Appeal 6003922

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed advertisements for Appeal B would be an integral part of the proposed development for Appeal A. As such, to avoid repetition I have provided one reasoning section, detailing my findings for both appeals. Notwithstanding this, each proposal and appeal has been considered individually, and on its own merits.

The 2007 Regulations specify that control may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. In relation to Appeal B, the relevant policies of the development plan have been taken into account so as they are material, but they have not been determinative.

The main issues with respect to Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on: Appeal Decisions 6003922, 6003923 • the character and appearance of the area; • crime safety; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and • climate change.

The main issues with respect to Appeal B are the effect of the proposed advertisements on amenity and public safety.

The appeal site comprises an area of footway located outside Primark on [address] in Torquay, a predominantly commercial area within Torquay Town Centre. Shop fronts are present on either side of the street, some of which have colourful signage.

A wide array of existing street furniture is present near the site, including planters, benches, bins, and signboards. A large digital free-standing advertising unit is present further up [address] to the north-west, in close proximity to the site. As such, this area is already busy with street furniture. Due to its height, width, and monolithic design, the proposed [address] Hub would constitute a bulky feature in the street scene, which would add to street clutter in the area. The prominence of the proposed [address] Hub in this location would be exacerbated by the proposed 2 digital display screens. Condition(s) to limit their maximum level of luminance would reduce their prominence to a degree, especially at night, but this would not be sufficient to overcome the adverse impact which the structure as a whole would have on the character and appearance of the area by way of it unduly adding to clutter in the area.

On my site visit I observed that the kiosk referred to in the submitted Kiosk Removal Plan, at Pimlico near the junction with [address], has already been removed. Accordingly, the proposals before me would not serve to reduce street clutter in that location. The other kiosk referred to by the appellant, on [address], is located several minutes walk from the site. As it is not viewed within the same visual context as the site, its removal has little bearing on the sense of clutter and visual amenities of the local area in which the site is located. Accordingly, its proposed removal would not mitigate the adverse impacts identified above.

The Inspector in appeal decision [name]/G3110/W/22/3308266 referred to characteristics and existing features which provided the urban street scene with a busy, varied commercial character and appearance, and to lighting provided by streetlights and buildings. However, as no plans have been provided relating to that scheme, the degree to which the site-specific circumstances are comparable with the proposals before me is unclear. Accordingly, that appeal decision does not alter my findings on this main issue.

I therefore find that the proposed [address] Hub would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy DE1 of the Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030 (adopted 2015) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, development should be well-designed, Appeal Decisions 6003922, 6003923 respecting and enhancing Torbay’s special qualities, and with Policy TH8 of the Torquay Neighbourhood Plan (adopted 2019) which provides that development must be of good quality design, respect the local character in terms of height, scale and bulk; and reflect the identity of its surroundings.

In relation to Appeal B, I find that the proposed advertisements would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on amenity. In accordance with Regulation 3(1) of the 2007 Regulations, material to my findings are the same policies mentioned with respect to Appeal A. Whilst not determinative, the proposed advertisements would conflict with these policies. Whilst not determinative, conflict would also arise with part 1. of Policy DE6 of the Local Plan which provides that advertisements will not be permitted where they would harm visual or aural amenity.

The Police have mentioned that the proposed [address] Hub would be situated in an anti-social behaviour hotspot policing area which results in extra patrols to reduce anti-social behaviour. However, there is little substantive evidence before me that the services offered by the proposed [address] Hub, including free ultrafast Wi-Fi, would appreciably exacerbate this situation. Nor has any substantive evidence been provided to demonstrate that the proposed [address] Hub would undermine the operation of CCTV in the area.

The Police have raised concerns that the ability to make free calls could allow abuse of that service, including the proposed [address] Hub being used to facilitate the distribution of drugs or nuisance calls, particularly for domestic abuse / stalking victims.

The submitted [name] Plan (Version 3) details how a proprietary algorithm provides for automatic anti-social call restriction based on a range of factors. Whilst this would not immediately prevent ‘one-off’ malicious calls, I am mindful that any mobile telephone connected to the telecommunications network could used to make such calls, with the only difference being that the proposed [address] Hub would allow for calls to be made free of charge. Importantly, the Management Plan allows for the blanket prevention of calls to mobile telephone and landline numbers, should this be warranted in the circumstances. As such, I concur with the Inspector’s finding in appeal decision [name]/L5240/W/21/3285401 that a planning condition requiring adherence to the Management Plan would reduce the risk of the [address] Hub being used for crime to an acceptable degree.

