Appeal 6003065

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for Installation of 1No. [address] [name] and associated advertisement panels on either side of the unit at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0540/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Appeal B is allowed, and express consent is granted for the Installation of 1No. internally illuminated [address] [name] and associated advertisement panels on either side of the unit 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 and the additional conditions set out in the schedule attached to this

As set out above there are two appeals on this site. They differ only in that Appeal B is for advertisement consent for the illuminated advertisement. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated.

Regulations to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Although the reason for refusal in Appeal B refers to policies contained in the Middlesbrough Publication Local Plan, 2025 (PLP), these Appeal Decision 6003065 and 6003067 are material considerations rather than being decisive in the determination of Appeal B. I am also aware that the PLP is not a formally adopted document and thus holds less weight.

Reference has been made to an existing telephone kiosk located at the appeal site which would be replaced by the proposed street hub. At the time of my site visit, the telephone kiosk was no longer in situ, and I have determined the appeal accordingly based on present circumstances.

It is considered that the main issues for Appeal A are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • The effect of the proposed development on highway safety; and • Whether the proposed development would undermine the safe environment.

For Appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on public safety.

The appeal site relates to the footway adjacent to the [name] building to the northside of [address], east of the junction with [address]. This section of [address] is commercial in character with a mixture of advertisements/street furniture in the area. Such street furniture comprises lighting/cctv columns, refuse bins, road signs and bollards. Whilst there is a mixture of advertisements/street furniture in the area, I did not find the road to be cluttered given the nature of these features, their location and separation distances/level of space between. [address] is one of the main pedestrian access points to the university campus which is located to the east.

The proposed development seeks to install a street hub which would incorporate screens to either side for the digital display of adverts. The advertisement display is the subject of Appeal B.

The street hub would be a free-standing structure which would measure 0.35 metres in depth, 1.23 metres in width and 2.98 meters in height. It would include an accessible tablet interface and digital HD display screens positioned to face east and west of [address].

Whilst the proposed street hub would be clearly visible within the street scene as a result of its height, position, and integral adverts with illumination, its location is one which is overtly commercial in character. There are bars, restaurants and the university campus nearby where there is an array of both illuminated and non-illuminated signage integral to the surrounding uses and buildings as well as street furniture. The street hub would align with existing street furniture and would not result in a harmful/dominant feature that would be out of keeping with the commercial character of the area. I appreciate that most signage in the area is fixed, integral to an existing site or building, not free standing and set back from Appeal Decision 6003065 and 6003067 the highway and without changing content. Even so, I still find that the proposed development would sit comfortably within this context and not appear incongruous.

The Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document, 2013 (SPD) emphasises the need for public spaces to be uncluttered and that over cluttering should be avoided at all costs and that street furniture should where possible be integrated or combined to reduce clutter. Policy IN7 of the PLP also seeks to avoid unacceptable clutter.

The appellant explains that the telephone box at the junction of [address] and [address] would be removed. Whilst this may reduce street clutter in the wider area, it does not form part of this appeal and thus it is not considered relevant in the particular circumstances of this case. On this basis, the proposed street hub cannot be considered to reduce street clutter in this location. That said, taking into account the surrounding context and other advertisements/street furniture, the proposed development would not amount to unacceptable clutter or lead to over cluttering along [address]. It would not therefore be contrary to the aims of the SPD and Policy IN7 which seek to avoid unnecessary street clutter.

I appreciate that most people may carry mobile phones to make calls and browse the internet, but this would not alter my findings on the scheme I am considering.

For the above reasons, I conclude on this issue that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore comply with Policy IN7 of the PLP which explains amongst other matters, that proposals for telecommunications and digital infrastructure will be supported where: the siting, height, design and appearance of the equipment will not cause harm to the character or appearance of an area or building on which it is located, including the significance and setting of heritage assets, and will not be visually intrusive in the street scene or create unacceptable clutter. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also comply with the SPD.

Reason for refusal one on the Council’s decision notice relating to Appeal A refers to paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, paragraph 116 relates to highway safety which I cover below.

[address] is a cul de sac for vehicular traffic at the location of the proposed street hub and is the start of the pedestrianised area of the main heart of the Teesside University campus. This access restriction is identified by appropriate signage, bollards and other street furniture. Given the access restriction and proximity to the university, this section of highway is heavily used by taxis and other vehicles to drop off/collect passengers. The location of the proposed street hub is lined with taxi bays and limited sections of public parking. They are well used and businesses in the area such as bars, restaurants etc require regular servicing which takes place along this section of [address]. While the proposed street hub would restrict kerbside access to vehicles by pedestrians, the overall size and scale of the street hub means that this would be minimal and there would be sufficient space available for pedestrians to access vehicles as well as servicing for the nearby businesses. I note the Council’s concerns regarding the street hub causing an obstacle for pedestrians particularly those with sight impairment on this heavily used footpath. However, in a similar way to the above, there would still be sufficient space available for pedestrians to use, and the Appeal Decision 6003065 and 6003067 proposed development would not significantly reduce the pavement width in this location.

The Council raise concern regarding the illuminated display causing a distraction to motorists and other road users. Despite being located on a busy section of the street, [address] has good visibility, is a low-speed road and is not so complicated where drivers need to have more concentration/take more care. I do not raise concern in this regard.

