Appeal 6003795

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated existing BT payphone(s) at [site address] , Oxford, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02597/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Appeal B:

The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for two digital 75-inch LCD display screens, one on each side of the [name] unit at [site address] , Oxford, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02598/ADV. The consent is for five 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 description of development as set out above includes the removal of associated BT payphones in the area, although these structures are not identified Appeal Decisions 6003795 & 6003797 within the application site boundary and are some distance from the appeal site. Moreover, there is no alternative mechanism before me which would secure their removal. As they are not located within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, their removal would not be determinative to the appeal.

Appeal A relates to the refusal of planning permission for the proposed digital communications hub. Appeal B is in respect of the refusal of advertisement consent for the digital advertising display integrated within the communications hub. I have dealt with the appeals on their individual merits, but as the advert screen is an integral part of the hub it is both convenient and appropriate to consider the appeals and their main issues together.

In respect of Appeal B, the Regulations, and the National Planning Policy Framework both make it clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account cumulative impacts. Regard does not need to be had to the development plan. I have taken relevant policies into account as a material consideration; however, they have not, by themselves, been determinative.

The main issues in these linked appeals are: • the effect of the hub and its digital display on the character and appearance and visual amenity of the surrounding area, including the nearby Central Conservation Area (CA); • whether the proposals would preserve the setting of the [name] listed 29A [site address] and a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA); and • the effect of the proposals on public safety and crime.

The appeal site is located within the commercial centre of Oxford, within the designated primary shopping area and directly outside a stepped entrance to [name], a very substantial partly brick and glass flat roofed structure. The busy and bustling surroundings are characterised by a mix of commercial units and large scale modern residential apartment buildings, in addition to the older more historic buildings referred to below.

The area is characterised by a variety of building scale ranging from three to five storeys and a wide range of time periods. There are also a variety of materials within the immediate vicinity of the site including brick, glass, render and stone.

The pavement is wide at this point, and there is numerous signage and street furniture nearby, such as bus stops, bike racks, benches and on street seating. However, given the width of the street, there is a sense of space which ensures that the various street furniture does not result in an impression of clutter. Appeal Decisions 6003795 & 6003797

The opposite side of [site address] is located within the Central (City & University) CA. It is within the [name] of the CA, which comprises the judicial and defensive heart of the city, but is also now a significant leisure and entertainment destination. Its significance in part therefore derives from the high concentration and interrelationship of buildings of historic and architectural interest, that denote its evolution.

The appeal site forms part of the varied, highly visible and mostly modern commercial development adjacent to this part of the CA, including the monolithic shopping centre. Given this variation, the setting of the CA contributes little to its significance.

There are a number of other nearby heritage assets nearby the appeal site, with the nearest being the [name] listed1 29a [site address] , which sits within the CA on the opposite side of [site address] .

The building was listed in 1977 and comprises of two parts, the left hand side late 17th century to 18th century, the right mostly 19th century. The left element is timber framed and rendered. It is two storeys with dormer and attic, one central window, and a 19th century shopfront. The right hand side is three storeys again with a 19th century shopfront.

Now in some disrepair, based on the evidence before me, I find that the special interest of the listed building to be primarily associated with its historic and architectural interests as a good illustration of 19th century part commercial architecture. Important contributors in these regards are its traditional methods of construction and materials; and key historic features and detailing.

The setting of the building is again, made up of the surrounding varied modern commercial and residential buildings, mostly of significant scale and height. Directly adjacent are taller modern residential buildings of brick or render which loom over and dominate the listed building. Nevertheless, the retained partly commercial qualities and character of the surroundings maintain the connection with the partly economic and business nature and history of the building.

Therefore, the listed building’s immediate setting also, in part, supports and contributes in a positive way to its special interest and significance.

Nearby the appeal site also lies The Castle public house, which is a NDHA. The Castle is an early 19th century building with decorative timber framing to its façade and steeply pitched tiled roofs, resulting in a distinctive mock-Tudor style. It is visible from views down [site address] to the north in front of the taller adjacent modern brick hotel.

