Appeal 6004336

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

As set out above there are two appeals on this site covering both planning permission and express consent to display advertisements. They differ only in that appeal A is for planning permission and appeal B is for express advertisement consent. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated.

In respect of appeal B, the Regulations and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) both make it clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account cumulative impacts. Regard does not need to be had to the development plan. I have taken relevant policies into account as a material consideration; however, they have not, by themselves, been determinative. Appeal Decision 6004333 + 6004336

The main issue for appeal A is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The main issue for appeal B is the effect of the proposal on the amenity of the area.

The appeal site is an area of pavement next to an area of open space which is mostly grass. The wider area is predominantly commercial with shops and food outlets lining both sides of the road.

The proposed development would be sited on the pavement, set back from the road towards the centre of the pavement. Its position would be obvious and dominant in the context of the open space nearby the appeal site as well as through its overall height, size and illuminated advertisements that would be displayed. As a result, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance and amenity of the area.

I acknowledge the reason for the height which is to achieve ICNIRP compliance, however, it would nonetheless be prominent, particularly as there is currently nothing on the appeal site and the area near to the appeal site is open space which allows views towards the proposal.

The proposed development would also be located close to an existing illuminated advertisement, which combined with other street furniture would add clutter to the street scene. The appellant suggests that trees would mitigate any direct visual impact, however, while there are some trees within the wider area, these are generally sporadic and focused around the area of open space which would not mitigate any direct views from the street or road.

The Council’s second reason for refusal relates to the concern that the description of development suggests an associated existing payphone would be removed, however, that this is not within the red line and as such there is no guarantee it would be removed. I note the Council’s concern, however while it may not be located within the red line, the appellant is clear that part of the business is the removal of existing payphones and there is a commitment that this would take place. I therefore have no reason to doubt that an existing payphone would be removed, and this could be secured by an appropriately worded planning

Notwithstanding the above, while I have no doubt a payphone would be removed and that they take up a larger area that the proposed advertisement, as there is nothing currently on the appeal site, the removal of an existing payphone elsewhere provides little justification for the proposed development. Furthermore, while the removal of the existing payphone may reduce clutter this would relate to another site whereas the proposed development would introduce built form where there is currently nothing. Appeal Decision 6004333 + 6004336

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance and amenity of the area. It would be contrary to Policies DH1, V9 and AOC4 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 Adopted 8th June 2020 (LP). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development is of a high-quality design, is sympathetically designed and improve the quality of buildings and their relationship to the street.

The Council have alleged conflict with Policy DH6 of the LP, however, this relates to heritage assets which based on the information before me the proposal would not effect.

The proposed development would enable pedestrians to make phone calls for free, access local information and navigation, charge devices, provide free Wi-Fi, have a button for emergency services, have the capability for public messages and would be able to monitor movements as well as air, sound and light. Providing access to Wi-Fi could also improve the use of public transport through members of the public being able to access information online. However, these benefits would be modest due to the small scale of the proposed development and as such they would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

Paragraph 123 of the Framework states that local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only and they should not seek to prevent competition between different operators. However, the Council have not introduced non-planning grounds or refused the proposal because of competition between another operator and as such there is no conflict with this Paragraph of the Framework.

I note that the Council have raised no objection in regard to highway and pedestrian safety, Thames Valley Policy have raised no objection, and the Council have not suggested the proposed development would cause obstruction or distraction. However, these are neutral matters that do not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

For the reasons given above the appeals should be dismissed.