Appeal 6003492

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated existing BT payphone(s) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02509/FUL, 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, one on each side of the StreetHub unit at [site address] . The consent is for 5 years from the date of this decision and is subject to the 5 standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the conditions in the attached schedule.

The two appeals concern the same proposal on the same site. Appeal ‘A’ relates to the refusal of planning permission to install a BT street hub whilst appeal ‘B’ relates to the refusal of express consent to display advertisements on the street hub. I have considered each on its own merits. Nevertheless, given that they raise similar issues, I have combined both decisions into a single decision letter.

The Advertisement Regulations stipulate that control may only be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety. The Council has drawn my attention to the policies it considers to be relevant to this appeal and I have taken them into account as material considerations. Accordingly, in determining appeal ‘B’, the development plan policies are not determinative. Appeal Decision 6003491 and 6003492

I have removed words not in relation to acts of development from the banner heading above for clarity.

The main issues in appeal ‘A’ are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on crime safety. and, in appeal ‘B’ the effect of the proposed advertisements on: • amenity; and • public safety.

The appeal site is located in a relatively commercial area and the streetscape has existing street furniture including bicycle racks, street cabinets, streetlights as well as mature trees. It is also within the context of the nearby [address] [name] and a large, freestanding sign signifies the presence of the shopping facilities. Additionally, there are retail units adjacent to the appeal site and two-storey built form. Furthermore, opposite the appeal site is a large retail park.

The appeal scheme would provide, amongst other things, ultrafast Wi-Fi, phone calls, device charging, emergency 999 call button, interactive technologies as well as wayfinding services. Although some of these facilities would require a mobile phone that is 5G or internet enabled and once users are past the hotspot these benefits would reduce. Additionally, it appears on the evidence before me that the [address] [name] provides free Wi-Fi. Furthermore, the Council in its [name] refers to the possible commercialisation of public space because of the appeal scheme.

Nevertheless, based on the evidence before me the appellant has outlined their obligation under the [name] with Ofcom to provide a universally available telecommunications service. The design, including the scale and massing, of the appeal scheme is somewhat influenced to by the need for it accommodate necessary equipment such as 5G antennas and for International Commission on [name] compliance. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the appellant has adequately demonstrated the need for the proposed structures.

The proposed development would include the removal of two kiosks which are notable features within the streetscape and currently in a significant state of disrepair. Whilst they are smaller than the proposed development, measuring around 2.1m in height, the slender form of the appeal scheme would help to mitigate its approximate 3m height.

The Council refer to the muted colour palette, use of glass panels and thus relatively transparent and lightweight character of the kiosks that would be Appeal Decision 6003491 and 6003492 removed as part of the appeal scheme; however, they do include relatively solid backgrounds and advertising features. Whilst the existing mature trees would not result in the appeal scheme being obscured to the point that it would be near impossible to see, they would still provide a level of cover when viewing the appeal site from [address].

On balance, given the presence of the large [address] [name] sign, which is freestanding, the nearby mature trees and general two-storey built form in the surrounding area, the proposed scale and massing of the appeal scheme would not result in an overly dominant and incongruous addition to the surrounding area.

I am also mindful that the proposed development would replace two kiosks and have a reduced footprint in comparison. [name] do acknowledge that the activity associated within the existing kiosks generally takes place within the units themselves, the users of the appeal scheme would be on the pavement when interacting with the proposed development. Nevertheless, on balance, there would be a decrease in street clutter in the immediate streetscape as a result of the proposed development.

Moreover, the dual illuminated digital screens that would be on either side of the street hub would, in my planning judgement, introduce a fairly dynamic element to the design. Thus, the digital screens would help to prevent the introduction of an unacceptably monolithic structure especially when considered in conjunction with the slender form of the proposed development. Whilst the proposed illumination would be relatively bright, it would be viewed within the context of the existing street lighting and retail units.