Based on the evidence before me, I find that the special interest of the NDHA to be primarily associated with its historic and architectural interests as a good illustration of an early 19th century Victorian public house. Important contributors in these regards which are pertinent to the appeal are its historic architectural style and detailing and its historic and ongoing commercial use as a public house. 1 [name]: 1369468 Appeal Decisions 6003795 & 6003797

Its setting is again made up variously of the more modern and significantly taller wider commercial and residential buildings that make up [site address] and the surrounds, but also include some historic buildings, particularly on [address]. As such, the wider setting in part, again, supports and contributes in a positive way to the special interest and significance of the heritage asset.

The proposed street hub structure would be sited within a wide area of pavement. The addition of one further structure along the appeal side of the street would be comfortably accommodated within the space. Its siting would be broadly aligned with other street furniture in the vicinity and so would not be incongruous and the space surrounding it would mean that the perception of space would be maintained. The hub would not therefore be out of keeping with the surrounding public realm nor result in harmful clutter.

As the road rises its scale would be comparable to the existing bus stops nearby and would be seen in the context of the adjacent extremely large and tall shopping centre building and tall modern blocks of apartments opposite. The structure would not therefore unacceptably draw the eye. It would not read as an unduly bulky nor prominent form of development.

In addition, even as a standalone structure, the advertisement would be seen in the same context as the numerous surrounding illuminated signage located at differing heights. Whilst there are no other nearby examples of digital advertisements and it would not necessarily directly relate to the surrounding businesses, it would not therefore be out of keeping with the partly commercial character of the surroundings. Subject to appropriate controls on the level of illumination, I do not consider that the advertisement would be visually dominant.

The structure and advertisement would be seen in the same context as the surrounding uses and would not harm the existing character and appearance of [site address] . It would not therefore appear as a harmful nor discordant feature within the street scene.

Moreover, its siting directly outside an entrance to a very substantial modern shopping centre means that it would have no effect on any contribution the mixed setting of the CA makes to its significance.

This also means that the proposal would also not affect the authenticity of how 29a [site address] is experienced not alter the ability to appreciate its significance. The commercial connection of the building to the surroundings would also be unchanged.

Additionally, whilst visible in views down [site address] , again, it would be seen in the context of the surrounding street furniture and significant commercial and residential modern buildings. It would not obscure any significant views of the NDHA. The existing authenticity of how the NDHA is experienced would not alter nor would the ability to appreciate its significance.

The two appeal decisions2 referred to by the Council are located some distance away, outside the obvious commercial core of the city. As such they have a 2 Appeal references APP/G3110/W/22/3308264 & APP/G3110/W/22/3308262 Appeal Decisions 6003795 & 6003797 different context in terms of the surroundings (and the consequential visual effect of the proposals and effect on pavement users) and are not directly comparable.

For the reasons set out above, I disagree with findings of the Council’s decisions referred to nearby the site3 on [site address] , in relation to matters of which are common between the proposals and the scheme in front of me. As set out above, the existing hubs are some distance from the appeal site and they do not form part of the immediate context. As such, their visual impact, negative or otherwise, does not affect the proposal.

For Appeal A, I conclude that the proposed hub would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the nearby [name], and would preserve the setting of the [name] listed 29A [site address] and The Castle NDHA. There would be no conflict with Oxford Local Plan 2020 (LP) Policies DH1 and V9, which collectively, amongst other matters, confirms that planning permission will only be granted where the structures are sympathetically designed add meet the key design objectives and principles for delivering high quality design and placemaking.

Additionally, I conclude for Appeal B that the prosed advertisement would not have a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area, including the adjacent [name] and other nearby heritage assets. I have taken into account LP Policy DH6, which confirms advertisement consent will only be granted where proposals are not detrimental to assets with heritage significance or visual amenity. The refusal reason also refers to [name] DH1 and DH3 however these do not specifically refer to advertisement consents. As such they are not determinative in this instance.