I therefore find that, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed [address] Hub would have an acceptable effect on crime safety, and in relation to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would have an acceptable effect on public safety. No conflict would arise with Policies DE1, DE6, and SS11 of the Local Plan which collectively seek to, amongst other things, help to reduce and prevent crime and the fear of crime whilst designing out opportunities for crime, antisocial behaviour, disorder and community conflict.

The appellant has clarified that the default setting is for the [address] Hub, including its Wi-Fi and phone call elements, to operate throughout the day and Appeal Decisions 6003922, 6003923 night. The proposed maximum daytime luminance for the 2 digital display screens of 5000 cd/m2 would fall within the recommended parameters set out in [name] 05/23: The Brightness of [name] (PLG 05/23). Additionally, the proposed [address] Hub would incorporate controls which would change the brightness of the screens depending on the time of day / weather conditions. Moreover, the proposed 2 digital display screens would not be directly facing the windows of any neighbouring buildings.

If the proposals were acceptable in all other respects, potentially conditions could be imposed to ensure that the proposed 2 digital display screens would not exceed the maximum night-time permitted values of display luminance recommended in PLG 05/23. Considering this, and taking account of my findings above in relation to crime safety, the proposed [address] Hub would not cause a nuisance to neighbours by attracting anti-social and criminal behaviour and due to their level of illumination.

I therefore find that, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed [address] Hub would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and in relation to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would have an acceptable effect on amenity. No conflict would arise with Policy DE3 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that all development should be designed to provide a good level of amenity for future residents or occupiers and should not unduly impact upon the amenity of neighbouring and surrounding uses.

The design of the proposed [address] Hub incorporates energy efficient features, including LCD screens that consume approximately 60% less power than [name], screen filters and industrial-grade components and passive design for cooling that reduce the need for cooling systems, and high-efficiency power supplies. Controls on the luminance levels of the 2 proposed advertisements, including automatic dimming at night (which could be secured by way of conditions) would further minimise energy consumption. All these factors would ensure that the proposed [address] Hub would not be energy intensive.

At the appeal stage, the appellant has explained how the proposed [address] Hub would be powered by 100% renewable electricity. This would minimise carbon emissions. Although concerns have been raised by interested parties as to the effect of the proposed [address] Hub on climate change, no substantive evidence is before me which indicates that the proposed [address] Hub would be harmful in this regard. Accordingly, no conflict would arise with Policy SS14 of the Local Plan, which promotes low carbon development and adaptation to climate change.

I therefore find that, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed [address] Hub would have an acceptable effect on climate change. No conflict would arise with Policy SS14 of the Local Plan, which seeks to, amongst other things, minimise carbon emissions and the use of natural resources expected to arise during the lifetime of the development.

The benefits of the proposed [address] Hub include (amongst other benefits) free ultrafast Wi-Fi, free phone calls, wayfinding, device charging, an emergency 999 Appeal Decisions 6003922, 6003923 call button, and public messaging capabilities. The appellant has an [name] license and a [name] governed by Ofcom to provide and maintain publicly accessible call boxes on the street. In this regard, Policy IF1 of the Local Plan provides that, amongst other things, the introduction and installation of the most up-to-date and fastest telecom and other Information and [name] (ICT) will be supported by the Local Plan.

However, it has not been demonstrated that any particular local need for additional internet connectivity exists (including free Wi-Fi), nor that internet speeds are prohibitively slow in the local area. Nor has it been shown that 5G connectivity is presently lacking in the local area. Hence, the evidence does not indicate that the scale of the identified benefits to the local area would be substantial, including with respect to assisting Torbay’s tourism offer (which is supported in principle by Policy TO1 of the Local Plan). Mention has been made of the [address] Hub providing a platform for interactive technologies on the streets (such as air quality monitoring), but it has not been shown that this technology would in reality be used by the relevant authorities.

The fallback position of the existing kiosk being retained would merely maintain the status quo. I observed that its negative visual impact on the street scene is not any worse than would be caused by the proposals now before me. For these reasons, little weight is given to the fallback position in support of the proposals.

In relation to Appeal A, having considered the development plan as a whole and all matters raised, I find that the benefits of the proposed development would not be sufficient to outweigh the significant weight given to the conflict with the policies of the development plan cited on the main issues above. None of the relevant material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, indicate that Appeal A should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

The 2007 Regulations make clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Appeal B has been assessed on this basis. Therefore, in relation to Appeal B, none of the other considerations raised alters my findings on the main issues above.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed and that Appeal B should be dismissed.