Appeal 6003546

Appeal ‘A’ is dismissed.

Appeal ‘B’ is dismissed.

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 unit. 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 appeal ‘B’. Accordingly, in determining appeal ‘B’, the development plan policies are not determinative but I have taken them into account insofar as they are material considerations.

The main issues in appeal ‘A’ are: • whether the proposed development could be implemented; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and Appeal Decision 6003546 and 6003547 • 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 appellant highlights that BT has an [name] license and [name] (USO) governed by Ofcom to provide and maintain publicly accessible call boxes on the street. Accordingly, whilst I am cognisant of the concerns highlighted by the Council regarding the commercialisation of public space, based on the evidence before me, there is an adequate need for the proposed development.

The description of development for appeal ‘A’ includes the removal of associated existing BT payphone(s). The appellant accepts that the existing payphone(s) which would be removed as part of the appeal scheme are not within the red line boundary.

I acknowledge that the appellant has stated that there is limited evidence to suggest that BT PLC would not honour its commitment to remove the kiosks should the appeal be successful, including the significant numbers of public call boxes it has removed historically.

However, given the description of development and the lack of a legal mechanism to secure their removal, the development as proposed in appeal ‘A’ could not be implemented.

The appeal site is located close to the [address] Mall which is a shopping area. The surrounding area is predominantly commercial and there are retail and business units adjacent to the appeal site location mainly at ground floor level.

[name] acknowledge there is some low-level street furniture near to the appeal site such as bicycle racks and low-level seating, there remains built form that is relatively high including buildings with multiple floors, streetlights and in particular the tall [address] Mall sign which measures around 10m in height. I acknowledge that the [address] Mall sign is a wayfinding feature, static and non-illuminated. However, it remains part of the visual context of the appeal scheme especially given its dominance.

The proposed [address] Hub would be around 3m in height and based on the evidence before me the size is specifically required to accommodate 5G antennas and meet International Commission on [name] (ICNIRP) compliance. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed scale and massing of the appeal scheme and thus the digital screens, is not wholly unreasonable.

Notwithstanding this, when viewed in the site-specific context it would not result in an unacceptably large, monolithic structure especially given its relatively slender form and the nearby [address] Mall sign. Moreover, it would be accessible Appeal Decision 6003546 and 6003547 in design for individuals who have protected characteristics as outlined in the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Additionally, there are bike racks close to the appeal site and general street furniture such as bollards, service cabinets and street lighting. Therefore, it would not, in my planning judgement result in clutter on the street and would instead be viewed within the existing overall streetscape context which is, on balance, busy and commercial. I acknowledge that the Council refer to an established pattern of low-level façade mounted signage. Nevertheless, given the [address] Mall sign as well as the overall commercial character of the surrounding area, on balance the proposed development would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposed advertisements would be on either side of the [name] and include changing advertisements. These would be illuminated. However, given the commercial character of the surrounding area, there is already a level of illumination in the appeal site’s immediate context.

Moreover, whilst I acknowledge the digital screens are relatively large, within the wider area there are bus shelters with large advertisements. Although, these are not within the immediate context of the appeal site and the adverts are integrated into the design, they nonetheless contribute to the overall commercial character of the surrounding area.

Accordingly, in my planning judgement, given the commercial context of the appeal site and the surrounding area as well as the existing illumination and street furniture, the advertisements would not result in an overly prominent and visually intrusive feature. Consequently, it would not result in unacceptable harm to visual amenity.

I am mindful of the appeal decisions at Pavement o/s [address], Pavement o/s [address] and Pavement o/s [address] Oxford. Additionally, the council has referred to other planning application numbers1.I do not have the full circumstances of these appeal decisions and therefore cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and given the site-specific context of the appeal site before me (particularly the [address] Mall sign), they do not lead me to a different conclusion.

Considering all of the above, I conclude that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and that there would be no unacceptable harm to visual amenity as a consequence of the proposed development.

Accordingly, with regard to 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 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 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 6003546 and 6003547 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.

I am mindful of the comments provided by Thames Valley Police (TVP) and in particular their concerns regarding crime and public safety during the [name]. There are [name] (CCTV) cameras located close to the appeal site and TVP highlight concerns that the illumination and brightness of the digital screens would create colour contrasting, darkening and softening of the images, reducing visibility and the ability to identify, monitor and detect crime using the [name]. This is despite the existing street lighting.

