Appeal 6004226

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

Appeal A concerns a planning appeal following refusal of planning permission to erect a BT street hub. Appeal B concerns an advertisement appeal following refusal of express consent to display advertisements on the Appeal A street hub, to assist its funding. [name] have considered each on its individual merits, as they are interrelated and raise similar issues within the same location, I have combined both decisions into a single decision letter.

In the banner headings above, I have utilised the appeal site address from the decision notices, as it appears to accurately describe the location. The Appeal A development description is taken from the combined application form for planning permission and advertisement consent. However, whilst that description refers to “payphones”, the proposed site plan and other evidence before me indicate removal of only one payphone.

I have thus determined the appeals as including the removal of one payphone as indicated on the proposed site plan. For ease of reference, I refer to the proposals collectively as a “street hub” from hereon in. Appeal Decision 6004226 and 6004227

For both appeals A and B, the main issues are: • the effect of the proposed street hub on the character and appearance/visual amenity of the area; and • the effect on highway/public safety.

The appeal site forms part of the [address] footway and is within [site address] Town Centre. It is however outside of the town’s Primary Shopping Area, as defined on the [name] of the District Council’s Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1) (adopted 2020), with the commercial premises in the vicinity forming part of the street’s secondary shopping frontage.

One existing BT telephone booth, sited nearby on the footway, would be replaced by the proposed street hub, although it would be located further southwest from the phone booth. At the time of my site visit, existing nearby street features along this section of footway also included a bus stop pole, a public litter bin affixed to the footway, telephone poles and parking signs, all of which are sited near to the highway kerb. The footway opposite is also served by street lamp poles.

I also observed moveable A-board adverts placed near to the shop fronts and a variety of advertisements attached to buildings, and there appeared to be a limited amount of illuminated advertisements on or near to the commercial fascias. All abovementioned features, along with the overall scale and appearance of buildings and commercial shopfronts (including some projecting fascias, canopies and signs), and the amount and nature of pedestrian and vehicular movements that I observed, are reflective of the area’s secondary shopping frontage function.

The proposed street hub would be sited at similar proximity to the kerb as the phone booth in which it would replace, and it would have a slimmer surface depth. It would though be noticeably wider and taller and would not have a translucent appearance akin to the existing phone booth. Moreover, as indicated on the appellant’s photomontage, its height would be viewed as being at similar level as the adjacent commercial building fascias.

In this context, the proposed street hub would appear as a stark feature in the public realm. It would be an unacceptably dominant and intrusive addition that would be visually harmful. It would appear out of kilter with the immediate scale and characteristics of commercial frontages and street paraphernalia, and would thus fail to integrate with the public realm.

Its illuminated digital screens would further draw the eye to the inappropriate scale of the street hub within its surrounding context. Illuminance would be static and at a level of 5,[address] metre (cd/m2), as set out in the application form. The above is also indicated in the street hub product statement, which further advises that maximum night-time brightness would be lower at 600 cd/m2. One of the appellant’s suggested conditions1 would impose such a limit between dusk and 1 Within its Planning, Design and Access Statement Appeal Decision 6004226 and 6004227 dawn. This limit is also as set out in Chapter 9 and Table 9.1 of [name] 05/232 (PLG 05/23).

It is put to me that the lighting levels are within the levels set for this type and size of screen as set out in PLG 05/23. However, its further guidance contained within Chapter 10 accounts for ambient lighting levels. Based on the street hub’s display size and location, its recommended maximum night-time sign luminance under Table 10.4 is therefore 300 cd/m2.

Additionally, Table 10.5 recommends a range of daytime values of sign luminance of between 400 cd/m2 and 5,000 cd/m2, to account for variable ambient light conditions dependent on the time of day, time of year, and weather. [name] 05/23 does not form planning policy, it as an important material consideration. The evidence before me does not indicate that the display luminance would be limited to 300 cd/m2 at night-time, nor adjusted during daytime in response to variable ambient light conditions. The proposed illumination levels of the street hub displays would therefore be excessive when accounting for its surrounding context.

For the above reasons, I conclude that in respect of Appeal A, the proposed street hub would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. This harm amounts to conflict with Policy ENV3 of the LPP1, and Policy NM4 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (NMNP) (adopted 2021). Collectively, these policies require, amongst other things, all development to be sympathetic to its environment and context in terms of scale, height and relationship to adjoining spaces and landscape features, and to contribute positively to [site address] ’s distinctive character and public realms.

In the case of the advertisement appeal (Appeal B), the above development plan policies are only a material consideration and do not carry the same weight as in the case of the planning appeal (Appeal A). However, for the above reasons, the proposed street hub would harm the area’s visual amenity. This is contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which seek to control advertisements in the interests of public safety.

The street hub would not be located within a Conservation Area or within the setting of a designated heritage asset. The lack of harm in this respect however neither weighs in favour nor against allowing this appeal.

