Appeal 6002434

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated existing BT payphone(s) outside [address], Reading [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/1352, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for two digital 75-inch LCD display screens each measuring 1.67m in height and 0.95m in width. 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 and the additional conditions in the attached schedule.

The two appeals relate to the same site and to each other. I have considered each on its individual merits, but as they are intrinsically linked and raise similar issues, I have combined these cases in a single decision letter.

I have amended the description of development relating to Appeal B in the heading above to that found on the application form regarding the type, size and number of advertisements proposed. Appeal Decision 6002434 and APP/E0345/Z/25/3376710

In Appeal B, the Council has drawn my attention to policies it considers to be relevant to this appeal. However, powers under the Regulations to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) confirm this approach. Therefore, while I have taken account of the policies that the Council considers to be relevant, these have not been decisive in my determination of Appeal B. I have also had regard to the Framework which seeks to prevent the negative impacts of poor advertisements.

Regarding Appeal A, the main issues are: • the effect on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect on highway safety, and • the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjacent residential development, with particular reference to noise and disturbance.

With regards to Appeal B, the main issues are the effect of the advertisements on amenity and public safety.

The appeal site is part of the public footpath within [name], an open forecourt shopping centre with residential accommodation above, which adjoins a well-trafficked road through Caversham. The shopping centre has a mix of shops, cafes, and restaurants with varying degrees of both illuminated and non-illuminated advertisements. The proposed street hub would replace a modern telephone kiosk in this location. The street hub offers a range of public services including free public Wi-Fi, free UK calls, USB charging, an emergency services button alongside HD displays which can show both advertisements and local content.

Although the replacement unit would be wider, taller and contain digital screens, it would remain aligned with other street furniture and would not materially alter the perception of scale or introduce additional visual clutter. The immediate surroundings are not comprised of other digital advertisements or a significant amount of street furniture and road signs. In the context of the broad forecourt, the surrounding development, and the surrounding commercial character, it would be read as a modern digital telecommunication hub in an urban landscape that would complement the character and appearance of this commercial area.

Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area. As such, the development subject to Appeal A complies with the requirements of Policies OU3, OU4, CC7 and CC8 of the Reading Local Plan 2019 (RLP). These policies seek development that minimises its visual impact, respects its surroundings, maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the area and does not cause a detrimental impact on the living environment of existing residential occupiers. For the same reasons, the advertisements would not adversely affect visual amenity (for the purposes of Appeal B). Appeal Decision 6002434 and APP/E0345/Z/25/3376710

The proposed street hub would remain within the established street furniture zone on a wide stretch of footway alongside a busy classified ‘A' road. Its location is currently occupied by existing street furniture in the form of an existing kiosk. On the evidence before me, the modest increase in width would not impede pedestrian flows, cause an obstruction particularly for the visually impaired or reduce the effective footway width to a harmful extent.

I note the objection from Thames Valley Police which, whilst mostly generic in response, raises concerns that the street hub would create an obstruction which may result in people stepping into the road and that it could create a hiding place for an offender.

The shopping centre has an overhanging canopy that is supported by steel columns. The footway of approximately 3.7m, including underneath the canopy, would enable the safe passing of pedestrians and those with accessibility needs. The area is overlooked by CCTV which would not be obscured by the proposed street hub, a view shared by the CCTV and [name].

There is no substantive evidence before me that the digital screens would distract drivers, obscure visibility of the upcoming traffic signals and pedestrian crossing or increase the risk of collisions with other vehicles or pedestrians. I also note that the Council’s transportation officer raised no objection to the proposal. The presence of street railings, on either side of the signalised pedestrian crossing, further reduces the likelihood of pedestrians stepping out from behind the unit to cross the road at this point. The level of illumination, particularly during night-time hours, can be controlled by condition to ensure that the level of glare from the digital display does not pose a risk.

Accordingly, the proposed street hub would not pose an unacceptable risk to highway safety. As such, the proposal subject to Appeal A complies with Policies TR3, OU3 and OU4 of the RLP, as far as they relate to highway safety and pedestrian movement. For the same reasons, the advertisements under Appeal B would not adversely affect public safety in this regard.

Reference is also made within reason for refusal 2 of [name] and B to policies DM12 and DM22 of the Sites and [name] 2012. However, this document has limited weight following the adoption of the RLP and therefore weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

The nearest residential properties are located above the commercial premises within [name] and above the ground floor uses on the opposite side of [address]. These residential premises are set back from the canopy edge on both sides of [address] with the nearest being some [address] hub location.

The street hubs allow the making and receiving of calls and video calls with several volume levels. The appellant has identified that the voice call facility should not exceed 41db during the day and 35db during the night at the 3m distance within the context of an urban environment. I note the objection from the Council’s Environmental Health officer and the Council’s concern that the predicted noise Appeal Decision 6002434 and APP/E0345/Z/25/3376710 levels stated by the appellant are unable to be verified without a noise assessment to understand the relevant noise environment.

During the day, the use of the street hub to make or receive calls and video calls is unlikely to affect the living conditions of the existing residents that are located above the retail parade. This is because the background noise levels which include a significant level of traffic noise would likely be greater than the expected noise levels created by the hub. This would also apply to those located on the opposite side of [address].

