Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 31 October 2025 by S Ashworth BA (Hons) BPI MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 November 2025 Appeal A Ref: APP/C2741/W/25/3366587 Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Infocus Public Networks Limited against the decision of City of York Council. • The application Ref is 25/00375/FUL. • The development proposed is installation of a multifunctional communication Hub including defibrillator and advertisement display. . Appeal B Ref: APP/C2741/H/25/3366588 Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, YO1 9PB, York , YO1 9PB • The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) against a refusal to grant express consent. • The appeal is made by Infocus Public Networks Limited against the decision of City of York Council. • The application Ref is 25/00376/ADV. • The advertisement proposed is installation of a multifunctional communication Hub including defibrillator and advertisement display. Decisions 1. Appeal A.

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — Appeal Decisions The appeal is dismissed. 2. Appeal B. The Appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 3. As set out in the banner heading above there are two appeals relating to this site, one against the refusal of planning permission and one against the refusal of advertisement consent. I have dealt with each proposal on its own merits. However, as they raise similar issues, I have dealt with them in a single decision letter to avoid duplication. 4. The appeal site lies within the Central Historic Core Conservation Area and is within the setting of several listed buildings. Accordingly, I have had regard to the duties set out in Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which requires that, with regard to buildings or land in a conservation area special regard is paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area, and in respect of Appeal A s.66 (1) of the Act which requires that, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building, or its setting, special regard shall be paid to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting or any features of special interest it possesses.

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — Appeal Decisions https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — Appeal Decisions https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decisions APP/C2741/W/25/3366587, APP/C2741/H/25/3366588 5. In respect of appeal B, Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), make it clear that advertisements are subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Factors relevant to amenity include the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of any features of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest. Main Issues 6. The main issues in Appeal A are (i) whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Central Historic Core Conservation Area and, linked to that, the effect of the proposal on the setting of the grade l listed building, Merchant Adventurers Hall and (ii) the effect of the proposal on pedestrian movement and safety. 7. The main issues in Appeal B are the effects of the proposal on (i) the amenity of the area and (ii) public safety. Reasons Character and appearance 8.

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — Appeal Decisions The Central Historic Core Conservation Area is characterised by the historic street patterns and the diversity, scale and quality of its architecture including many important listed buildings of special architectural and or historic interest. Located within the Kings Staith and Coppergate Centre Character Area, Piccadilly is a busy road providing vehicular and pedestrian access to the retail core of the centre. Three bus stops in the vicinity of the site are part of a major bus exchange. 9. The street is lined by buildings of a variety of ages and styles including the Coppergate Centre and car park, constructed in the 1980’s. Opposite that, and set at a much lower level, is the Merchant Adventurers Hall a timber framed building comprising hall, undercroft and chapel which dates from 1357-61 and is a grade l listed building of the highest national importance. The building is set in gardens and the tranquillity of that site contrasts with the busyness of the street. Given the important architectural and historic significance of the building, the site makes a significant positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. 10.

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — Appeal Decisions The hub would be sited on an area of pavement some 2.9m from the boundary wall of the Merchant Adventurers Hall. It would have a solid form with a projecting canopy and touch screen on one side and a flat LCD advertisement display screen on the other. The unit would be coloured black or grey with digital screens on both sides. A light sensor would control the level of illumination. 11. There is already a degree of street furniture in the vicinity including bike racks and bollards as well as a number of bus shelters, some of which feature advertising panels. However, these structures are generally low and/or visually lightweight. The freestanding communications hub would add to the existing clutter and would be significantly bulkier than existing street furniture. As a result of position, height, mass and illumination it would be prominent in the street scene. The digital advertising screen, measuring over 2m in height, together with its illuminated sequentially changing images would further intensify its visual impact. Although I https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/C2741/W/25/3366587, APP/C2741/H/25/3366588 acknowledge that the brightness would be limited to a specified level the unit would appear strident and intrusive. 12. The listed building derives its significance primarily from its age, historic interest, and architectural detailing. The open space and the elevated position of the pavement in front of the building allow its appearance, form and features to be clearly appreciated. The proposal would introduce a substantial and discordant structure into this sensitive setting, resulting in visual clutter and distraction. The difference in levels between the pavement and the hall’s ground floor would accentuate the scale and presence of the hub, while its illuminated, contemporary appearance would be wholly incongruous with the medieval architecture and historic significance of the building. 13. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the amenity of the area, would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, nor preserve the setting of a nationally important listed building. On that basis the proposal would fail to meet the weighty statutory requirements of the Act. 14.

