Appeal 6003928

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 Piccadilly, Outside 11-13, Manchester [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 144120/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 Piccadilly, Outside 11-13, Manchester [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 144119/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 description of development for both appeals as set out on the application forms is described as “the removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit”. The Council’s description of development as set out in the respective decision notices accurately describe each proposal. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis and used the description taken from the Council’s decision notice in the banner heading above.

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 Appeal Decisions 6003938 and 6003928 appeals have been dealt with in a single decision letter, but the appeals themselves have been considered based upon their own merits.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) require that applications for the display of advertisements are considered in terms of amenity and public safety. Whilst the reason for refusal for Appeal B refers to policies that the Council considers to be relevant, they are material considerations rather than being decisive in the determination of this appeal.

The appeal site is located within the setting of [name] listed buildings. As a result, in reaching my decision on Appeal A, I have had special regard to Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building, and any features of special architectural and historic interest which it possesses.

The main issue for Appeal A is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the setting of nearby listed buildings.

For Appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity.

The appeal site comprises an area of paved public space within the [address] area, which are formal laid out gardens containing grassed areas, water features and area surrounded by a number of notable monuments. It is occupied by an existing InLink unit, which 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 regular intervals.

The existing [name] unit is sited close to the [address] [name], a row of wooden huts, which are understood to be a temporary feature of the area. The site is also surrounded by a range of items of street furniture, including ‘Bee’ planters, cycle parking, street lighting, waste bins and other totem units, with display screens.

The wider surrounding area is characterised by a mix of traditional and modern buildings accommodating hotel, office, retail and leisure uses. The area functions as a busy pedestrian thoroughfare, linking key parts of the city centre and several major transport hubs, and displays a strongly commercial character. The appeal site is located within the setting of Grade II Listed Buildings, including, the [name], and 15 and 17 Piccadilly. It is also located close to the boundary of the Smithfield Conservation Area (the CA).

The Peel Statue1 is a monument to [name] dated 1853. It is an ashlar pedestal with bronze statuary, with a plinth of three steps, featuring a bronze female figure seated at each of the top step, and a central pedestal with a standing figure of [name]. The statue is a prominent feature within Piccadilly 1 [name]: 127114 Appeal Decisions 6003938 and 6003928 Gardens but views of the statue are currently partly obscured by the [name] and ongoing works to improve [address].

15 and 17 Piccadilly2 (including: 1-3 and [address]) is a late 19th century office block dating from 1881, designed by Royle and Bennett. Occupying a prominent corner site with a trapeziform plan, it is a substantial five storey building with an attic, expressed in an eclectic architectural style incorporating Gothic detailing. Its significance is primarily derived from its architectural historical and architectural interest, notably the canted corner oriel rising to a turret and spirelet, decorative Lombard and Gothic inspired friezes, articulated parapets, and varied window treatments by storey.

The significance of the nearby CA is derived from its role in the early development of Manchester as a centre of trade, industry and civic growth. It encompasses historic routes, former watercourses such as the culverted [name], and the Smithfield market area, once the commercial heart of the city and among the largest market complexes in Britain. The area is closely associated with nationally significant industrialists and engineers, including [name] and [name], whose enterprises contributed greatly to Manchester’s economic, educational and architectural legacy.

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.

The Council states that the proposed [name] totem would not represent a like-for-like replacement within the street scene, having a more dominant visual presence than the existing InLink model. However, whilst I accept that the replacement unit would be larger than the existing unit and would be darker in colour, this would not be at odds with the prevailing character of the area, which includes a large number of dark coloured items of street furniture, including a nearby planters and other totem units. Whilst there would be a greater contrast to the light-coloured paving, based on the presence of other dark coloured street furniture in this location, I am not persuaded that this would be harmful to the character and appearance or visual amenity of the area.

There is also a high degree of variety of advertisements, including illuminated screens of a similar scale to that proposed. Therefore, whilst I accept that the proposed development would introduce a more modern addition into the street scene, it would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, in this varied context, it would not be an overly dominant or obtrusive addition to the street scene and thus would not have a more prominent appearance than the existing unit.

In terms of its siting, it is located on a wide section of pavement, in line with other items of street furniture, namely a number of cycle racks and also very close to the [address] [name]. In this context, its siting is fairly discreet and not in a place which would obstruct pedestrian routes, nor has any substantive evidence 2 [name]: 124118 Appeal Decisions 6003938 and 6003928 been provided to support the claim that it would result in a reduction in the quality of the pedestrian environment. Therefore, whilst the Council state that the siting would be haphazard and emphasis the presence of street clutter in the area, based on the evidence before me and my own observations at my site visit, I find that the siting of the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

I acknowledge that when planning permission and advertisement consent were granted for the existing unit, there were associated benefits comprising of the removal of existing telephone kiosks, and as a result a positive contribution to the reduction in street clutter. I accept that these benefits would not apply to this current proposal. Nonetheless, in terms of its siting, the replacement hub would be located in a broadly similar position within the footpath. Whilst being marginally larger than the existing unit, it would not harmfully increase visual clutter in this location. Furthermore, the proposed increase in height would be experienced alongside the tall buildings, trees, tram infrastructure and lighting columns which surround the appeal site. As a result, it would not appear unduly prominent in this context.

