Appeal 6004368

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 144337/FO/2025, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of 2no internally illuminated digital display screens at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 144338/AOH/2025. The consent is for ten years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations and the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development for both appeals as set out on the application forms is described as “removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit“. I have used this description in respect of Appeal A. However, in respect of Appeal B, I have used the description set out in the Council’s Decision Notice, which more accurately describes the proposal. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis and used the description taken from the Council’s decision notice in the banner heading above.

The appeals relate to the same site and the same proposed development, namely a multifunctional communications hub which, amongst other things, would have an Appeal Decisions 6004369 and 6004368 illuminated digital advertisement display. To avoid unnecessary repetition, both appeals have been dealt with in a single decision letter, but the appeals themselves have been considered based upon their own merits.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) require that applications for the display of advertisements be considered in terms of amenity and public safety. Whilst the reason for refusal for Appeal B refers to policies that the Council considers to be relevant, they are material considerations rather than being decisive in the determination of this appeal.

The main issue for Appeal A is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

For Appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on the visual amenity of the area.

The appeal site comprises an area of pavement to the front of a modern thirteen storey building, which contains a range of retail units at ground floor level and the [name] to its upper floors. There is an existing [name] on the site, which provides a range of digital services including free public WiFi, free UK calls, USB charging and access to emergency services. In addition, it contains two display screens one on each side, which display advertisements at regular intervals.

The existing unit sits on the widest section of pavement, in line with other items of street furniture, namely a large number of cycle racks, streetlights, a waste bin, and a telephone box. There is also another similar type of unit1 close to the appeal site and a further unit close to the junction with [address]. Therefore, these existing units form part of the character of the area.

The surrounding area is within the busy city centre and therefore characterised by a range of modern buildings including hotels, offices, retail and leisure uses, including a variety of advertisements. The area of pavement is adjacent to [site address] which is a busy thoroughfare connecting parts of the city centre and is close to [address] and a number of key transport hubs.

The proposal seeks planning permission and advertisement consent for the replacement of the existing [name] with a [address] Hub 3. The replacement unit would be slightly larger than the existing unit, extending the footprint by approximately 347mm in width and 71mm in depth. It would also be approximately 90mm taller than the existing unit. The replacement unit would also incorporate a larger advertisement screen measuring approximately, 0.95m by 1.67m and would be finished in a black powder coated cladding.

I accept that the proposed [name] 3 would be taller, wider and slightly deeper than the existing unit. However, it would still have a slim profile, with a modern, high-quality design, which would not appear incongruous in this highly commercial setting. Although, the existing unit is predominantly silver and black, whereas the 1 Planning Application Ref: 130165/AOH/2021 Appeal Decisions 6004369 and 6004368 replacement would be darker in colour and incorporate a larger digital screen, it would be viewed in the context of surrounding street furniture, including bins, bus shelters, streetlights and street signage which are nearly all black in colour. There is also a high degree of variety of advertisements, including illuminated screens of a similar scale to that proposed. [name] accept that the proposed development would introduce a more modern addition into the street scene, it would not by virtue of its design, scale, appearance and materials result in a harmful effect on the existing character of the area. Furthermore, in this varied context, it would not be an overly dominant or obtrusive addition to the area.

I have had regard to the Council’s strategy to regenerate the city centre, which includes a focus on reducing clutter. I also acknowledge that when planning permission and advertisement consent2 was granted for the existing unit, there were associated benefits comprising of the removal of two telephone kiosks, and as a result a positive contribution to the reduction in street clutter. I accept that these benefits would not apply to this current proposal.

However, in terms of its siting, the replacement hub would be located in a broadly similar position within the footpath. Whilst being marginally larger than the existing unit, it would not harmfully increase visual clutter in this location. Furthermore, the proposed increase in height would be experienced alongside the tall buildings which surround the appeal site. Whilst there would be an increase in footprint and overall size, given its position within the footpath, towards the carriage edge, this would not be to such a degree that it would appear unduly bulky or prominent in this context. Therefore, I find that it would not cause harm to the quality of the pedestrian environment or fail to improve the quality of the public realm.