I acknowledge the relatively large dimensions of the advertisements and the free-standing character of the appeal scheme. However, there are bus shelters close to the appeal site which incorporate large advertising panels (albeit not illuminated or digital). [name] am mindful that they are part of a relatively smaller structure when compared with the proposed development, the appeal site is likely to be viewed within this wider context, especially from the junction of [address] and [address]. Additionally, it would also be viewed in the context of the adjacent large retail units.

Consequently, to my mind, the introduction of the proposed digital screens and thus advertisements would not result in unacceptable visual harm to the streetscape, even when considered against the generally static, fascia-mounted signage and minimal illumination of advertisements which are present nearby to the appeal site.

I have identified above that I consider the scale and massing of the appeal scheme to be acceptable given the existing street furniture and site-specific context including the mature trees. Accordingly, whilst there is limited substantive evidence before me regarding possible smaller models, it remains that the possibility of smaller models is not determinative in this case.

Regarding the appeal decisions at Pavement o/s [address], Pavement o/s [address] and Pavement o/s [address]. Additionally, the council has referred to other planning application numbers1. I do not have the full 1 22/01165/FUL 22/01166/ADV, 22/01159/FUL, 22/01160/ADV, 22/01163/FUL, 22/01164/ADV, 22/01155/FUL, 22/01156/ADV Appeal Decision 6003491 and 6003492 circumstances of these and therefore cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each case is determined on its own merits and given the site-specific context of the appeal site, including the free-standing [address] [name] sign which is significantly larger than the proposed development before me, they do not lead me to a different conclusion.

Considering all the above, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and that there would be no unacceptable harm to visual amenity because of the proposed development. Accordingly, regarding appeal ‘A’ it would comply with Policies RE2, DH1, DH6 and V9 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 (the OLP) insofar as they seek to ensure that all development proposals are of a high-quality design including their scale and massing, that forms of advertisements do not result in visual pollution and clutter and that digital infrastructure is sympathetically designed.

In respect of appeal ‘B’, for the reasons I have identified above and based on the evidence before me, the appeal scheme would not result in harm to visual amenity. In this regard, I have considered Policies RE2, DH1, DH6 and V9 of the OLP insofar as they are material.

Paragraph 96(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) outlines that planning decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime and do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion. This is further supported by paragraph 135(f) of the Framework which provides, amongst other things, that development should create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible as well as ensure that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

Within the evidence before me, the Council refers to the risk of a honeypot effect in the area due to the appeal scheme because there would be greater likelihood of people using devices near to the proposed development. Thus, this would increase the opportunities for pickpocketing and theft.

Nevertheless, there is limited evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the [address] Hub Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan Version 3 (the ASBMP) would not be sufficient to prevent any significant risk to crime safety including the honeypot effect. This is because it includes measures such as an automatic anti-social call restriction and remote monitoring for service compliance 24 hours a day 7 days a week, amongst other things

[name] acknowledge the Councils concerns regarding the [name] 3.0 [name] for [name] & Glare document dated March 2025 the document still provides images of [address] Hubs and the light/glare they can emit. It outlines that the proposed glass has a light reflection of around 5%.

Consequently, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the proposed development, particularly the relatively bright illumination, would unacceptably impact [name] (CCTV) operations due to the proposed illumination of the digital screens nor that it would Appeal Decision 6003491 and 6003492 lead to opportunities for drug deals, misuse of the 999-call button, vandalism and criminal damage.

The appeal site is located on a relatively large pavement and therefore the addition of the appeal scheme would not, in my planning judgement, result in a pinch point reducing pedestrian space to a harmful extent and consequently creating opportunities for pickpocketing. Furthermore, the relatively slender form and overall scale of the appeal scheme would not result in unacceptable harm to natural surveillance, especially given the existing streetscape, the access to [address] [name], the nearby pedestrian crossing and bus stops.

I have acknowledged that the proposed illumination would be relatively bright. Nevertheless, there is a level of illumination close to the appeal site due to the retail units and street lighting. [name] accept that this is mainly static, it nonetheless provides a level of lighting in which the appeal scheme would be viewed.