The Council has plans to significantly regenerate [address], to make it more colourful, vibrant and inviting, including measures to make it safer. The Council states that the proposed totem would add an intrusive structure in a place that would negatively impact upon the plans to regenerate [address], as it would see the introduction of a larger, bulkier, darker structure which will not be visually appealing. They further state that it would exacerbate issues associated with street clutter in an already busy city centre environment. However, int his particular case, it would replace an existing unit, and whilst it would have a marginally larger footprint, it would not be so large in comparison to the existing unit that it would have a negative effect on plans to regenerate [address] or contribute to making the area a less attractive place. Furthermore, as set out above, it would be of a similar design, scale and bulk to a number of other units within the [address] area.

In terms of the proposed advertisement, each display screen would measure approximately 950mm by 1670mm, which is larger than the existing screens which 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. Appeal Decisions 6003938 and 6003928

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.

In relation to nearby listed buildings, the proposal would not be prominently sited within the setting of these buildings. In respect of 15 and 17 Piccadilly, when viewed from [address], and other local viewpoints, the proposal would be viewed alongside other street infrastructure which is located in the immediate surrounding area, including the other similar totem style units. [name] accept that it is of a modern, minimalist deign which contrasts with the more ornate features of 15 and 17 Piccadilly and the [name], taking into consideration the wider context of the appeal site and presence of other modern features within this part of [address], it would not appear at odds with the traditional detailing of the nearby listed buildings. Furthermore, in this context and having regard to the presence of the existing unit, it would not introduce an obtrusive modern element and would not appear conspicuously dark and blocky. Therefore, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on their setting or significance.

In relation to the effect of the proposal on the setting of the adjacent CA, I have found that it would not cause unacceptable harm to the character, appearance or visual amenity of the area or to the setting and significance of nearby listed buildings. Therefore, I find that there would also be no unacceptable harm to the setting of the nearby CA.

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 decisions3 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 or the CA. 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, 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. Together, the policies seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development is appropriate, respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality in 3 Appeal Refs: APP/B4215/W/25/3369446; APP/B4215/W/25/3369503; APP/B4215/W/25/3369504 Appeal Decisions 6003938 and 6003928 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.

The Council has also referred to Saved Policy DC22 of the UDP which states that in considering development proposals, the Council will have regard to the effect on existing pedestrian routes and will not normally allow development which would result in unacceptable inconvenience to local pedestrian movement. However, as this policy relates to the effect of the proposal on pedestrian movement, it is not relevant to the Council’s sole reason for refusal which relates to the effect on the character and appearance of the area and not pedestrian movement or safety. Accordingly, I find no conflict with this policy.

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 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..

The Council’s reason for refusal for both Appeal A and B did not cite harm to highway safety, public safety or pedestrian movement. Nonetheless, I have had regard to the comments made by Transport for [name] and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority Streets of All Design Guidance in November 2023, which sets out the importance of a rational, legible, inclusive walking and wheeling environment and that streets should be universally accessible, safe and welcoming. They further state that the [name] emphasis is that streets cannot be considered inclusive if the footway is too narrow as a result of clutter.

In this particular case, the existing unit is within a large, pedestrianised area of the city centre, close to a bank of cycle racks. It would retain sufficient pavement width the proposed unit and nearby buildings. Therefore, whilst there would be a small increase in the footprint of the unit, its position close to other items of street furniture and on a wide section of pavement means that it is unlikely to have a harmful effect on pedestrian flows, the quality of the pedestrian environment, nor would it result in a footway which is too narrow as a result of clutter.

For these reasons, whilst I accept that there is a need to review and reduce street clutter to support these aims, it does not impose an overall presumption against the replacement of existing street furniture, particularly in those circumstances where it would not have a harmful impact. Accordingly, whilst I have had regard to the guidance, I am not persuaded that the position of this proposed hub, would Appeal Decisions 6003938 and 6003928 undermine this wider strategy nor lead to conflict with its overall aims and objectives.

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.

I have had regard to third party concerns regarding the siting of kiosks on the side of roads and the highlighted appeal decision4. 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.

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 4 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/H/24/3350920 Appeal Decisions 6003938 and 6003928 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 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. Appeal Decisions 6003938 and 6003928

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: • 25004467_LOC_S1_1.1 - Location Plan • 25004467_PLN_SI_2.1 - Proposed Site Plan • 25004467_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 • Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan Version 3 • Street Hubs Noise Management Plan 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 6003938 and 6003928 Appendix 1 - List of those who have appealed Case Reference Appellant Reference Appeal A 6003938 [name] on behalf of BT Telecommunications PLC Appeal B 6003928 [name] on behalf of BT Telecommunications PLC