In terms of the proposed advertisement display, it would measure approximately 950mm by 1670mm, which is larger than the existing screens (approximately 689mm by 1215mm). The luminance would also be increased from 326 cd/m2 to a maximum of 600 cd/m2 during hours of darkness. I acknowledge that this represents an increase in both scale and brightness. However, the appeal site is located within a busy commercial environment characterised by a high level of existing artificial illumination, including street lighting, illuminated signage, and digital advertising displays of a similar scale. In this context, the proposed luminance level would not appear unusually bright or visually intrusive when experienced against the prevailing ambient lighting conditions. The proposed display would be viewed primarily within the public realm, where a degree of illumination is typical and expected.

Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied that the effect of the illumination could be appropriately controlled through the imposition of suitably worded conditions, including limits on maximum luminance, automatic dimming in response to ambient light levels, and restrictions on the nature of the content displayed. Subject to such controls, the proposed advertisement would not result in undue glare, distraction, or harm to visual amenity.

In respect of the consistent rotation of static images, this is a feature of the existing unit. Whilst the proposal would utilise a larger digital display area, it would not be significantly larger or obtrusive and as a result, would not lead to a harmful effect on visual amenity. [name] accept that the proposed advertisement would be larger 2 Application refs: 118469/FO/2017 and 118470/AOH/2017 Appeal Decisions 6004369 and 6004368 than the existing advertisement, there would be no net increase in the number of advertisements present in this location. Therefore, I find that the marginal increase in size would not result in a harmful intensification of advertisements or contribute in a detrimental way to the proliferation advert clutter in this location. For these reasons, I find that it would not be harmful to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal decision3 within the same local authority area. However, I have not been provided with full details of that scheme and therefore am unable to undertake a detailed comparison. Nevertheless, based on the information available, it appears that the appeal proposal in that case related to the installation of a new street hub unit, whereas the current proposal concerns the replacement of an existing unit in a broadly similar location. Therefore, I attribute it limited weight.

For the reasons given above, in respect of Appeal A I conclude that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, I find no conflict with Policies SP1, EN1 and DM1 of Manchester’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted 2012 and amended 2024, and [name]-P1 and JP-C5 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan, adopted 2024. Together, the policies seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development is appropriate, respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting, size, scale and materials used; and incorporates high quality in the design and finish of the public realm.

The Council has also referred to Saved Policy DC22 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester, adopted 1995 (the UDP) which states that in considering development proposals, the Council will have regard to the effect on existing pedestrian routes and will not normally allow development which would result in unacceptable inconvenience to local pedestrian movement. However, as this policy relates to the effect of the proposal on pedestrian movement, it is not relevant to the Council’s sole reason for refusal which relates to the effect on the character and appearance of the area and not pedestrian movement or safety. Accordingly, I find no conflict with this policy.

In relation to Appeal B, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the visual amenity of the area. In accordance with the relevant Regulations, I have considered the provisions of the development plan to the extent that they are applicable. The aforementioned policies are therefore material considerations in this context. In addition, I have had regard to Policy DC15 of the UDP which requires amongst other things, proposals to take account of the general location and the effect on visual amenity. The proposal would not have a harmful impact on visual amenity and would meet therefore meet with the objectives of the above policies.

The proposal also accords with the Framework, which seeks to ensure that the quality and character of places does not suffer from advertisements that are poorly sited and designed. 3 Appeal Refs: APP/B4215/W/25/3369446 Appeal Decisions 6004369 and 6004368

The Council’s reason for refusal for both Appeal A and B did not cite harm to highway safety, public safety or pedestrian movement. Nonetheless, I have had regard to the comments made by Transport for [name] and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority Streets of All Design Guidance in November 2023, which sets out the importance of a rational, legible, inclusive walking and wheeling environment and that streets should be universally accessible, safe and welcoming.

In this particular case, the existing unit is close to the kerb edge, adjacent to fencing, a lamppost and an electricity box. It would retain a pavement width of approximately 4.8 metres between the proposed unit and the building line of the [name]. Therefore, whilst there would be a small increase in the footprint of the unit, its position close to the kerb and on the widest section of pavement means that it is unlikely to have a harmful effect on pedestrian flows, the quality of the pedestrian environment, nor would it result in a footway which is too narrow as a result of clutter.

