Appeal 6003563

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 144066/FO/2025, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of 2no internally illuminated digital display screens at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 144067/AOH/2025. The consent is for ten years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations and the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeals relate to the same site and the same proposed development, namely a multifunctional communications hub which, amongst other things, would have an illuminated digital advertisement display. To avoid unnecessary repetition, both appeals have been dealt with in a single decision letter, but the appeals themselves have been considered based upon their own merits.

In respect of Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) require that decisions are made only in the interest of amenity and public safety. Therefore, whilst I have taken account of the policies that the Council considers to be relevant, these have not been Appeal Decisions 6003647 and 6003563 decisive in my determination of this appeal.

The appeal site is located within a conservation area, and listed buildings are located within the site’s vicinity. As a result, in reaching my decision on Appeal A, I have had special regard to Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and, in relation to Appeal B, to Section 72(1) only.

The main issues for Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on: • on the character and appearance of the local area, with particular regard to whether it would preserve or enhance character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings; and • highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian movement.

For Appeal B, the main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity and public safety.

The appeal site comprises an area of pavement located to the front of 71 Piccadilly, also known as the [name], occupied by an existing InLink unit. The unit provides a range of digital services, including free public Wi‐Fi, free UK calls, USB charging, and access to emergency services. It also incorporates two digital display screens, one on each side, which show advertisements at intervals. The existing unit is located close to the junction of Piccadilly and [address], and this part of the footpath is wider and contains other items of street furniture such as benches, a waste bin, directional signage and street lighting.

The surrounding area is characterised by mostly commercial uses at ground floor level, incorporating a range of illuminated and non-illuminated signage. A number of nearby bus stops also contain advertisement panels. The area is identified as an important pedestrian movement corridor linking the nearby [name] and the city centre, it is also a busy location for traffic, particularly buses.

The appeal site is within the [address] Conservation Area (the CA). The significance of the CA is primarily derived from its architectural or historic interest comprising of mostly Victorian or early-20th century buildings, most of which are related to the cotton industry, often warehouses, showrooms or workshops. The CA represents a significant portion of the city centre in which the majority of

It also lies adjacent to some Grade II Listed buildings, including the Halls Buildings1 which are a substantial five storey former warehouse building built circa 1870-80. Its significance is derived primarily from the architectural interest of the building as an example of a [name] style building, constructed of sandstone ashlar with wide central bays and narrow end bays. Adjacent to this 1 [name]: 1271112 Appeal Decisions 6003647 and 6003563 building, is 77-83 Piccadilly2 which is a four-storey building, dated 1877 and by Clegg and Knowles. Its significance is derived primarily from the architectural interest of the building and its eclectic architectural style, with [name] features. These buildings form a group and contribute positively to the CA. The Council has also identified [name] Chambers3 and [address] 59-61 Piccadilly4 as other nearby listed buildings.

The appeal site is also located close to [address], an important area of public open space, which is due to be regenerated. [name] have not been provided with any specific proposals for the area, the Council indicates that they intend to make the area more colourful, vibrant and inviting, also improving safety and security. They have also stated that the proposal will include decluttering and revamping the public realm around the gardens.

The proposal seeks planning permission and advertisement consent for the replacement of the existing [name] with a [address] Hub 3. The replacement unit would be slightly larger than the existing unit, extending the footprint by approximately 347mm in width and 71mm in depth. It would also be 90mm taller than the existing unit. The proposal would also incorporate a larger advertisement screen measuring approximately, 0.95m by 1.67m. The unit would be finished in a black powder coated cladding.

In terms of its design and appearance, the existing unit is predominantly silver and black, whereas the replacement would be black and incorporate a larger digital screen. However, it would be seen alongside surrounding street furniture, including bins, bus shelters, streetlights and signage, which are largely black in colour. It would be of a similar scale and appearance to the nearby totem-style units. The area also contains a high degree of visual variety, including illuminated advertisements of a similar scale. Consequently, whilst the proposal would introduce a more modern feature, it would not cause unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the area.

In terms of its siting, the replacement hub would be wider by approximately 34cm but would be located in a broadly similar position within the footpath. It would also be marginally taller. However, whilst being larger than the existing unit, it would not lead to a net increase in the presence of these types of units and therefore would not harmfully increase visual clutter in this location. Furthermore, the proposed increase in height would be experienced alongside the tall buildings which surround the appeal site. As a result, it would not appear unduly prominent in this context.

I have had regard to the Council’s concern that the proposed hub would be located within the paved section of the footpath, rather than the brick section, where the majority of street furniture is now located. However, as outlined above, the proposal is to replace the existing unit, and the footprint of the unit would be very marginally larger. As a result, I find that its siting would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.

