Appeal 6001828

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant’s statement refers to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). However, the application in question was for planning permission, rather than advertisement consent. I proceed accordingly.

Permission was granted for a freestanding communications kiosk (the kiosk) in [address], subject to a condition requiring its removal some five years later unless further permission were granted for its retention. The Council considers this necessary to protect visual amenity and public safety. The appellant considers it unreasonable and unnecessary.

The main issue, therefore, is whether the condition is reasonable or necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and of public safety.

The appeal site is in the southern section of [address], a traditional shopping parade. Though vehicular access is possible, this section of the [address] is largely pedestrianised. On either side of the appeal site are found raised planters, the edges of which may act as seating. Elsewhere in the [address] there are a few unremarkable items of street furniture such as simple public benches, bicycle stands and litter bins. That these are neither tall nor prominent is part of the reason the street has an open and spacious feel, despite its somewhat narrow width and enclosed flanks.

Whilst it has not yet been brought into force, the fact the Council has approved a Public Space Protection Order gives me a clear indication that the area suffers from anti-social behaviour (ASB). [name] have set out a series of concerns about the kiosk. Though the Council established that there was a degree of generality to these, the appellant has not contested the point that kiosks may be used to facilitate, or may attract, criminal activity or ASB.

Policy QD02 of the Thanet Local Plan (2020) requires new development to promote or reinforce local character, and to promote public safety and security by designing out crime. At just under two and a half metres tall, over a metre wide, and at least 756mm deep, the kiosk would be a bulky and prominent development. Its presence would be visually incongruous in the largely open setting and have an erosive effect on the spacious feel described above. The introduction of a facility that may exacerbate existing anti-social behaviour has the potential to reduce public safety.

Set against these harms, the submissions attribute a series of benefits to the kiosk. The Council is clear in its delegated report that it considers the kiosk acceptable only when the former is balanced with the latter. Given my findings above, I consider the kiosk unacceptable if the purported benefits do not accrue.

Little benefit will be derived from the kiosk if local people do not use it. As the submissions do not identify unusually low levels of mobile phone ownership or poor network coverage in the area, it is not certain that they will. Whether the kiosk exacerbates ASB cannot be foreseen with accuracy. If it does, the effectiveness of the appellant’s intended response process also cannot be foreseen with accuracy; The stages of the process in the submitted Management Plan are set out in general terms, giving an indication of what may be involved in each rather than any particular commitment. It is not evident that the appellant has a reliable ‘backstop’ solution should ASB persist after the stages of the process are exhausted.

Taking all of the above into consideration, I find that the kiosk is unacceptable without the purported benefits and guards against ASB, that it is not certain either will accrue, and that the condition is therefore both reasonable and necessary as the alternative would be to refuse permission for the kiosk. What is more, the appellant has provided me with very little direct counterargument to the Council’s position in respect of demand for use and ASB.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.