The BT SH 3.0 [name] for [name] & Glare document dated March 2025 includes examples of the [address] [name] against solid walls rather than in open streets. I also acknowledge that it does not consider explicitly CCTV being used during an incident in progress. Nevertheless, the document still provides images of [address] Hubs and the light/glare they can emit. Thus, whilst the proposed screens would be relatively bright, it does outline that the proposed glass has a light reflection of around 5%.

Consequently, on balance, given the proposed materials, the site-specific commercial streetscape and existing lighting, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the appeal scheme would result in an unacceptable impact upon the [name].

Within the evidence before me, there is reference to other city centre locations which have indicated that developments, similar to the appeal scheme, have been frequently misused to facilitate illegal drug activity and the exploitation of the free Wi-Fi as well as call facilities. Furthermore, that these free facilities including phone charging result in congregation and consequently are linked to antisocial behaviour including the misuse of the 999-facility offered by the [name].

Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan Version 3 (the ASBMP) would not be sufficient to address the concerns raised by TVP and the Council. 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. Therefore, in my planning judgement, subject to a suitable planning condition to secure the ASBMP, the appeal scheme would not result in an unacceptable risk to crime safety.

Given that the appeal scheme provides device charging and free Wi-Fi facilities TVP have raised concerns regarding ‘[name] vulnerability where the [address] Appeal Decision 6003546 and 6003547 Hub will attract a number of people with desirable technology such as phone and cameras to congregate in a small area. Therefore, criminal gangs may focus on the area and thus pickpocketing and snatch theft may occur. I note the concern regarding pinch points where the width of the footpath is reduced creating spaces where pickpocketing can take place due to the need for individuals to be close to each other. However, the proposed location would be adjacent to the existing bicycle racks and would result in a significant width of footway being retained. Therefore, it would not result in a significant reduction in the usable footpath. Accordingly, to my mind, it would not result in an unacceptable pinch point or [name] vulnerability.

Regarding the reduced visibility for pedestrians as a consequence of the scale and massing of the proposed development. The slender form and overall scale of the appeal scheme would not, on balance, result in unacceptable harm to natural surveillance, especially given the existing streetscape, the access to [address] Mall and the nearby pedestrian crossing.

Concerns relating to vandalism and criminal damage have also been raised in the evidence. There is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that this would be the case. Nevertheless, the [name] are monitored 24 hours 7 days a week and therefore any faults with the cleaning and maintenance of the [name] can be spotted. [address] [name] 2024 document outlines that most issues relating to this matter would be solved on average within three days, which to my mind is adequate.

Therefore, considering all of the above, subject to a condition securing the ASBMP, the appeal scheme would not result in unacceptable harm to crime 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.

I am mindful of the public benefits (social, economic and environmental) highlighted in the evidence before me such as, 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 the benefit would reduce.

Nevertheless, on balance, these facilities would likely support the retail sector and tourism, which in turn would possibly lead to further visitors and investment into the area. It would also provide a service to individuals who may not have access to broadband and thus there is a social benefit associated with the appeal schemes.

Additionally, the wayfinding service could lead to a greater use of more sustainable methods of transport and I note that the appeal scheme would be operated using 100% renewable energy services.

Given the scale of the scheme, I afford these benefits limited weight. Appeal Decision 6003546 and 6003547

Based on the evidence before me, there is public Wi-Fi provided in [address] Mall and therefore whilst the appeal scheme would provide full fibre connectivity the associated benefit is limited. Furthermore, the benefits associated with the removal of existing public call boxes would also be limited given that there is no mechanism to secure their removal.

I have found that neither appeal ‘A’ or appeal B would result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and visual amenity respectively. Nor would they result in unacceptable harm to crime safety and public safety respectively. Additionally, I am mindful of the public benefits I have identified in association with the appeal schemes.

However, it remains that even though I have found the advertisements acceptable in appeal ‘B’ it would be contingent on appeal ‘A’ succeeding given they would be displayed on it. As appeal ‘A’ would be unable to be implemented given my conclusion on the first main issue, neither appeal can succeed.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that both appeal ‘A’ and appeal ‘B’ should be dismissed.