In terms of the proposed advertisement, each display screen would measure approximately 950mm by 1670mm, which is larger than the existing screens which 2 [name]: 1271232 3 [name]: 1246265 4 [name]: 1246671 Appeal Decisions 6003647 and 6003563 measure approximately 689mm by 1215mm. The luminance would also be increased from 326 cd/m2 to a maximum of 600 cd/m2 during hours of darkness. I acknowledge that this represents an increase in both scale and brightness. However, the appeal site is located within a busy commercial environment characterised by a high level of existing artificial illumination, including street lighting, illuminated signage, and digital advertising displays of a similar scale. In this context, the proposed luminance level would not appear unusually bright or visually intrusive when experienced against the prevailing ambient lighting conditions. The proposed display would be viewed primarily within the public realm, where a degree of illumination is typical and expected.

Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied that the effect of the illumination could be appropriately controlled through the imposition of suitably worded conditions, including limits on maximum luminance, automatic dimming in response to ambient light levels. Subject to such controls, the proposed advertisement would not result in unacceptable harm to visual amenity.

In respect of the consistent rotation of static images, this is a feature of the existing unit. Whilst the proposal would utilise a larger digital display area, it would not be significantly larger or obtrusive and as a result, would not lead to a harmful effect on visual amenity. Furthermore, there would be no net increase in the number of advertisements present in this location. Therefore, I find that the marginal increase in size would not result in a harmful intensification of advertisements or contribute in a detrimental way to the proliferation advert clutter in this location. For these reasons, I find that it would not be harmful to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area.

I accept that the proposal would not make a meaningful contribution towards the Council’s Strategy to reduce advertisement clutter. However, it would be a replacement of an existing advertisement, albeit of a marginally larger size. Therefore, I find that it would not result in the over-proliferation of advertisements in this location.

With regard to the setting of nearby listed buildings, I acknowledge that the proposal would represent a modern intervention within their setting. However, it would replace a similarly modern structure. Whilst its appearance and digital display would contrast with traditional architectural detailing of the listed buildings, the site sits within a busy, commercial and visually varied environment. Therefore, whilst the proposal would be within the setting of the listed buildings, taking into account the existing unit’s relationship to these buildings and surrounding modern features which are also located within their setting, I find that the proposal would have no discernible impact on the their setting, and thus would preserve their significance.

I accept that the proposed hub would introduce a larger unit. However, given its context within this busy commercial setting, with numerous advertisements and other examples of street furniture it would not appear as a obtrusive, incongruous or overly dominant addition. Furthermore, it would not be significantly larger than the existing hub so as to result in any notable additional street clutter. For these reasons, I find that its siting, scale, design, appearance, and means of illumination would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find that the setting and significance of the nearby listed buildings and the CA would be preserved. Appeal Decisions 6003647 and 6003563

As no harm to the significance of designated heritage assets has been identified, there is no requirement to undertake a balancing exercise in respect of public benefits, required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

My attention has been drawn to a number of appeal decisions5 within the same local authority area. [name] don’t have full details of the appeal schemes before me, they would appear to differ from the current appeal proposal on the basis that they relate to the installation of a new street hub unit, rather than a replacement of an existing unit. Therefore, I find that they are not directly comparable to this appeal proposal and I attribute them limited weight.

For the reasons given above, in respect of Appeal A I conclude that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the setting of nearby listed buildings. Therefore, I find no conflict with Policies SP1, CC9, EN1, EN3 and DM1 of Manchester’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted 2012 and amended 2024 (the CS), Saved Policy DC19 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester, adopted 1995 (the UDP) and [name]-P1, JP-P2 and JP-C5 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan, adopted 2024 (the PfE Plan). Together, the policies seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development is appropriate, respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting, size, scale and materials used; incorporates high quality in the design and finish of the public realm; and preserves heritage assets, the historic environment and the setting of listed buildings.

In relation to Appeal B, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the visual amenity of the area. In accordance with the relevant Regulations, I have considered the provisions of the development plan to the extent that they are applicable. The aforementioned policies are therefore material considerations in this context. In addition, I have had regard to Policy DC15 of the UDP which requires amongst other things, proposals to take account of the general location and the effect on visual amenity. The proposal would not have a harmful impact on visual amenity and would meet therefore meet with the objectives of the above policies.

The proposal also accords with the Framework, which seeks to ensure that the quality and character of places does not suffer from advertisements that are poorly sited and designed; and that heritage assets (including their settings) are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.

Paragraph 117 of the Framework states that development should create places that are safe, secure and attractive, which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards.

The Council has referred me to the City Centre Transport Strategy to 2040 which seeks to encourage journeys by foot, cycle or public transport, including by improving streets to improve the movement of people and goods. My attention has 5 Appeal Refs: APP/B4215/W/25/3369446; APP/B4215/W/25/3369503; APP/B4215/W/25/3369504 Appeal Decisions 6003647 and 6003563 also been drawn to the [name] for [name] sets minimum standards for footways.