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — Appeal Decisions For the same reasons, and although are not determinative in relation to Appeal B, the proposal would be contrary to Policy D4 of the City of York Local Plan 2025 (Local Plan) which requires development within a conservation area to preserve or enhance those elements which contribute to its character and appearance and would enhance or better reveal its significance; Policy D1 of the Local Plan which requires development to improve the quality of the public realm and wider environment for all and Policy D13 of the Local Plan which requires advertisements to be of a scale, design, materials and position, amongst other things, that do not cause harm to visual amenity and will respect the character and appearance of a building or street scene. 15. The approach in the Framework is that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm shall be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Even though this harm would fall at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial harm, any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight. 16.

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — Appeal Decisions The proposal seeks to provide the latest digital communication technology as a free public service, including a telephone facility, mobile phone charging points, and access to local webpages and wayfinding information. The hub could also enhance public safety and crime prevention through community messaging and counter- terrorism campaigns. In addition, it would incorporate a defibrillator, and I note the Community Heartbeat Trust Charity’s general support for such units. However, even taking into account the Framework’s support for high-quality communications, these public benefits would be modest. Consequently, they do not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the identified heritage assets, harm which, as the Framework makes clear, must be given great weight. Pedestrian movement and public safety 17. As set out above, Piccadilly is busy with traffic including buses, cyclists and pedestrians. In the vicinity of the site the presence of bus stops means that there can be groups of people waiting for and alighting from buses. Indeed, the conservation area character appraisal notes that the bus stops make this section https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/C2741/W/25/3366587, APP/C2741/H/25/3366588 of pavement especially crowded. In addition to that, the site is close to cycle racks and adjacent to a pedestrian crossing area. 18. The hub would be located on the main footway, reducing its available width to approximately 2.9 metres. Due to its bulk, it would create an obstruction within the footpath and significantly impede pedestrian movement. Furthermore, the structure could form a pinch point during periods of high footfall, increasing the likelihood of pedestrians stepping into the carriageway, particularly given the site’s proximity to the pedestrian crossing. In addition, its orientation at a right angle to the kerb line could lead to confusion and potential danger for all road users, should pedestrians emerge unexpectedly from behind the hub to avoid congestion or to cross towards the bus stops and shops opposite. Accordingly, although the detailed evidence on this matter is limited, I am not satisfied that the proposal would be in the best interests of public safety. 19. On that basis, I conclude that the proposals in relation to both appeal A and Appeal B would have an unacceptable impact on pedestrian movement and public safety.

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — Appeal Decisions In that respect therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policy D1 of the Local Plan which seeks to promote ease of public pedestrian and cyclist movement and establish natural patterns of connectivity, and Policy D13 which requires advertisements to positively reflecting the interests of amenity and public safety. Conclusion 20. The proposal would have a significant, harmful impact on the designated heritage assets which would not be outweighed by public benefits. In addition it would be detrimental to pedestrian flow and public safety. 21. In terms of appeal A the proposal would conflict with the development plan considered as a whole. There are no material considerations that would indicate that the appeal should be granted contrary to the development plan. In terms of Appeal B, the advertisement would cause significant harm to the amenity of the area and would not be in the best interests of public safety. 22. On that basis, both Appeal A and Appeal B are dismissed.

Pavement opposite 22 Piccadilly, York , YO1 9PB — City of York Council — S Ashworth INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4