[name] note reference to Thames Valley Police objections regarding other [address] Hub applications2, each application is determined on its own merits and site context. Given that Thames Valley Police have provided comments stating that it is satisfied with the ASBMP, I consider that the ASBMP and [address] [name] 2024 which outlines that most issues relating to vandalism and criminal damager would be solved within approximately three working days would be sufficient. Accordingly, in my planning judgement, subject to a condition securing the ASBMP, the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact upon crime safety or public safety.

Therefore, considering all the above, subject to a condition securing the ASBMP, the appeal scheme would not result in unacceptable harm to crime safety or public safety. Thus, regarding appeal ‘A’ it would comply with Policy DH1 of the OLP insofar as it seeks to ensure that developments comply with Secure by Design principles.

In respect of appeal ‘B’, for the reasons I have identified above and based on the evidence before me, the appeal scheme would not result in harm to public safety. In this regard, I have considered Policy DH1 of the OLP insofar as it is material.

The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions which I have considered against the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and advice contained in Planning Practice Guidance. I have made amendments as necessary to comply with those documents as well as for clarity and consistency purposes.

In respect of appeal ‘A’ in addition to the standard time limit condition (1). I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans to provide certainty (2). Conditions requiring the external materials of the appeal scheme to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans as well as the removal of the street hub when it is no longer required are necessary to prevent the erosion of the character and appearance of the surrounding area (3 and 5). Finally, a condition requiring the management of the appeal in accordance with the [address] [name] 2 25/02505/FUL and 25/02507/ADV Appeal Decision 6003491 and 6003492 Behaviour Management Plan Version 3 is necessary to prevent any unacceptable harm to crime safety (4).

The Framework outlines that planning conditions should not be used to duplicate controls available under other regulatory regimes. Accordingly, the following of the Council’s recommended conditions in relation to appeal ‘B’ are not necessary: 1, 3 and 4.

Regarding appeal ‘B’ in addition to the five standard conditions in the Regulations, it is necessary to apply conditions to control the intensity of the illuminance of the advertisements as well as prevent moving images, animation, video or full motion images on the digital displays, require a minimum display time for each advertisement, an interval between successive advertisements no greater than one second and prevent the content from resembling traffic signs in the interest of visual amenity and public safety (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

It is not necessary to attach a condition listing the approved plans, as my decision relating to appeal ‘B’ grants express consent, not planning permission.

The Council have recommended a condition that there be no alteration to the size, colouring and lettering of the advertisements without written approval. However, given that the proposed advertisements are subject to the controls above, it is not necessary.

Finally, it is not necessary to attach a condition requiring the management of the [name] in accordance with the [address] [name] and Management Plan Version 3 as this would duplicate a condition of the associated planning permission.

For the reasons given above and taking all matters raised into account appeal ‘A’ and appeal ‘B’ are 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 nos 001 [name] (Site Location Maps), 002 [name] ( Proposed Site Plan), 003 [name] ([name]) and 003 [name] (Existing and [name]).

The development permitted shall be constructed in complete accordance with the materials specified in the application and approved plans listed in condition 2.

[address] Hub hereby approved shall be managed in accordance with the [address] Hub Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan Version 3 for the lifetime of the development.

The street hub hereby approved shall be removed from the site once no longer required and the land shall be reinstated to its original condition.

The intensity of the illumination of the advertisements permitted by this consent shall be no greater than [address] meter (cd/m2) between dusk and dawn, consistent with the guidance set out in the Institute of [name] in its [name] 05: The Brightness of [name] (or its equivalent in a replacement Guide).

There shall be no moving images, animation, video or full motion images displayed on the hereby approved digital displays.

The minimum display time for each advertisement shall be 10 seconds and the advertisement shall not include any features which would result in interactive messages/advertisements being displayed.

The interval between successive advertisements shall be no greater than 1 second and the complete display shall change without effect. The display is to include a mechanism to default to a blank or black screen in the event of malfunction, or if the advertisement is not in use.

No content on the digital display screens shall resemble traffic signs, as defined in section [address] Traffic Regulation Act 1984. =======END OF SCHEDULE======