Appeal 6001986

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for new communications kiosk with integrated advertising display and defibrillator at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/01491/PFUL3 subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of new communications kiosk with integrated advertising display and defibrillator at [site address] as applied for. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations.

Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission to erect a communications kiosk with a defibrillator (AED). Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent to display advertisements on the hub as proposed under Appeal A. As they are intrinsically linked and raise similar issues, I have combined both decisions into a single decision letter.

The main issue is the effects of the proposals on the visual amenity of the area.

The appeal site is situated on the pavement immediately adjacent to a multi‐storey student accommodation building. This is a notably tall structure positioned directly beside the pedestrian footway. [address] itself forms part of a two‐lane, one‐way system that provides a short connection to the main highway network around Nottingham. The surrounding area has a mixed residential and commercial character. Within both the immediate street scene and the broader locality, there is a variety of street furniture of differing scales, including telecommunications cabinets, litter bins, lighting columns, a bus shelter, and various road signs.

The proposed development would introduce an additional item of street furniture into an area where similar features are prevalent. Its siting, adjacent to the highway, would reflect the positioning of existing lampposts and road signage along [address]. In this context, both the advertisement displays on the hub and the physical form of the kiosk would integrate comfortably within the mixed streetscape, where modern street furniture and various forms of advertising, including those which are illuminated, are established and visually prominent elements. Furthermore, given the height and scale of surrounding buildings and existing street furniture, the proposal would not result in a structure that appears unduly prominent or intrusive within the wider cityscape, nor would it detract from the visual amenity of the area.

Based on the above considerations, I conclude that, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed kiosk and AED would not appear incongruous or visually harmful within the surrounding townscape. The development would therefore comply with Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Borough, Gedling Borough and Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 Local Plan 2014, as well as Policies DE1 and DE2 of the Nottingham City Council Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies 2020. Taken together, these policies require development to contribute to well‐designed streets and to demonstrate an appropriate relationship with the existing built environment, among other objectives.

Turning to Appeal B, I have had regard to Policy DE5 of the Nottingham City Council Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies 2020, which seeks to safeguard visual amenity and is therefore material to this case. The proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area. As such, when considered against the relevant policies of the development plan, the scheme would not conflict with Policy DE5 of the Nottingham City Council Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies 2020.

In their officer report, the Council reference a dismissed appeal decision for an application for an illuminated sign to the front of a payphone kiosk. The details of this case do not appear to be included in the evidence before me. Nevertheless, each application must be determined on its own merits.

I have considered the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the time limit condition [1], a plans condition [2] and a requirement for the development to follow the submitted management plan [3] is also necessary for Appeal A. Appeal B would be subject to the 5 standard conditions, as set out in the Regulations.

For the reasons set out above, [name] and B are allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: • LOCATION PLAN: Pavement o/s [address], [address], Nottingham, NG1 Easting, Northing 457565m, 340140m • SITE PLAN: 4870-001-008 • Elevations: NWP-KIOSK/001

The development hereby permitted shall be operated and managed in accordance with the submitted [name] – Management Plan, or an updated equivalent. Appeal B: APP/Q3060/Z/25/3376292 No further conditions requested.