Appeal 6003082

Both appeals are dismissed.

I have been appointed to determine two appeals at the same site, relating to a proposal for a new [address] Hub. Appeal A relates to an application for planning permission for the hub itself, while Appeal B relates to an application for advertisement consent for the integrated digital displays.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (“the Regulations”) set out that powers shall be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material; and any other relevant factors. [name] have therefore had regard to relevant policies of the 2018 Hartlepool Local Plan (“the HLP”), they have not been determinative in Appeal B.

The main issues in both appeals are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance or visual amenity of the area; • Pedestrian and highway safety; and • Crime or fear of crime. Appeal Decisions 6003079 and 6003082

The appeals relate to a site within the adopted public highway, on the footway on the south side of [address]. The site is within Hartlepool town centre, with several shops, bars and other commercial premises nearby. There is already a variety of street furniture in the vicinity, including lighting columns, litter bins, traffic signs and signals and associated equipment cabinets; mostly, these are slender in form and set close to the edge of the footway. There are two bus shelters to the west of the site along [address], both with double-sided LCD advertisement panels; there is also a freestanding payphone unit with an integrated ATM a little way to the east at the junction of [address] and [address].

The proposed development is the installation of a [address] Hub 3 unit, which would be set approximately 0.5m from the edge of the footway. It would be a freestanding structure, approximately 3.0m high, 1.2m wide and 0.4m deep, clad in powder-coated aluminium panels in a dark grey finish. The hub would provide free Wi-Fi and telephone calls, among other services. There would be two digital screens, one on each side of the unit, which would be of tempered and toughened laminated glass; these would display advertisements.

The hub unit itself would have a slim profile which would moderate its visual impact; combined with the modern design and dark finish it would not in itself be an unduly prominent or intrusive feature in the streetscape. While the Council is concerned that the unit would add to street clutter, the existing payphone and ATM unit to the east would be removed, as would a second BT payphone at the junction of [address] and [address] a short distance west of the appeal site, so overall there would be a decrease in the amount of street furniture in the vicinity.

In respect of the proposed removal of the combined payphone and ATM, I note the Council’s comment that “it is unclear whether the stated removal is limited to only the payphone element or the entire combined BT payphone and atm facility”. My reading of the appellant’s submissions is that the entire unit would be removed. In any event, were the proposed development otherwise acceptable it would be possible to impose a condition requiring the removal of that unit and the reinstatement of the pavement in a timely manner.

Taking these points together, for Appeal A I am satisfied that the [name] unit would not cause unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the area. There would be no conflict with Policy QP4 of the HLP, which among other things requires development to respect its surroundings, and to have appropriately-designed and well-located street furniture.

Turning to the proposed advertisement, anyone passing along [address] in either direction would see the display screens in quick succession with the LCD screens on the nearby bus shelters. The appeal scheme would result in there being a harmful overconcentration of such displays in a short stretch of [address] which; notwithstanding the area’s commercial and reasonably vibrant nature, it did not appear to me to be generally characterised by bright advertisements at present.

For Appeal B, I therefore find that the proposed advertisement would, cumulatively with other advertisements nearby, be harmful to the visual amenity of the area. Appeal Decisions 6003079 and 6003082 There would be conflict with Policies QP4 and QP8 of the HLP, which are material insofar as they seek to ensure that development positively enhances its location and setting, and that advertisements (whether individually or cumulatively) do not have an adverse effect on their surroundings.

The submitted drawings show that there would remain more than 3m of clear footway between the inside edge of the [name] unit and the front elevation of the nearest building, so pedestrian flows along the street would be unlikely to be significantly adversely affected by the size or siting of the unit.

The unit would be close to the existing bus stops and, as I saw during my visit, when multiple buses arrive in quick succession passengers sometimes need to board or alight next to where the proposed unit would be located. However, this is not an unusual consideration in a busy location, and the shallow depth of the unit means that it would not be a significant challenge for drivers to stop in a position which would allow passengers to get on or off their bus in safety. I also spent some time at the nearer bus shelter, and observed that, because there is a layby for the bus stop, the installation would not obstruct views of oncoming buses for waiting passengers. I am satisfied that the proposed development would be acceptable in both these respects.

