Appeal 6005581

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission to erect a [address] [name] (Hub). Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent to display advertisements on the Hub. I have considered each on its individual merits, however, as they raise similar issues I have combined both decisions into a single decision letter.

Amended plans have been submitted by the appellant at appeal stage for both Appeal A and Appeal B. The amendment includes relocating the Hub and advertisements further away from the edge of the highway. The appeal process is not intended to be an opportunity to evolve a scheme, and I am mindful of the Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England: For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 (the Procedural Guide). Though this amendment would not require changes to the description and would be located within the red line application site. This change would cause procedural unfairness resulting in prejudice to interested parties by depriving those who should have been consulted on the change the opportunity to comment. As such I do not accept the amended plans submitted as part of either appeal, and therefore I have determined the appeals on the basis of the plans submitted at the application stage of both appeals.

With respect to Appeal B, Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) specify that decisions must be based solely on considerations of amenity and public safety. Therefore, while I have taken the development plan policies referred to by the Council into account, they have not been determinative in respect of Appeal B.

The main issues in relation to Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the street scene, including the Stafford Town Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of the [name] listed Chetwyn Centre1 and its individually listed features the [name] listed war memorial2 and the [name] listed gateways3; and, • highway safety.

The main issues in relation to Appeal B are the effect of the proposed advertisement on: • amenity; and, • public safety.

The proposals’ are located within the pavement of [address], which is situated within the CA towards the periphery of Stafford’s town centre. The appellant has contested the location of the appeal site being within the CA, however the revised CA boundary dated 8th December 2011 within the Stafford Conservation Area Character Appraisal 2011 (the [name]) shows the amended boundary running between the highway edge and the pavement. I have not been provided with any substantive evidence to indicate otherwise, therefore I find the site is located within the CA.

The Character Appraisal indicates the CA’s significance derives from its urban market town character and range of listed buildings within it, comprising of tightly packed terraced buildings of two or three storeys dating from the 17th century, as well as churches, civic buildings and a range of public houses. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The appeal site sits in close proximity to the [name], noted as a focal point of the CA within the [name]. Originally built as a grammar 1 [name]: The Chetwynd Centre Formerly King [name] 2 [name]: [name] at the [name] 3 [name]: Gateways at the [name] school, with elements of the building dating back to the 1860’s, the building features a range of ornate architectural features. Structures within the grounds of the site are also individually listed, these include the [name] listed gateways with brick pillars and ornate wrought iron gates, as well as the [name] listed war memorial, which is capped with an obelisk with the former school crest on. The significance of the heritage assets derives from their architectural, archaeological and historic value.

The Hub is proposed to be situated within the pavement of [address]. When travelling towards the site along [address] from the junction with [address], the Hub would sit in the foreground of the octagonal assembly hall of the [name] and one of the listed gateways. As such the Hub and advertisements would be located in a prominent position both in terms of views appreciating the [name], and also from an array of vistas within the public realm both within and looking into the CA.

In support of the appeal the appellant has stated that the proposed development includes the removal of a telephone kiosk opposite [address] and has referenced a range of appeals in conservations areas that include the replacement of existing kiosks4. However, I have not been provided with the full details of these to know how directly comparable they are to the current proposal. I also note the kiosk proposed to be removed is not within the appeal site and is a considerable distance from it, and the kiosk does not have illuminated advertisements on. [name] am not satisfied this would mitigate the harm arising from the appeal proposals’, and I am also not satisfied the proposed condition to secure its removal would meet the six tests outlined within paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). This in turn limits the relevance of the highlighted appeals. In any event I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

With regard to Appeal A, as set out in Section 66(1) of the Act, I must have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. The proposal would be located in the foreground of the [name] and one of the individually listed gateways. Due to its size and positioning it would adversely impact how the [name] and gateway are appreciated, resulting in harm to their setting. It follows the proposal would in turn harm the way the CA is experienced considering the listed buildings form part of its wider significance, and the [name] is a focal point within the CA. The Hub is located some distance from the war memorial, with limited intervisibility between the two, consequently I do not find harm in relation to this aspect.

Regarding the Framework’s wording, the proposal would have less than substantial harm and would be at the lower end of that category of harm. In accordance with Paragraph 215 of the Framework, when less than substantial harm is found to the significance of a designated heritage asset it must be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme. 4 APP/J2373/H/22/3304942 & APP/J2373/H/22/3304943, APP/K5030/H/18/3211267, APP/K5030/W/22/3301224 & APP/K5030/W/22/3301225, APP/L5240/W/21/3285398 & APP/L5240/W/21/3285399, APP/C3105/W/25/3366449 & APP/C3105/W/25/3366450, APP/P4605/W/18/3202341 & APP/P4605/H/18/3201305, APP/L5240/W/21/3287208 & APP/L5240/H/21/3287209.