For the above reasons, I conclude on this issue that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm highway safety. It would therefore accord with Policy DC1 of the [name], 2008 (CS) and Policies CR2 and IN7 of the PLP. Such policies amongst other matters, explain that proposals for telecommunications and digital infrastructure will be supported where: existing carriageways, footpaths and cycleways are retained for the free flow of users, including during periods of maintenance, and that equipment is sited so that it does not unduly affect visibility of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. They also require equipment to be positioned to avoid negative impact on highway safety.

Given my findings above, it is concluded that Appeal B would also not be harmful to public safety and would accord with Policy DC1 of the CS and Policies CR2 and CR8 of the PLP which together, amongst other matters, require development to not have a detrimental effect on public safety.

Concern has been raised regarding crime and disorder by creating a focal point by virtue of the services the street hub offers particularly the free calls/Wi-Fi facility. I also note that there have been issues associated with existing free phone kiosks in the town centre as well as vandalism on the previous telephone kiosk in this location.

The actions of individuals are difficult to predict/control and I cannot conclude with certainty that the proposed hub would lead to such an unsafe environment which would justify the refusal of the appeal. Notwithstanding, an Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan has been submitted with this appeal setting out measures to manage and minimise such issues. This includes collaboration with local Police and/or Council’s. Call restriction capabilities have been developed which prevents calls to mobiles on select street hubs in problem areas. The automatic recognition of misuse and blocking of identified numbers has also been developed including landlines, mobiles and freephone numbers. Each street hub is remotely monitored for service compliance 24 hours a day and is physically inspected and cleaned at least every two weeks. Issues are therefore reported quickly. The appellant is also committed to take appropriate action where they are contacted by members of the public, Council or Police and such contact will be treated as a priority. The street hubs helpline is open 24 hours a day and technical measures are available to help manage anti-social behaviour issues.

Taking into account the contents of the Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan which I have conditioned, I am sufficiently satisfied that the proposed street hub would take the appropriate measures to tackle any associated anti-social behaviour. A condition can also be applied to ensure that the street hub is maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site. Appeal Decision 6003065 and 6003067

The size of the structure may allow people to hide behind to commit crimes. Again, it is difficult to predict/control the actions of individuals but there is no compelling evidence that such events would happen as a result of the street hub or that this would be any different or more harmful than existing solid structures in the area. This is not therefore a sufficient enough reason to lead to the refusal of the appeal.

For the above reasons, I conclude on this issue that subject to appropriately worded planning conditions, the proposed development would not undermine the safe environment. It would therefore accord with Policy CS5 of the CS which amongst other matters, explains that proposals will be required to create a safe and attractive environment. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also accord with paragraphs 96 and 135 of the Framework relating to promoting healthy and safe communities and achieving well-designed places.

As already set out, Appeal B relates to advertisement consent only, the regulations require that I exercise my powers only with regard to amenity and public safety. To seek to control what is to be displayed on the advertisement etc is unlikely to be relevant to amenity or public safety. To this end, the Planning Practice Guidance explains that1, unless the nature of the advertisement is in itself harmful to amenity or public safety, consent cannot be refused because the local planning authority considers the advertisement to be misleading (in so far as it makes misleading claims for products), unnecessary or offensive to public morals.

In terms of Appeal A, the standard time for commencement of development is necessary as well as a plans condition in the interests of certainty. A condition relating to the Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan is necessary in order to reduce/tackle anti-social behaviour. A number of further conditions have been suggested by [name] in relation to measures for tackling crime and anti-social behaviour. However, I am sufficiently satisfied that the measures contained within the Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan are sufficient in the particular circumstances of this case. Further restrictive measures would likely take place as per the Management Plan where issues become apparent and further communications would be had in this regard. Conditions relating to the Noise Management Plan, maintenance of the hub and its removal if it becomes obsolete are necessary in the interests of amenity.

In terms of Appeal B, the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations are imposed in the terms of my decision. In addition to these, I find it necessary to impose conditions controlling the brightness, animation and the timing of image changes as well as requiring the display to freeze in the event of any malfunction. These are imposed in the interests of public safety and amenity.

For the reasons given above, and taking into account all matters raised, Appeal A and B are allowed. 1 Paragraph: 026 [name]: 18b-[phone] Appeal Decision 6003065 and 6003067

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

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans. The approved plans for this development are: Proposed Site Plan Drawing No. MID-03 002; Proposed Site Elevation Drawing No. MID-03 004; [name] No. STH-001.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the [name] Plan and shall be adhered to for as long as the hub is in operation.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the [name] – Noise Management Plan Version 2 and shall be adhered to for as long as the hub is in operation.

The proposed street hub shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

The street hub hereby approved shall be removed if it becomes obsolete and land restored to its former condition and use. End of schedule

The intensity of the illumination of the advertisement permitted by this consent shall be no greater than within that recommended by the Institute of [name] in its [name] 05 (PLG 05) Brightness of [name] (or its equivalent in a replacement Guide).

The proposed advertisements shall display static images only and not animated, scrolling, intermittent or flashing images. The rate of change between successive images shall be no greater than 1 second with no swiping or other animated transition methods between successive images. The minimum display time each successive advertising image shall be no less than 10 seconds per image. The display shall include a mechanism to freeze or turn off the screen in the event of a malfunction. End of schedule Appeal Decision 6003065 and 6003067 Appendix 1 List of those who have appealed Reference Case Reference Appellant Appeal A 6003065 BT Group Plc Appeal B 6003067 BT Group Plc