Appeal 6004154

Appeal A: The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the Installation of 1No. [address] [name] and associated advertisement panels on either side of the unit at Footpath outside, [address], [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/02794/FPA, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 002 [name], 004 [name] and STH-001.

The development hereby approved shall be managed in accordance with the submitted ‘[name] Plan’ throughout the life of the Hub. Any change to the Management Plan shall first be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing, and thereafter the development shall be managed in accordance with the approved amended Management Plan.

Appeal B: The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for the Installation of 1No. [address] [name] and associated advertisement panels on either side of the unit at Footpath outside, [address], [site address] [postcode] in Appeal Decisions 6004154 & 6004156 accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/02795/AD, dated 19 September 2025. The consent is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations and the additional conditions as follows:

The consent is for a period of four years from the date of this decision.

The digital display screens hereby approved shall display only static, non-moving images. The image displayed shall not include any moving, flashing, intermittent or video elements, and the display shall not incorporate any animation, transitions, or scrolling text. Each image shall be displayed for a minimum period of 10 seconds before changing to the next image, with transitions taking place instantaneously (no fade or dissolve).

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

The two appeals are for related proposals on the same site. Appeal A proposes the installation of a new street hub and Appeal B seeks consent for the display of advertisements to both sides of the unit. I have assessed each proposal on its own individual merits but to avoid unnecessary duplication and in the interests of brevity I have issued a single decision letter.

With respect to Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) specify that decisions must be based solely on considerations of amenity and public safety. The Council has not raised any objections on the grounds of amenity in relation to Appeal B, and I see no reason to reach a different conclusion.

The main issue with respect to Appeal A is whether the proposed development would result in increased crime and anti-social behaviour.

The main issue with respect to Appeal B is the effect of the proposal on public safety.

There is an objection from the [name] due to their concern that the proposal would result in an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour. This is on the grounds that the [address] area is already a designated hotspot for anti-social behaviour and that young people often hang around in areas where they have access to free Wi-Fi. Amongst the services that the proposed hub would provide is free Wi-Fi. The concern they raise is that the proposal would add to issues of youths congregating on [address] and intimidating residents. No specific evidence has been provided to demonstrate the scale of the existing problem. Appeal Decisions 6004154 & 6004156

The appellant has provided an anti-social behaviour management plan (ASBMP) developed following their experience of installing hubs throughout the UK. This includes the ability to restrict anti-social calling and implement technical changes, and a process is set out, with contact details, if anti-social behaviour issues are identified. As there would be a number of benefits from the proposal including in removing the somewhat unsightly existing phone box and providing local residents with the ability to access free Wi-Fi, the reliance on the ASBMP to address any issues that might result is reasonable and proportionate in the face of the concerns raised. This could be controlled by way of a planning condition.

My attention has been drawn to other appeal decisions1 for hubs where the appointed Inspectors found against the appellants on matters of crime and anti-social behaviour. In each instance it is clear that their decision was reached on the basis of the evidence that was before them, which would have been specific to each location. I have had regard to those decisions in my determination of this appeal, but they do not change my view that the ASBMP would be an appropriate way to address the concerns that have been raised in this instance with respect to crime and anti-social behaviour.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would accord with policy 31 of the County Durham Plan 2020 (CDP) where it seeks to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of people. There would also be no conflict with Part 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in the same respect.

The proposed advertisements would be located in a town centre, where advertisements are commonplace and are an expected sight for both pedestrians and those driving motor vehicles. I do not consider that the proposed advertisements would, by reason of their size or location, be unduly distracting to pedestrians or drivers who are making their way along [address]. This road is straight in its alignment, it is partially traffic calmed and it appears from signage in the area to be restricted in terms of the vehicles that are permitted to travel along it. All of those factors combine to mean that movement along it would assert a relatively low cognitive demand on a driver, and indeed on any pedestrian crossing it.

The consultation response from the Highway Authority refers to the proximity of the proposed advertisements to a Pelican crossing. The exact location of this crossing has not been identified in any of the submissions made by the Council. The only nearby crossing that was apparent at my site visit was a Zebra crossing, which is near to where the proposed advertisements would be positioned.

This is not a signal-controlled crossing and instead it relies on drivers stopping of their own volition. Because of this it is usual for pedestrians wanting to cross to wait for traffic to have stopped before they cross. [name] consider it highly unlikely that drivers could become distracted by the proposed advertisements to the extent that they would fail to notice the crossing at all, it would not in any event be expected that a person would proceed across this type of crossing until they are certain that it is safe to do so. I therefore see no potential conflict with the interests 1 Proposals at Pavement outside 10 [name], London & at various locations in Bristol Appeal Decisions 6004154 & 6004156 of public safety resulting from the display of the proposed advertisements in this location.

I conclude that the proposal would not cause harm to public safety. I have taken into account Policies 6(e) and 21 of the CDP which seek to protect public safety and so are material in this case, together with paragraphs 116, 117(c) and 141 of the Framework. [name] have concluded that the proposal would not be detrimental to public safety, the proposal does not conflict with these policies.

The appeal site is located within the [site address] Conservation Area and the Council also refers to the setting of the Church of [name] and [name], which is a [name] listed building. However, they raise no concern in terms of the impact of the proposals on either designated heritage asset. Having considered the reasons set out in the consultation response from Design & Conservation and having visited the area, I find no reason to disagree with their finding that there would be no harm caused to either asset.

It is necessary to impose conditions relating to the time period to commence development and the approved plans to provide certainty. For the reasons I have set out, a condition relating to the submitted ASBMP is required. I do not consider the suggestions by [name] that the free Wi-Fi be turned off between 6:00pm and 08:00am or in terms of the CCTV capability to be necessary in light of the ASBMP. The groundworks associated with the installation of the proposed hub are not likely to be of a magnitude that would justify the submission of an [name].

The consent is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations. I have imposed a condition restricting the consent to four years as opposed to the standard five year period, to reflect what was applied for. In addition, two additional conditions which would regulate the advertisement display have been suggested by the Council. Each of these is required to ensure that it would not have a harmful impact on amenity and public safety. It is not necessary to impose a condition setting out the approved plans, as the decision grants express consent not planning permission and there is no mechanism to seek to make future amendments to such a consent via the variation of a condition.

For the reasons given above, both Appeal A and Appeal B should be allowed.