However, during night-time hours, and despite the retail centre having several bars and cafes which open until 11pm, the street hub could have the ability to cause noise and disturbance to adjacent residents. The appellant has suggested that the speaker could be disabled during nighttime hours and I consider that a planning condition to secure this during noise sensitive hours could overcome the noise and disturbance concerns raised by the Council.

With regards to the effect of the illumination levels from the proposed street hub on adjacent occupiers’ living conditions, this is most likely to affect the occupiers on the opposite side of [address] rather than those directly above the appeal site due to direct overlooking, creating at most a modest level of disturbance. However, a suitably worded condition to restrict the illumination levels of the digital displays would overcome any effect on the living conditions of adjacent occupiers.

Consequently, the proposed development in Appeal A would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of adjacent residential occupiers with particular reference to noise and disturbance. Accordingly, the Appeal A proposal would comply with Policies OU3, OU4 and CC8 of the RLP whose requirements have been outlined above.

The appeal site is located diagonally opposite the Caversham Free Public Library, which is a [name] listed building. I have had regard to the statutory duty set out in Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The property is circa early 20th Century, and its significance relates to its historic and architectural interest due to its arts and crafts style with asymmetric gables, irregular red brick, and stone. Due to the distance between the appeal site and the listed building and as these are not observed together, the appeal proposal would not harm the setting of the heritage asset, thus preserving its significance.

The Council has drawn my attention to an appeal decision relating to multiple sites for the installation of street hubs in Bristol which were all dismissed. Whilst the appeal decision is before me, I do not have the full details in respect of these examples and the context in which the decisions were made. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the circumstances in these cases are similar. In any event, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions in the event that the appeals are allowed, which the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on. The appellant has also provided suggested conditions, which the Council has had the opportunity to comment on. Appeal Decision 6002434 and APP/E0345/Z/25/3376710

For Appeal A, in the interests of certainty, I have attached the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and compliance with the approved plans. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, it is necessary to attach conditions to ensure that following removal of the existing telephone kiosk the ground is repaired using matching surfacing materials. It is not necessary to condition that the existing telephone kiosk is removed as the street hub would be sited in the same position. To protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, it is necessary to attach a condition requiring the speaker within the hub to be disabled during noise sensitive hours.

Regarding Appeal B, the five standard conditions as set out in the Regulations will apply, as confirmed in the Decision paragraph. A condition listing plan numbers, as suggested by the Council, is not necessary as express consent is being granted for the advertisements rather than planning permission. However, to protect the living conditions of adjacent residents and in the interest of public safety, I have attached conditions to control special effects, restrict to static images only and not display any messages, directional signage or images resembling traffic signs and the rate at which the screens change. The conditions put forward by the parties differed on the time taken for the change in images to take place. Whilst the Council sought an almost instantaneous transition, I have taken the appellant’s request of no greater than a second as a more practicable transition speed. The Council also sought a restriction preventing the display of telephone numbers, website email or other social media details. I have not attached this restriction as its imposition would be unreasonable.

It is also necessary to control the screens in the event of a fault and to set a maximum luminance for daylight hours and for between dusk and dawn. The condition applied varies from the conditions sought by the parties in order to comply with the Professional Lighting Guidance. Consequently, the night-time maximum luminance is above that sought by the Council and below that sought by the appellant, and the daytime luminance is significantly above that sought by the Council to accord with the maximum level outlined within the guidance.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all matters raised, the proposed development within Appeal A would accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to suggest that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Appeal B would not harm the visual amenity of the area and would not have a harmful effect on public safety. Therefore, for the reasons given above, both appeals should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with: • Drawing no: 001-rev A-Site Location Maps, dated June 25 • Drawing no: 002-rev A-Proposed Site Plan, dated June 25 • Drawing no: 003-rev A-Existing and [name], dated June 25 • [name]: 003-rev [address] Hub ([name]) dated April 25

Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, following removal of the existing telephone kiosk, the ground shall be made good using surfacing materials which match the materials in the immediate vicinity.

During the noise sensitive hours of 2300 to 0700, the speaker within the street hub hereby permitted shall be disabled to prevent its use.

There shall be no special effects (including animation, flashing, scrolling, three dimensional, intermittent, or video elements) of any kind during the time that any message is displayed.

The digital display screens shall not display any moving images or apparently moving images; (including animation, flashing, scrolling three dimensional, intermittent or video elements) message sequencing; interactive messages; directional signage or images resembling traffic signs as defined in section [address] Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The images shall not change more frequently than every 10 seconds and the change in images shall take place over a period no greater than one second with no merging, fading, flashing or other visual effects (including swiping or other animated transition methods) between displays.

In the event of malfunction, the digital advertisement screens shall either default to a black screen, freezes in one position or shall automatically power off. Should a malfunction occur, no error messages shall be displayed.

In daylight hours, the advertisement display luminance shall be controlled in order to reflect ambient light conditions (to ensure it is neither too bright or too dull) and shall at all times be no greater than 5,000 cd/sqm which is that recommended by the Institute of [name] in its [name] 05 (PLG 05) Brightness of [name] (or its equivalent in a replacement Guide). Between dusk and dawn, the advertisement display luminance shall be no greater than 300cd/sqm.