PPG sets out3 that whilst all advertisements are intended to attract attention, those at points where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety. There are less likely to be road safety problems if the advertisement is on a site within a commercial locality, if it is a normal poster panel, and if it is not on the skyline. Whilst the proposed street hub would not be on the skyline, it would be internally illuminated.

The main types of advertisement listed in the PPG as potentially causing danger to road users4 include those which, because of their size or brightness, could result in glare and dazzle, or distract road-users, particularly in misty or wet weather. In the 2 The Brightness of [name] (Institution of [name], 2023) 3 Paragraph: 067 [name]: 18b-067-20140306 4 Paragraph: 068 [name]: 18b-068-20140306 Appeal Decision 6004226 and 6004227 particular circumstances of the appeal site, whilst the street hub would be sited near to a busy carriageway, this is a straight section of road. The location is not particularly near to any junctions or public vehicular accesses. Although my visit was a snapshot in time, I observed relatively low traffic speeds and noticeably less footfall than the [address] thoroughfare within [site address] town centre.

I am satisfied that display change intervals could be adequately controlled by means of a suitably worded planning condition, had I been minded to allow these appeals. However, as already set out in the first main issue, I have found that the proposed illumination levels of the street hub displays would be excessive when accounting for its surrounding context.

Therefore, there is a real likelihood that the street hub’s size, positioning and extent of illumination would divert a driver’s gaze away from a forward horizon encompassing the carriageway and footways. Notwithstanding the highway conditions that I observed in this area, the proposed illumination levels would cause driver distraction and an unacceptable highway safety issue, particularly given the proposed location near to the bus stop served by a dropped kerb. This therefore presents a risk to all users of the highway network at this location.

For the above reasons, I conclude that in respect of Appeal A, the proposal would result in an unacceptable effect on highway safety. This harm amounts to conflict with Policy ENV3 of the LPP1, and Policy NM4 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (NMNP) (adopted 2021). Collectively, these policies require, amongst other things, all development to create buildings, streets and spaces which are safe, easy to navigate and pedestrian-friendly.

Regarding Appeal B, the above development plan policies are only a material consideration and do not carry the same weight as in the case of the planning appeal. However, for the above reasons, the proposed display element of the scheme would harm public safety. This is contrary to the Framework and PPG insofar as they seek to control advertisements in the interests of public safety.

Further main types of advertisement listed in the PPG as potentially causing danger to road users include those which effectively leave insufficient lateral clearance for vehicles on the carriageway. However, I noted the existing telephone booth to be similarly near the highway edge, as well as nearby electricity poles, parking signs and litter bin affixed to the footway.

Accounting for the Bradbeers furniture store access ramp and items that were displayed immediately outside of No 40’s frontage, the street hub would provide a similar minimum clear footway width as the existing phone booth. Based on the snapshot in time that I observed, the street hub would not be within a notable pinch point location, and there are numerous locations along [address] that provide safe crossing points. The street hub would thus not harmfully impede the sight lines and desire lines of footway users. The lack of harm in respect of these matters however neither weighs in favour nor against allowing this appeal.

The extent of conflict with LPP1 Policy ENV3 and NMNP Policy NM4 that I have identified amounts to conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. Appeal Decision 6004226 and 6004227

The street hub derives some support from LPP1 Policy STR1 in terms of its positive social, economic and environmental contributions. It would be powered by 100% renewable, carbon-free energy. The potential services it could offer would clearly reflect modern times and could be substantially greater range than the existing phone booth, and would be more accessible for people with mobility issues.

Chapter 10 of the Framework supports the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G), and further sets out that the decision maker should not question the need for an electronic communications system. Framework Chapter 6 also supports the building of a strong, competitive economy.

Although need is not questioned, there is little evidence before me to demonstrate that at this location, there is an existing shortage or deficiency of appropriate 4G/5G and Wi-Fi services for local residents, visitors and businesses, or that the appellant is currently not meeting the requirements of the [name] agreement with Ofcom. Therefore, I cannot quantify the precise benefits arising from the proposed ultra-fast WiFi and 4G/5G boost services.

In many instances, the above users would have alternative means to access local information, navigation, or to charge personal digital devices. The phone booth also serves an important public function for many as an emergency contact point when necessary. In this albeit more limited context, it can continue to serve a purpose.

Moreover, as I have found harm to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area, the street hub would not make a positive environmental contribution to community and business life, as also expected by LPP1 Policy STR1. This, along with the identified harm to highway safety, would amount to conflict with some of the aims of Framework Chapters 9 and 12, in terms of achieving well-designed places and avoiding an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Overall, the street hub would thus not be a form of sustainable development as set out in the Framework. I am also not persuaded that the harms that I have identified have been minimised as far as practicable.

Appeal A would not be in accordance with the development plan taken as a whole and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Appeal B would harm the visual amenity and public safety of the area. Therefore, for the reasons given above, both appeals are dismissed.