Appeal 6004252

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 appellant’s combined appeal statement, 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 6004249 & 6004252

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 effects on highway/public safety.

The appeal site forms part of the [address] footway and is within [site address] Town Centre. It is within the town’s primary shopping area, as defined on the [name] of the District Council’s Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1) (adopted 2020).

One existing BT telephone booth, sited nearby on the footway, would be replaced by the proposed street hub, to be located further northwest at some distance from the phone booth. The footway at and beyond the appeal proposal location is notably wide and was busy at the time of my site visit. It contains street trees and raised planters arranged in a linear and regimented manner, giving this area of public realm a distinctive character.

The area also contains bus stop shelters, public outdoor seating and litter bins affixed to the footway, street lights and a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing. There was a temporary fresh food market stall with canopy coverings set up on the footway towards the kerb, northwest of the M&S food premises entrance. I also observed a variety of advertisements attached to buildings, a strong concentration of retail premises, and some café and eatery premises with outdoor seating areas along their frontages.

The abovementioned features, along with the overall scale and appearance of buildings and commercial shopfronts (including projecting fascias, canopies and signs), and the amount and nature of pedestrian and vehicular movements that I observed, are reflective of the area’s function as the town’s primary shopping area.

The proposed street hub would have a slimmer surface depth than the phone booth in which it would replace. It would though be noticeably wider and taller and would not have a translucent appearance akin to the existing phone booth. That being said, the proposal would be sited in line with and between a raised planter and a street tree, whilst being sufficiently set away from these established linear street features to avoid a cluttered layout or appearance. Its height would also appear notably lower than the prominent projecting fascia of the M&S food store.

However, there appeared to be a limited amount of illuminated advertisements on or near to the commercial fascias. The proposed 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 dawn. This limit is also as set out in Chapter 9 and Table 9.1 of [name] 05/232 (PLG 05/23) 1 Within its Planning, Design and [name] 2 The Brightness of [name] (Institution of [name], 2023) Appeal Decision 6004249 & 6004252

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 is 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. As the nearby traffic lights and street lights form essential highway signals, they do not justify the extent of illumination proposed.

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. This includes at pedestrian crossings or other places where local conditions present traffic hazards. 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 and near a traffic light controlled crossing.

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 3 Paragraph: 067 [name]: 18b-067-20140306 4 Paragraph: 068 [name]: 18b-068-20140306 Appeal Decision 6004249 & 6004252 particular circumstances of the appeal site, it is near a straight but busy section of road. The location is not particularly near to any junctions or public vehicular accesses, and would be at some distance from the kerb edge. Although my visit was a snapshot in time, I observed relatively low traffic speeds, but a significant amount and variety of footfall along the footways each side of the road.

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.

Although vehicle speeds were low at the time of my visit, the proposed extent of illumination would cause driver distraction and an unacceptable highway safety issue, given the amount of footfall I observed and the location near to the traffic light controlled road crossing. Views from the highway would not be fully restricted by street trees and parked vehicles at all times. Although my visit was a snapshot in time, based on my observations and all evidence before me, the street hub as proposed presents a risk to all users of the highway network at this location.

I do not view the lack of officially recorded vehicle accidents at the specific street hub display location as a reliable indicator of highway safety, as only crashes which involve personal injuries are recorded by the police. In any event, this does not indicate that highway safety conditions would remain the same following implementation of the street hub.

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.

The street hub would not harmfully impede the sight lines and desire lines of footway users, given its location spaced sufficiently between a street tree and street planter, and sufficiently away from the traffic light crossing and the M&S public entrance. The street hub would provide a similar minimum clear footway width to each side as those existing street features, including the phone booth proposed for removal. 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 6004249 & 6004252

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 of substantially greater range than the existing phone booth, and would be more accessible for people with mobility issues.

Chapter 6 of the Framework supports the building of a strong, competitive economy. Framework Chapter 10 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.

Although need is not questioned, there is little evidence before me to demonstrate that at this location, there is a specific 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.