Appeal 6008508

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

The appeals relate to the same proposal. Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission to erect a street hub unit (the hub). Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent for advertisement panels on either side of the hub. I have considered each appeal on its individual merits, however, as they raise similar issues, I have combined the decisions into a single decision letter.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCAA) requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting. In addition, Section 72(1) of the LBCAA requires that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. I have therefore had regard to these statutory duties in my assessment of Appeal A.

In respect of Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 require that decisions are made only Appeal Decision 6008507 & 6008508 in the interest of amenity and public safety. Therefore, whilst I have taken account of the policies of the development plan that the Council considers to be relevant, these have not been decisive in my determination.

The main issue in relation to appeal A is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby [name] listed [name] and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Weybridge (Monument Green) Conservation Area (WMGCA).

The main issue for Appeal B is the effect of the proposal on the amenity of the area.

The appeal site is set within the town centre of Weybridge which is broadly focused around the main shopping areas along [address], [address] and [address]. The hub would be set to the front of a supermarket which is at the edge of the commercial area. There are various examples of street furniture in the vicinity of the site including a bus stop, cycle hoops, bench and bins. There is street signage in the locality, most notably on the nearby bus stop. However, beyond this, such signage is commonly limited to A-boards outside shops. Signage to individual retail premises is also fairly muted and is frequently either non-illuminated or externally illuminated.

To the east of the site is the WMGCA which is characterised by the grouping of the houses around the open green spaces, which are further enhanced by the many fine trees. Its significance is its historic vernacular architecture and setting around the small Green and obelisk from which it takes its name. Also set to the east of the site is the [name], a [name] listed public house dating from the 16th century. The building is rendered under tiled roof with dormers and sash windows. It derives its significance from its traditional historic form and function and alterations that have evolved the building over time.

The proposal comprises a freestanding hub with illuminated advertisements to both sides. it would reach nearly 3 metres in height and would be orientated to face along the line of the road. It would be larger and more prominent than other signage in the locality and would be viewed in the context of the heritage assets to the east. As a result, the proposal would be prominent in the street scene. It would be harmful to the setting of the listed building, eroding its significance. As the proposal would appear unduly prominent when viewed from the surrounding area, it would also harm the significance of the WMGCA.

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.

The harm with respect to the [name] would be less than substantial. Given the relatively small size of the proposal, it would fall in the lower end of this spectrum of harm. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework this harm should be Appeal Decision 6008507 & 6008508 weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The appellant has put forward a number of public benefits including the provision of public Wi-Fi, access to public services, USB ports for rapid device charging, free emergency services calls and improved 4G and 5G coverage. [name] recognise these benefits, they would still be limited. Moreover, there is little evidence to suggest that there is a lack of mobile internet coverage in the area.

Therefore, given the great weight that must be given to the conservation of heritage assets, the public benefits of the proposals do not outweigh the harm to the setting of the listed building or the WMGCA. The Framework supports high quality communications infrastructure and encourages the use of existing electronic communications sites. However, given the harm identified above, these matters have not altered my conclusions here.

Consequently, with regard to Appeal A, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the local area and fail to preserve the significance and setting of the nearby listed building and the character or appearance of the WMGCA. Therefore, it would conflict with policies CS17, CS18 of the [name], policies DM2, DM12, DM15 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan which seek, among other things, to conserve or enhance the significance of listed buildings, preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and achieve a high quality design.

While there are advertisements in the surrounding area including at ground level, these are typically not internally illuminated. Those that are, are much smaller. The retail units in the vicinity have, typically, minimally illuminated or non-illuminated and modestly sized advertisements. These appear as part of the units and do not appear incongruous in the town centre context.

Conversely, the hub screens would be full height at ground level and would be internally illuminated, resulting in a highly prominent appearance. This would be seen in the context of the traditional entrance to the WMGCA. As such, the digital screens with internally illuminated advertisements would have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the area.

Given similarities between the proposals the subject of both appeals, the public benefits of the proposal set out above in relation to Appeal A, are applicable to Appeal B. As the scale of the proposals are limited, the material considerations including the public benefits outlined above do not override the harm to the amenity of the area.

In reaching my conclusions here, I have had regard to other examples where illuminated signage has been allowed. However, these lack specific detail or context and relate to locations that are distant from the appeal site. This means that there is little direct comparison to draw from these. Appeal Decision 6008507 & 6008508

For the reasons given above, the proposals would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the proposals should be determined other than in accordance with it. Both appeals A and B are dismissed.