However, whilst I acknowledge that the area experiences high levels of footfall, being a key route between [name] and the City Centre, the proposal would be located within the widest section of footpath and the submitted plans indicate that there would be more than sufficient space retained to allow for unimpeded movement, including for those with disabilities. In this case the retained footpath width would be approximately 3.6 metres to the carriageway edge and 4.7 metres to the building line of No 71. Furthermore, the increase in size of the replacement unit would be marginal, as such users of the footpath would be unlikely to experience reduction in pedestrian comfort or an increase in navigation confusion in this location. Therefore, I find that it would not result in a harmful obstruction for users of the footpath.

The Council has raised concerns about the proximity of the proposal to a nearby pedestrian crossing point, which is located approximately 6 metres away. However, this distance, together with the substantial width of the footpath in this location means that there is unlikely to be conflict between the siting of the proposed unit and pedestrians waiting to cross. Even acknowledging that this is a busy pedestrian environment, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the marginal increase in footprint would be harmful to pedestrian flows or safety.

Whilst the Council has drawn my attention to a potential reduction in pavement width as a result of external seating areas associated with the nearby bar/restaurant, at the time of my site visit there was no outdoor seating present, and I have not been provided with details of the extent of the seating area. However, even if external seating areas would be located close to the appeal site, taking into account the narrow depth and marginal increase in width of the proposed unit, I am not persuaded that this would result in unacceptable harm to pedestrian flow or accessibility. Therefore, taking all of the above into account, I am satisfied that the proposed hub unit would not have a significant additional impact on highway safety, pedestrian movement or public safety.

I have had regard to third party concerns regarding the siting of kiosks on the side of roads and the highlighted appeal decision6. However, it would be positioned in a similar position to the existing unit and there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the existing unit has caused highway safety concerns for these reasons. Furthermore, the Council has not raised any specific concerns in relation to driver visibility, distraction or safety risks and based on the evidence before I see no reason to reach an alternative conclusion. Therefore, whilst I have had regard to these concerns there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposals pose a risk to highway safety, such that it would warrant dismissal of the appeal scheme.

For the reasons given above, in respect of Appeal A I conclude that the proposal would not harm pedestrian flow or safety. Therefore, I find no conflict with Policies SP1, CC5, T1 and DM1 of the CS, Saved Policy DC22 of the UDP and [name]-P1 and JP-C4 of the PfE Plan. Together, these policies seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development is safe and easy to move around; has regard to road and community safety; and would not be injurious to public safety. 6 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/H/24/3350920 Appeal Decisions 6003647 and 6003563

In relation to Appeal B, I conclude that the proposal would not harm public safety. In accordance with the relevant Regulations, I have considered the provisions of the development plan to the extent that they are applicable. The proposal would not have a harmful impact on public safety and would meet therefore meet with the objectives of the above policies.

In addition to the matters addressed under my main issues, I have also taken into account further concerns raised by interested parties. In respect of potential health implications arising from telecommunications apparatus and its adherence to the guidelines set by the International Commission on [name] (ICNIRP), no sufficiently authoritative evidence has been provided to indicate that the ICNIRP guidelines would not be complied with or that a departure from national policy is justified. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence to indicate illumination of the displays would cause eye damage or that the hub would unacceptably affect human health through increased use of phones or screens.

Concerns have also been raised about the possible effects of the proposal on vulnerable groups, including children, older people, and those with long-term health conditions or disabilities, such as individuals who are visually impaired or sensitive to light. In considering these matters, I have taken into account the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This duty requires public authorities to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation; to promote equality of opportunity; and to encourage positive relations between those with protected characteristics and those without. Protected characteristics include age and disability.

In my assessment, I have had full regard to the PSED and to the needs of all users of the highway. I conclude that the scale and positioning of the hub and its associated advertisements would not result in a disproportionate impact on persons with protected characteristics. Furthermore, although additional concerns have been expressed regarding potential health effects, there is no specific evidence before me relating to this scheme or its location that substantiates those concerns. On that basis, the PSED does not lead me to find that the appeals should be dismissed on these grounds.

Third party concerns have also been raised about the cost and type of advertisements that the proposal might support, for example fast-food adverts. However, I have not been directed to any planning policy which seeks to control the content of such advertisements.

I also acknowledge the concerns raised relating to climate change, sustainability, and biodiversity. However, no compelling evidence has been submitted to demonstrate harm in these areas, and I am therefore not persuaded to reach an alternative conclusion. Issues concerning the operation of CCTV, environmental sensors, public Wi-Fi, and the associated implications for data protection are governed by separate legislative regimes. Accordingly, they are not matters that carry determinative weight in the consideration of these appeals.

