Appeal 6005608

Appeal A and Appeal B are dismissed.

There are two appeals before me relating to the same site. Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission, while Appeal B relates to the refusal of advertisement consent. As both appeals have been submitted by the same operator, are intrinsically linked, and raise similar planning considerations, I have addressed them together within a single decision to avoid unnecessary duplication. However, I have considered each proposal on its own individual merits.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (The Regulations) sets out that powers shall be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors. Whilst the development plan policies cited by the Council are not determinative to Appeal B, I have had regard to these policies in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to the matters before me.

An adequate width of footway would be retained thereby ensuring that pedestrian movement would not be impeded. While the advertisement includes illuminated, moving images, the siting of the [address] Hub would not obstruct the visibility of road users or present a distraction. The Council raised no objections on public safety grounds and based on my own site observations I see no reason to reach a different conclusion. I have therefore framed the main issues accordingly.

In respect of Appeal B, I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice, as it more accurately reflects the proposal, which relates solely to the display of advertisements.

In an appeal for advertisement consent in a conservation area, the test from s72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) is that “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of “preserving or enhancing the character or appearance” of a Conservation Area”. This statutory duty applies in advertisement appeals in so far as it relates to the consideration of amenity.

As far as the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is concerned, when determining advertisement consent appeals affecting a conservation area, the question of less than substantial or substantial harm is not relevant, as the policy only applies to the heritage related consent regimes under the Act. While it is not necessary to undertake the weighing of public benefits against any heritage harm in relation to Appeal B, I have considered the positive attributes of the proposal and have taken these into account in reaching my decision.

The main issue in Appeal A is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area.

The main issue In Appeal B is the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity, with particular regard to the character and appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises an area of pavement adjacent to [address] and is located within the [site address] Conservation Area (BHCA). The significance of the BHCA is derived, in part, from the extent of the historic town centre and the survival of its varied buildings and spaces, which collectively illustrate the importance of [site address] within the Borough as one of its earliest industrial townships. In the context of these appeals, the significance of the BHCA is considered to relate primarily to the key position of [address], which remains integral to an understanding of the town’s evolution from a small settlement into an important commercial and industrial centre.

[address] is a linear, tree-lined, pedestrianised route located within the core of [site address] , functioning as one of the principal thoroughfares through the area. It has recently benefited from public realm improvements and is characterised by a mix of both traditional and more contemporary buildings, which accommodate a variety of commercial uses at street level. That said, this section of [address] exhibits a noticeably less urban character than its northern part, including the area around and beyond the shopping centre, which appeared to form the primary focus of commercial activity.

Existing street furniture includes several bus shelters, public seating, street lighting, litter bins and planters which are well-spaced along the street such that the pavement is open and free of clutter. The section of pavement on which the appeal proposal would be located is relatively wide and accommodates several items of street furniture, including lighting columns, a litter bin, a bus shelter and traffic light controls all concentrated in a relatively small area. These features are modest in scale and integrate well within the streetscape. The well-ordered and uncluttered appearance of the [address] together with the mix of surviving traditional buildings makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of the BHCA.

The proposed [address] Hub would reach a height of 2.98 metres above ground level, with its dimensions determined by functional 5G requirements. Whilst it would have a simplistic appearance, muted finish, and slender form, it would compete visually with the adjacent bus shelter and shopfronts, which although less traditional in appearance are of a relatively modest scale. Consequently, in this context, its overall scale would appear as an overly dominant and incongruous addition to the area.

Moreover, it would introduce an additional element of street furniture in an area that already contains a concentration of established items. This would result in an unacceptable level of visual clutter. Its prominence would be further exacerbated by the linear nature of [address] which would afford more open, long distant views when approaching from either direction, including within those views identified on the [name] as being important. Given that the former telephone kiosk has already been removed from the site, it no longer contributes to the existing streetscape, and thus the proposed [address] Hub would be perceived as an entirely new addition rather than a replacement.

