Appeal 6006302

[name] and B are 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.

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 issue in relation to Appeal A is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the Town Centre Conservation Area (CA).

The main issue in relation to Appeal B is the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity. Appeal Decisions 6006302 and 6006304

The appeal site comprises of a footpath on the eastern side of [address], in a prominent position close to its junction with [address] within the commercial and retail heart of Luton Town Centre. It is located adjacent to [address], a large open civic space, surrounded on three sides by primarily large modern buildings and close to, but outside of the boundary of, the CA which runs along the edge of the older more traditional two and three storey commercial buildings fronting onto the west side of [address]. This provides a varied commercial and retail character to the area.

The public realm in the vicinity of the appeal site is defined by the broad, open nature of the footpath and [address]. Although there is an array of existing street furniture, it is generally more discreet and unobtrusive, in the form of utility cabinets, waste bins, bollards and lampposts. This enables a good degree of openness within the footpath and within the uncluttered pedestrian areas in the square running between the larger surrounding buildings. Although there are no examples of similar free-standing structures within the footpath, the appellant has confirmed 2 no. existing BT kiosks will be removed, and as such would remove an element of clutter. However, they are positioned more discreetly away from the proposed Hub and the open areas of the footway, within a line of existing street trees and furniture, and as such their removal would limit the benefits on the open and uncluttered street scene.

The new Hub would be in an open and prominent position and would be highly visible in both directions for pedestrians and for vehicles when approaching the site from the north-west in medium to longer views along [address] and [address]. While it would align with the existing street furniture and trees positioned away from the proposed Hub, due to its height, width and overall solidity it would be the most prominent feature within its immediate setting. Due to its overall size and visibility, it would contrast unfavourably with the more discreet forms of furniture that are characteristic of the footpath. As such, despite the commercial town centre location, it would have an undue presence in its setting, appearing as an incongruous and uncharacteristic feature.

The predominant form of advertisement is fascia signs to the shops and other commercial premises. There are some forms of taller traffic signage nearby, but these are non-illuminated and static. While this is a town centre location with predominantly commercial and retail uses, the immediate and wider area have very few examples of the type of advertisement proposed, reflecting the open character of the footpath and public space in [address]. Therefore, the advertisement integrated with the Hub would be an uncharacteristic and prominent feature that would detract from the open character and appearance of the footpath. The fact that the illumination levels would be limited at night and the frequency of image changes could be controlled by planning conditions would not be sufficient measures to overcome the harm I have found to the visual amenity of the area.

Given the location of the appeal site adjacent to the CA, which contains the [name] listed Luton Town Hall to the south-west, special attention must be paid to considering the impact of the development on the significance of the designated heritage assets and to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or Appeal Decisions 6006302 and 6006304 appearance of the CA and the setting of the listed building. The historic and architectural significance of the CA with its older more traditional 19th Century two and three storey buildings running along the opposite side of [address] can be readily appreciated within the immediate vicinity of the site.

I consider that the proposed Hub and advertisement, by virtue of their siting and design, would have a negative material impact on how the CA is viewed and appreciated and as such would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of the CA. The proposed Hub would be located some distance from the listed Town Hall with limited intervisibility between the two, consequently I do not find harm in relation to this aspect and the setting of the listed building would be preserved.

Given the modest scale of the proposed Hub and advertisement, the harm would be at lower level of less than substantial but in accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), that harm should be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal. I have considered the various public benefits put forward by the appellant including 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 appellant has also highlighted the potential for advertising for local businesses, free services to the council, including the ability to obtain data from the Hub. However, I find insufficient public benefits arising from the proposals to offset the identified harm to which I attach significant weight.

Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude for Appeal A that the proposed Hub would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the CA. As such, it would be contrary to Policies LLP25 and LLP30 of the Luton Local Plan 2017 (LP) which, amongst other things, require development proposals to be of a high quality design that improve or enhance the distinctiveness and character of the area and protect, conserve and enhance the significance of designated heritage assets and their setting. In addition, it would conflict with the Framework that advocates good design (paragraphs 131) and to sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets (paragraph 210).

With regard to Appeal B, I conclude the proposed advertisements would result in material harm to the amenity of the area. Though not determinative, I have taken account of Policies LLP26 and LLP30 of the LP, which seeks to ensure proposals do not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area and the significance of designated heritage assets, as such the proposed advertisements would conflict with these policies.

In support of the appeal the appellant has stated that the proposed development includes the removal of the 2 no. telephone kiosks opposite [address] and has referenced a range of appeals that include the replacement of existing kiosks and advertisements. However, I have not been provided the full details of these to know how directly comparable they are to the current proposal. I also note the kiosks proposed to be removed are not within the appeal site and do not include illuminated advertisements. Therefore, I am not satisfied this would mitigate the harm arising from the appeal proposals’, and I am also not satisfied the proposed condition to secure their removal would meet the six tests outlined within paragraph 57 of the Framework and advice contained in the Planning Practice Appeal Decisions 6006302 and 6006304 Guidance. This in turn limits the relevance of the highlighted appeals. In any event I have determined the appeals before me on their own merits.

I acknowledge the existing Hubs and advertisements on bus shelters in the locality highlighted by the appellant. However, they appear to have different locational characteristics as well as development characteristics, in terms of the bus shelters, to the appeal scheme and as such are not directly comparable to the appeal before me. As a consequence, whilst I have taken these other examples into account, they do not materially alter my conclusions on the appeal proposals.

The appellant states that the proposed development would contribute towards improving communications infrastructure in line with the principles of the Framework and the Code of [name] on Mobile Network Development in England 2022. The appellant has also raised their requirement to meet their [name] 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 could not be provided in a manner less harmful than proposed. The fact that the Hub would be inspected and cleaned regularly is a minimum expectation and would not represent a benefit.

The proposals 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. [name] have given them some weight, these benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified in this case.

With regard to Appeal A, for the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development is not in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole and Appeal A should be dismissed.

With regard to Appeal B, for the reasons given above, having regard to all other matters raised, they do not provide justification for allowing a proposal which would be harmful to the amenity of the area and Appeal B should be dismissed.