position and illuminated nature of the proposed scheme would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where it seeks high quality places and recognises that the character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited.

National policies and codes of practice recognise the social and economic benefits of digital connectivity, support high quality telecommunications infrastructure and seek to create inclusive and accessible places. The proposed street hub would provide several benefits to the local community, including free ultrafast public wi-fi, improved 4G and 5G coverage, emergency communication facilities, device charging points, free phone calls, public messaging capability, environmental sensors, and free use for advertising by the Council. It would be powered by renewable energy and regularly cleaned and monitored. However, these benefits would not outweigh the harm caused to character, appearance and visual amenity.

There is reference to appeal decisions in other areas where the Inspectors found that similar proposals would not cause unacceptable clutter or harm to visual amenity. Nevertheless, these decisions are from different locations and there is no clear evidence that they are directly comparable to the proposal before me.

Consequently, in terms of Appeal A, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy CS5 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2007 (CS) and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Council’s Development Management Policies Document 2015 (DMPD). Together, these seek development of a high-quality design that reinforces local distinctiveness and is compatible with local character, amongst other things.

In relation to Appeal B, I conclude that the proposed advertisements would harm visual amenity. I have had regard to policies in the CS and DMPD so far as they are material. In this respect, the proposal would conflict with Policy CS5 of the CS and Policies DM9, DM10 and DM15 of the DMPD, the latter of which requires the design and siting of advertisements to cause no demonstrable harm to surrounding townscape character.

As the proposal does not involve a shopfront to which Policy DM14 of the DMPD relates, I find no specific conflict with Policy DM14 in reaching my conclusions.

The appellant has provided a certificate declaring that the proposal would conform with the International Commission on [name] public exposure guidelines. In these circumstances, the Framework advises that health safeguards are not something which a decision maker should determine and, as such, it does not weigh in favour of the proposed scheme.

The Council did not find harm in relation to highway or public safety. From the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that both Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.