Although both illuminated and non-illuminated fascia and projecting signage are established features of the area, the overall approach to signage along this section of the street remains relatively restrained and well-ordered. Advertisements are generally confined to building façades and do not dominate the street scene. In contrast, the proposed advertisements in Appeal B would be positioned on either side of the hub, forming substantial additions at a prominent ground-level location. Their visual presence would be further reinforced by the inclusion of illuminated displays. Consequently, and notwithstanding the potential to control illumination levels, the proposed advertisement screens would appear incongruous, resulting in a dominant and visually intrusive form of development that would contribute to clutter and harm visual amenity. While structures and advertisement displays of this scale and appearance may be common within busy town centre environments, there are no comparable features in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site.

The digital advertisement at the junction of [address] and Moor Street, although larger in scale than the appeal proposals, is positioned on the side elevation of a building rather than as a freestanding structure and, in the context of that building and its surroundings, does not appear unduly dominant. Similarly, the digital screen at the northern end of [address] is integrated within existing street furniture and thus does not add to visual clutter or compete with the multi-story building against which it is seen. These examples are therefore materially different to the proposal before me.

Accordingly, in relation to Appeal A, I find that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would also fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the BHCA. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies S6, S8 and S9 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy 2017 (DBDS), Policies ENV2, ENV3 and CPS4 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011 (BCCS) and Policy 59 of the [site address] Area Action Plan 2011 (BHAAP). Collectively, and amongst other aspects, these policies seek to secure high quality design which is responsive to the character/and or the visual amenities of the area, reinforces local distinctiveness and safeguards and enhances designated Conservation Areas. Given the limited scale of the development and localised effects, the harm to the identified heritage asset would be on the lower end of less than substantial but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight.

Turning to Appeal B, for the reasons given, I find that the digital advertisement displays would adversely affect amenity with particular regard to the character and appearance of the BHCA. In accordance with the Regulations, I have taken into account the provisions of the development plan, insofar as they are relevant. [name] have concluded that the advertisements would harm the amenity of the area, the scheme does not meet with the aims of Policies S9 and D12 of the DBDS together with Policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the BCCS which collectively seek to ensure that advertisements, by reasons of scale and design fit with their surroundings and avoid cluttering of the street scene.

[name] have considered the appeal decisions relating to [address] Hubs advanced by the appellant, I have not been provided with the full details of each of the cases or the evidence on which they were determined. In any event, the effect of development on the character and appearance of the area is inherently site-specific, and it has not been demonstrated that the circumstances of these cases are directly comparable to the scheme before me. Accordingly, these decisions do not alter my conclusion.

Whilst acknowledging the appellant’s ongoing efforts to reduce street clutter within the wider Borough, given that the second telephone kiosk identified for removal as part of the proposal is not located within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, its removal would not be a determinative factor in the assessment of this appeal.

The proposal set out within Appeal A would fail to preserve the significance of the BHCA. Given the limited scale of the development and localised effects, I find the harm to be at the lower end of less than substantial in this instance. Nevertheless, this attracts great weight.

The proposals would provide a wide range of public benefits including ultra-fast wi-fi access, free charging for mobile devices, wayfinding, emergency 999 call button and public messaging capabilities. It would also provide a means to capture environmental data and measure air quality. In addition, it would provide a platform to promote local community and municipal services such as foodbanks and health and social care. I also recognise that the Framework provides that, amongst other things, advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being, and that planning decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks. [name] acknowledge the listed benefits, I have little evidence to demonstrate unmet local need for any of the services that would be supplied, or to show that similar facilities could not be provided without the proposed development. Further, due to the scale of the scheme, these benefits would be small. Accordingly, these factors do not represent clear and convincing justification for the harm to the asset involved and are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified.

Given the above, the proposal set out in Appeal A would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the BHCA. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 210 of the Framework and conflict with Policies S6, S8 and S9 of the DBDS, Policies ENV2, ENV3 and CPS4 of the BCCS and Policy 59 of the BHAAP. These policies, amongst other things, seek to secure high quality design which is responsive to the character of the area, reinforces local distinctiveness and safeguards and enhances designated heritage assets. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

Accordingly, for the above reasons, Appeal A and Appeal B are dismissed.