Appeal 6004266

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission for the installation of 1no. [address] Hub, incorporating 2no. digital 75” LCD advert screens and associated [name] removal at BRD-005 pavement outside [address] Promenade, Ilkley, Bradford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, 25/03739/FUL, dated 24 September 2025, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Appeal A Schedule of Conditions.

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for 2no. internally illuminated digital 75” LCD advert screens, one on each side of the [name] unit as applied for. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the additional conditions set out in the attached Appeal B Schedule of Conditions.

Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission to erect a [address] Hub. Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent to display advertisements on the proposed hub. I have considered each on its individual merits. However, as they raise similar issues, I have combined both decisions into a single decision letter.

The description of development used in the banner heading for Appeal B is taken from the advertisement application form. As Appeal B relates to advertising consent only, elements of the description are not relevant. I have therefore determined Appeal B on the basis of the description on the Council’s decision notice, which more concisely describes the proposal as ‘2No. internally illuminated digital 75” LCD display screens – one on each side of the [name] unit.’ For similar reasons, I have used this in my formal decision.

The main issues for both appeals A and B are: • The effect of the proposals on the character and appearance / amenity of the area, with specific regard to the Ilkley Conservation Area; and • The effect of the proposals on highway / public safety of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers using [address].

The appeal site is within Ilkley Conservation Area. The statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The significance of the Ilkley Conservation Area includes a wide range of Victorian architecture which is viewed as uniform due to its consistency of scale, proportions and materials. [address] is particularly identified for its broad pavements, parades of shops, some which have retained their glazed canopies, trees and distinctive buildings.

The appeal site is positioned on the northern side of [address] which is one of the main thoroughfares through the centre of Ilkley. The street contains a wide range of commercial activity with a variety of retail and food and drink premises to ground floor units with business uses to the upper floors of buildings. The footpath to [address] is broad, tree lined and includes little in the way of street furniture other than litter bins and pay-and-display machines which are positioned at regular intervals. The addition of mature street trees, positioned along the roadside-edge of the footpath, combine to give the street scene in this location a positive sense of openness and generates an attractive boulevard sense to its character.

There is an existing BT phone kiosk in this location which, due to its ageing condition, does not contribute to the positive elements of the street scene previously described. The proposed [name] would replace the existing installation and would have a smaller footprint than the existing BT kiosk. However, the submitted plans show that the new installation would be 0.8m taller than the current kiosk, with lesser width and depth.

I note the Council’s concern over the prominence and scale of the proposed [name] installation and would agree that it cannot be considered a ‘like for like’ replacement. Notwithstanding, the dimensions of the proposed hub in terms of its width and depth, would be smaller than the existing kiosk. [name] note the height of the proposed hub would be greater than the existing kiosk, this increase in height would not appear overly excessive in the street-scene. Moreover, it would be seen in the context of mature street trees to either side of the proposed hub which would soften long-range views of the proposed installation along [address]. [name] would acknowledge that the installation of illuminated displays to both sides would result in the structure being more visible in the street scene, such illuminated displays do not appear out of character for commercial town centre locations.

In regard to Ilkley Conservation Area, its particular significance to [address] relates to the importance of its broad and open pavements. For the reasons already described, the scale, positioning and design of the hub, including its illuminated nature, would not result in harm to the significance described and would not have a detrimental impact on the architectural character of the buildings, nor the existing positive sense of openness or the boulevard feel of [address].

The appeal proposal would include a number of public benefits such as enhanced digital connectivity, public information opportunities and the delivery of modern infrastructure within a central and accessible location. I also note the legal requirements of the appellant relating to the delivery of new technology and the maintenance of publicly accessible phone boxes. I afford these public benefits significant weight in my decision.

I would therefore conclude that the proposed installation of the new [address] Hub, along with the associated digital advertising displays would not appear incongruous or represent a strident feature in the street scene. Its installation would be consistent with its commercial town centre location, and its positioning and scale would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would have a neutral effect on the significance of the Ilkley Conservation Area, resulting in no harm to its significance.