Appeal A would result in a number of public benefits including the upgrading of communications infrastructure through increased Wi-Fi connectivity, the ability to call 999 from the Hub, and to charge devices, as well as the Hub being powered by renewable energy. The area is sufficiently lit however such that I would not consider the overspill lighting to represent a benefit. The proposal would comprise economic, social and environmental benefits, however due to the limited scale of one Hub these benefits would be relatively modest, and there is no indication that they could not be achieved in a less harmful manner than proposed.

I note there are a number of other benefits raised by the appellant, how these relate to the displaying of the advertisement rather than the development of the Hub, as such these do not form part of the consideration for Appeal A.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be attributed to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Consequently, the benefits of Appeal A would not outweigh the harm and therefore the proposal conflicts with the Framework.

I conclude in relation to Appeal A, the character and appearance of the street scene, the CA and the setting of the [name] and its listed gateway would be harmfully reduced by the proposal. Accordingly, the CA’s character or appearance would be neither preserved or enhanced in conflict with Section 72(1) of the Act. It follows as the setting of the listed buildings would not be preserved there would also be conflict with Section 66(1) of the Act. The proposal would also conflict with Policy N1 and Policy N9 both of The Plan for Stafford Borough 2014 (the LP), which seeks among other things to protect the historic environment.

In relation to Appeal B, PPG and the Regulations state amenity includes the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest.

The advertisement would be located in the middle of the pedestrian footway isolated from other built form and street furniture other than road signs, and is identified within an area of historic, architectural and cultural interest. Paragraph 141 of the Framework outlines that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed. [name] appreciate the appellant’s comments that the Hub has been installed in many locations and has won awards for its design, nevertheless that does not mean it is acceptable in all locations. Due to the positioning of the proposed advertisement, it would appear incongruous, resulting in harm to the visual amenity of the area.

I acknowledge the advertisements in the locality highlighted by the appellant however I have not been provided with the full details of these. As such I do not know whether they would be directly comparable to the appeal before me now. In any event I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

With regard to Appeal B, I conclude the proposed advertisement would have an unacceptable harmful effect on amenity. Though not determinative, I have taken account of Policy N1 and Policy N9 of the LP, which seeks to ensure proposals do not cause harm to visual amenity, as such the proposed advertisement would conflict with these policies.

The proposal would be prominently visible when exiting [address] looking along [address] towards the junction with [address]. The images displayed on the advertisement would change every 10 seconds. It was apparent from my site visit that the junction is relatively busy. Although this was just a snapshot in time, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest it is different at any particular time.

The local highways authority has objected to both proposals’ on the basis of the Hub and advertisement being located within the visibility splay of vehicles when exiting [address] onto [address], and also that the advertisement would be a distraction to drivers.

Though there is signage on the ground floor retail units on [address], the proposals’ would stand in isolation within the pavement in the immediate view of highway users when exiting [address] onto [address]. As such due its positioning, I find with respect to Appeal B the advertisement would likely result in a distraction for users of the highway and would lead to the potential for increased conflict between road users to the detriment of highway safety. In respect of Appeal A and Appeal B the positioning of the Hub and advertisements would also partially obscure visibility in the direction outlined above and would therefore result in harm to highway safety.

I am not satisfied the standard and proposed conditions by the appellant in relation to highway safety, would mitigate the harm identified due to the proposal’s relationship with its surroundings.

In relation to Appeal A, I conclude that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to highway safety and would therefore conflict with Policy T2 of the LP, which states that all development must not materially impair highway safety or traffic movement.

In relation to Appeal B, I conclude the proposed advertisement would cause unacceptable harm to public safety. Though not determinative, I have taken into account Policy T2 of the LP, of which those aims highlighted above the proposal would be in conflict with.

The appellant has highlighted the potential for advertising for local businesses, free services to the council, including the ability to obtain data from the Hub. However, I have not been provided the details of how these would be secured as benefits of the proposals’, and I am also not persuaded they would meet the six tests as required by paragraph 57 of the Framework and advice contained in the PPG to be conditioned. The matter the Hub would be inspected and cleaned regularly is a minimum expectation and would not represent a benefit.

The appellant has also raised their requirement to meet their [name] (USO) to deliver a public service to provide and maintain publicly accessible call boxes. This does not however override the requirement for proposals to be appropriate for their location, and it has not been demonstrated that the same benefits from the proposal could not be provided in a manner less harmful than proposed. Planning Balance and Conclusion

With regard to Appeal A, the proposed development would contribute towards improving communications infrastructure through the provision of improved Wi-Fi connectivity, a principle of the Framework and the Code of [name] on Mobile Network Development in England 2022. It would also provide economic, social and environmental benefits including the provision of emergency messaging, and the ability to call 999 from the Hub. However, these factors would not be sufficient to outweigh the conflict with the development plan.

The proposal for Appeal A would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and no material considerations raised, including the Framework, indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. As such Appeal A should be dismissed.

With regard to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would cause unacceptable harm to public safety and amenity. I am required to consider advertisements only in the interests of amenity and public safety as defined in the Regulations. Consequently, the potential benefits outlined do not provide justification for allowing a proposal which would be harmful to amenity and public safety for the reasons set out above. Accordingly, Appeal B should be dismissed.