The proposed advertisements would, by design, tend to draw the eye. However, the layby at the bus stops means that the east-facing advertisement would be off to the left hand side of the road for westbound drivers. For drivers heading east, the west-facing advertisement would be on the far side of the road well to their right, and partly screened by the nearby bus shelter. In both cases, drivers would, or should, be attuned to the town centre environment and expecting to see advertisements, and those proposed here would not be in intrusive or distracting positions.

The advertisements would be a reasonable distance from both the light controlled junction of [address] with [address], and the pedestrian crossing in front of the [name] to the east. Again, the proposed installation would not obstruct sight lines for drivers of vehicles approaching either of those features, so the advertisements would therefore be unlikely to represent a significant distraction.

Taking all of these points together, in respect of Appeal A I conclude that the development would not result in harm to highway and pedestrian safety. There would be no conflict with Policies QP3 or QP8 of the HLP which, among other things, seek to ensure that development, including advertisements, does not have an unacceptable impact on public safety, including highway and pedestrian safety.

In respect of Appeal B, I conclude that the proposed advertisements would not have a harmful effect on public safety, so far as highway and pedestrian safety are concerned. I have taken into account the same development plan policies I have just referred to, insofar as they are material, and the provisions of Paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) which requires consideration of public safety in respect of advertisements. Appeal Decisions 6003079 and 6003082

The Council expressed its concern that the proposed development would facilitate crime and antisocial behaviour; in particular, that the free WiFi and charging facilities would encourage loitering, and that the hub would become a focus for drug dealing and other crime. They also expressed concern about the unit itself being vandalised and falling into disrepair. The appellant responded that [name] units are designed for short-stay functional uses, such as emergency contact, and do not encourage people to loiter for long-periods or engage in crime-related activities. The appellant also suggested that the fear of crime was generalised, rather than related to the [address] site, and that no representations had been made relating to potential crime by local residents or businesses.

The Council’s concerns, as set out in its officer reports, were based on substantial submissions by [name] officer (“the DOCO”). I acknowledge that the specific details of incidents in connection with [name] related to two sites within Middlesbrough1, rather than Hartlepool. However, the DOCO also detailed site-specific comments relating to street drinking and drug dealing in and around [address], as well as observations relating to public order offences fuelled by various nighttime venues in the vicinity of the site.

Were the concerns only related to vandalism or repairing the [name], I consider that they could be dealt with by a condition requiring compliance with the maintenance details set out in the [name] document which formed part of the planning application. However, in my view there are site-specific issues here and, based on the DOCO’s well-reasoned professional analysis, I consider that the proposed development would be likely to increase the risk of crime.

For Appeal A, I conclude that the proposed development would conflict with Policy QP5 of the HLP which, among other things, seeks to ensure that all development is carried out in a way which minimises crime and fear of crime.

Notwithstanding that this matter was also cited on the decision notice for the advertisement consent application, it is clear to me that the potential harm here relates to the communications and related facilities of the [name] unit, rather than to the proposed advertisements. I therefore find no harm in respect of crime and public safety in Appeal B.

I have found that the proposed [name] 3 unit would not significantly harm the character or appearance of the area and would not have an adverse effect on highway and pedestrian safety. However, it would be likely to lead to an increased risk of crime. The proposed advertisement would, cumulatively with other advertisements nearby, be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area, although it would not have adverse effects on public safety (whether in respect of highways and pedestrian movements, or in respect of crime). Both elements of the proposal would therefore be harmful, albeit that this would be in different ways. [address] and [address] in that town. Appeal Decisions 6003079 and 6003082

I have had regard to the benefits of the scheme which have been put to me, but these do not outweigh the harm I have found. I therefore conclude that both appeals should be dismissed.