Consequently, in relation to Appeal A, the proposal is consistent with Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Local Plan for the Bradford District: Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017) (CS) which seek to achieve good design, a positive sense of place and for proposals to be appropriate to their context in terms of layout, scale, density and materials. The proposal is also consistent with Policy EN3 of the CS which requires proposals to respect and reinforce the distinct character of the part of the district in which they are located, including conservation areas. There is no conflict with the statutory test set out in the Act.

With regards to Appeal B, the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the amenity of the area. The policies of the Development Plan have been considered as far as they are material, and in this respect, the scheme would not conflict with the development plan.

The Council highlight concern that due to its illumination and positioning close to the highway that the proposed [name] could prove distracting to drivers and pose a risk to road users and pedestrians. However, no technical evidence has been presented by the Council to further substantiate these concerns.

There is a 20mph speed limit along [address] and the road in this location is straight and includes dedicated on-street parking bays which act as a buffer between moving traffic and the wide footpath. The presence of street trees would also provide some seasonal screening to the installation from the road. In the context of a main thoroughfare, these factors mean that there would be limited scope for the proposed [name] and advertisement display to distract drivers and increase the conflict with pedestrians and other road users. Moreover, conditions can be used to ensure images on the digital display are static and illumination levels are met.

Based on the above, the proposed advertisement would not result in a harmful effect on either highway or public safety. Accordingly, in regard to Appeal A (and insofar as is relevant Appeal B) the proposal would be consistent with Policy DS5 of the CS which states that development should make a positive contribution through high quality and inclusive design, particularly being designed to ensure a safe and secure environment for all.

I note that concern is raised by third parties around the loss of the existing phone kiosk. Whilst the proposed street hub does not have a traditional telephone box handset, the information provided indicates that it would still allow calls to be made, often for free.

In the interests of certainty, with regards to Appeal A, I have imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development and specifying the approved plans. It is necessary to impose a condition to ensure that the [name] complements its surroundings, therefore confirmation of the colour of external materials used in its construction is required.

In respect of Appeal B, the five standard conditions as set out in the Regulations will apply, as confirmed in the Decision paragraph. Additionally, in the interests of public safety on the highway, the luminance of the advertisements, the frequency with which it changes and how quickly it changes needs to be controlled. For the same reason, the use of moving images, animation, video, images that resemble road signs and continued operation in the event of malfunction needs to be prevented. I have required these matters by condition.

Appeal A would accord with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations to suggest that the decisions should be made other than in accordance with it. Appeal B would not harm the visual amenity of the area or public safety. Therefore, for the reasons given above, both appeals should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans dated 03 September 2025: 3-BRD005 [name].001 [name], 3-BRD005 [name].002 [name] and 3-BRD005 [name].003 [name].

No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

There shall be no moving images, animation, video or full motion images displayed.

In the hours of darkness, the advertisement display luminance shall be no greater than 300cd/m2 in accordance with the recommended maximum night time luminance value set out for Environmental Zone 4 in Table 10.4 within the Institution of [name] - [name] (PLG 05) 'Brightness of [name] including [name] (or its equivalent in a replacement guide) in cd/m2.

In daylight hours, the advertisement display luminance 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 the recommended maximum daytime luminance values set out in Table 10.5 within the Institution of [name] – [name] (PLG 05) 'Brightness of [name] including [name] (or its equivalent in a replacement guide) in cd/m2.

Unless otherwise permitted, the minimum display time for each advertisement shall be 10 seconds and the advertisement shall not include any features which would result in interactive messages / advertisements being displayed.

The interval between successive advertisements shall be no greater than 1 second and the complete display shall change without effect. The display shall include a mechanism to default to a blank or black screen in the event of malfunction, or if the advertisement screen is not in use.

No images displayed shall resemble official road traffic signs, traffic lights or traffic matrix signs.