Whilst it is noted that the appeal site is not covered currently by CCTV, this is a very busy commercial area next to a busy highway, in full view from a number of directions including bars/restaurants with outdoor seating areas. As such, the site benefits from good natural surveillance.

The consultation response from the Thames Valley Police describing a crime risk is acknowledged however there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that those issues would be increased as a result of the proposed development in this particular location. The existing adjacent shopping centre provides free wi-fi, and the [address] Hub Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan, produced in partnership with the [name], provides for measure such as call restrictions, and turning off the wi-fi in hours of darkness. This would discourage the misuse of these features and the ‘honeypot’ effect described by the Council in relation to tourists.

In addition to the priority assigned to contact from the police, a planning condition securing the measures suggested by the Anti-social Behaviour Management Plan would reduce the risk of the BT street hub being used for crime to an acceptable degree.

The management plan also sets out an appropriate maintenance schedule, in accordance with the submitted [name]. This would ensure commitment 3 Application references 22/01159/FUL & 22/01160/ADV Appeal Decisions 6003795 & 6003797 to addressing vandalism of any kind and prevent the hub falling into disrepair, thereby perpetuating public disorder and harm to visual amenity.

As such, based on the information before me, I am satisfied that there would be no adverse effect on public safety and crime. I therefore find no conflict with LP Policy DH1, which seeks high quality development.

The submitted evidence refers to the presence of the [name]* listed4 Greyfriars Oxford Health Department at No 21 Greyfriars and the [name] listed 5 [address] in the vicinity of the appeal site, both on [address].

The special interest and significance of these assets largely stem from their historic and architectural interest, but are also derived, in part, from their city centre and commercial area context. Given the position and nature of the proposal, the settings of these designated heritage assets would be preserved, and their significance would not be harmed. It is noteworthy that the Council have not raised any objection in this respect.

Whilst not referenced in the refusal reason, the Council have identified there is no need for the structure, advertising or other functions, raise concerns regarding the commercialisation of public space and the applicant has not submitted enough convincing information or data to suggest otherwise. However, from the policies put before me, the commercialisation of the public space is not a criteria for consideration. Given the lack of harm identified above, there is no overall requirement to demonstrate a need for the appeal scheme that would outweigh harm.

I have considered suggested conditions against the Framework’s tests, making minor adjustments in the interests of clarity and precision.

I have imposed the standard time limit for commencement and, in the interests of certainty, a condition citing the approved drawings. A condition requiring compliance with the submitted Anti-social Behaviour Management Plan is necessary in order to secure the prevention of anti social behaviours measures and that the hub is appropriately cleaned and maintained. References to an algorithm to identify repeated anti-social behaviour and a review after three months is not necessary, given the communication and review details set out in page 4 of the management plan.

To avoid the accumulation of unnecessary street clutter, I have imposed a condition requiring the removal of the structure should this become defunct or defected.

Given the mixed surrounding context, a condition specifying external materials is unnecessary. 4 [name]: 1369431 5 [name]: 1111745 Appeal Decisions 6003795 & 6003797

In addition to the standard five conditions, which includes the requirement to maintain the advertisement in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site, conditions controlling luminance levels during hours of darkness, display time and effects are necessary in the interest of the visual amenity of the area.

The standard conditions relate to the approved plans and as such a separate plan confirming this is unnecessary. The display screen nature of the advertisement means that a condition relating to colouring and lettering is not necessary.

Repeating the same condition relating to a management plan as imposed on Appeal A is also unnecessary.

For the reasons above, both 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 A, 002 A, 003 A.

[address] Hub shall be managed in accordance with the [address] [name] Plan Version 3 April 2021 for the lifetime of the development. Appeal B:

The intensity of the illumination of the digital display screens shall not exceed [address] meter (cd/m2) between dusk and dawn in line with the maximum permitted recommended luminance as set out by 'The Institute of [name] 05: The Brightness of [name].

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.