The necessity for hub units of this nature has been questioned, particularly in light of the widespread availability and increasing use of mobile phones. However, it is noted that neither local nor national planning policies require an appellant to demonstrate a specific need for the proposed development. Similarly, there is no Appeal Decisions 6003647 and 6003563 policy requirement at either the local or national level for operators to evidence that alternative options have been explored or discounted.

I have also had regard to the concerns which have been raised by a local Councillor regarding the potential impacts on safety, including the perception of crime. However, there is no substantive, site-specific evidence before me to indicate that the proposal would give rise to increased crime or anti-social behaviour.

Consequently, these concerns do not outweigh my findings in relation to the main issues of this appeal.

In respect of Appeal A, the Council have suggested a number of conditions which I have considered against the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have included a condition specifying the approved plans, which is necessary in the interests of certainty. A further condition requiring the proposed development to be built and maintained thereafter in accordance with the submitted Noise Management Plan, Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan and [address] Hubs. This condition is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area and to ensure there are no adverse impacts on amenity.

In respect of Appeal B, all advertisements granted express consent are subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations. In addition to these, I have imposed a condition to control the level of illumination, to ensure there is no moving imagery and to set a minimum display time of 10 seconds, also ensuring that the interval between successive image displays is instantaneous. These additional conditions are necessary in the interest of amenity and public safety.

The Council also suggested conditions to be attached to Appeal B with respect to any advertisement being maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site, and that any advertisement hoarding or structure is to be kept in a condition which does not endanger the public. These suggested conditions however reflect some of the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations, which are automatically imposed, and therefore do not need to be repeated.

In respect of both appeals, the Council suggested a condition should be imposed on any grant of planning permission and advertisement consent to limit the approval to a temporary period of 12 months. However, the appellant states that they are seeking approval for the display of the advertisement for a period of ten years.

In respect of Appeal A, having regard to the evidence before me, including my above assessment of any harm arising from the proposal., there is limited evidence before me that circumstances are very likely to change in a particular way at the end of the 12-month permission period or, even if they did, that the communication hub would be very likely to result in any harm. Therefore, I find that such a condition would not be necessary and I have not imposed this

For Appeal B, under Regulation 14(7), advertisement consent is granted for a period of 5 years unless otherwise specified. The appellant has sought a 10-year period. As there is no substantive evidence before me that the display would be unacceptable at the end of the shorter period, I have granted consent for the 10- year period in my formal decision.

Finally, I note within their consultation response Transport for [name] requested a Construction Management Plan (CMP) be employed. However, given the limited scale of the proposed development, I find that a condition requiring the submission of a CMP would not be reasonably necessary to make this development acceptable. Consequently, this suggested condition has not been imposed.

For the reasons given, in respect of Appeal A I conclude that the proposed development would accord with the development plan taken as a whole and that there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise in accordance with it. Therefore, Appeal A is allowed.

In respect of Appeal B, the proposed advertisement would not be harmful to amenity or public safety. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.

The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • 25004395_LOC_S1_1.1 - Location Plan • 25004395_PLN_SI_2.1 - Proposed Site Plan • 25004395_PLN_EL_3.1 - Elevation Plan

The development hereby approved shall be installed and maintained at all times thereafter in accordance with the details specified within the documents titled: • [address] Hubs v2.1 ([name] 2025) • Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan Version 3 • Street Hubs Noise Management Plan v2.1 ([name] 2025) Schedule of Conditions: Appeal B In addition to the five standard conditions in the Regulations:

In daylight hours, the intensity of the illuminance of the advertisements 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 2500cd/m2 to accord with the guidance set out in the Institution of [name] - [name] (PLG 05) 'Brightness of [name] including [name] (2023) (or its equivalent in a replacement guide).

In the hours of darkness (between dusk and dawn), the intensity of the illuminance of the advertisements shall be no greater than 600cd/m2 to accord with the guidance set out in the Institution of [name] - [name] (PLG 05) 'Brightness of [name] including [name] (2023) (or its equivalent in a replacement guide).

The digital display screens shall not display any moving, or apparently moving, images (including animation, flashing, scrolling three dimensional, intermittent or video elements).

The minimum display time for each piece of content on the digital display screens shall be 10 seconds. The interval between successive displays shall be instantaneous and the complete screen shall change with no visual effects (including swiping or other animated transition methods) between displays, and the display will include a mechanism to switch to a blank screen with a black background in the event of a malfunction. END OF SCHEDULE Appeal Decisions 6003647 and 6003563 Appendix 1 - List of those who have appealed Case Reference Appellant Reference Appeal A 6003647 [name] on behalf of BT Telecommunications PLC Appeal B 6003563 [name] on behalf of BT Telecommunications PLC