For these reasons, whilst I accept that there is a need to review and reduce street clutter to support these aims, it does not impose an overall presumption against the replacement of existing street furniture, particularly in those circumstances where it would not have a harmful impact. Accordingly, whilst I have had regard to the guidance, I am not persuaded that the position of this proposed hub, would undermine this wider strategy nor lead to conflict with its overall aims and objectives.

I have had regard to the concerns raised by [name] in relation to the potential for the introduction of a larger unit to create conditions which increase opportunities for crime, such as pickpocketing. They also argue that the intended public benefits of the unit rely on people stopping and spending time in the area, which may further heighten the risk of individuals being exposed to crime. In addition, they raise concerns that the unit is likely to suffer from poor maintenance and vandalism over time, resulting in visible damage that could make the surrounding environment feel unsafe and generate a sense of unease for pedestrians.

However, whilst I do not dispute that there is evidence to indicate that there is an existing problem with crime and anti-social behaviour within the [address] area, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the marginal increase in size of the replacement unit would be likely to exacerbate these issues and lead to an increase in crime, anti-social behaviour or fear of crime. Furthermore, I am satisfied that subject to the imposition of a planning condition relating to management and maintenance of the unit, that the proposal would not lead to an unsafe environment for pedestrians.

In respect of Appeal A, the Council have suggested a number of conditions which I have considered against the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have included a condition specifying the approved plans, which is necessary in the interests of certainty. A Appeal Decisions 6004369 and 6004368 further condition requiring the proposed development to be built and maintained thereafter in accordance with the submitted Noise Management Plan, Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan and [address] Hubs. This condition is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area and to ensure there are no adverse impacts on amenity.

In respect of Appeal B, all advertisements granted express consent are subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations. In addition to these, I have imposed a condition to control the level of illumination, to ensure there is no moving imagery and to set a minimum display time of 10 seconds, also ensuring that the interval between successive image displays is instantaneous. These additional conditions are necessary in the interest of amenity and public safety.

The Council also suggested conditions to be attached to Appeal B with respect to any advertisement being maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site, and that any advertisement hoarding or structure is to be kept in a condition which does not endanger the public. These suggested conditions however reflect some of the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations, which are automatically imposed, and therefore do not need to be repeated.

In respect of both appeals, the Council suggested a condition should be imposed on any grant of planning permission and advertisement consent to limit the approval to a temporary period of 12 months. However, the appellant states that they are seeking approval for the display of the advertisement for a period of ten years.

In respect of Appeal A, having regard to the evidence before me, including my above assessment of any harm arising from the proposal, there is limited evidence before me that circumstances are very likely to change in a particular way at the end of the 12-month permission period or, even if they did, that the communication hub would be very likely to result in any harm. Therefore, I find that such a condition would not be necessary and I have not imposed this condition.

For Appeal B, under Regulation 14(7), advertisement consent is granted for a period of 5 years unless otherwise specified. The appellant has sought a 10-year period. As there is no substantive evidence before me that the display would be unacceptable at the end of the shorter period, I have granted consent for the 10- year period in my formal decision.

Finally, I note within their consultation response Transport for [name] requested a Construction Management Plan (CMP) be employed. However, given the limited scale of the proposed development, I find that a condition requiring the submission of a CMP would not be reasonably necessary to make this development acceptable. Consequently, this suggested condition has not been imposed.

For the reasons given, in respect of Appeal A I conclude that the proposed development would accord with the development plan taken as a whole and that there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise in accordance with it. Therefore, Appeal A is allowed. Appeal Decisions 6004369 and 6004368

In respect of Appeal B, the proposed advertisement would not be harmful to amenity or public safety. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.

The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • 25004396_PLN_LOC_1.1 – Site Location Plan • 25004396_PLN _SI_2.1 - Proposed Site Plan • 25004396_PLN_EL_3.1 - Elevation Plan

The development hereby approved shall be installed and maintained at all times thereafter in accordance with the details specified within the documents titled: • [name] V2.1 ([name] 2025) • [name] Plan (Version 3) • Street Hubs Noise Management Plan V2.1 ([name] 2025) Schedule of Conditions: Appeal B In addition to the five standard conditions in the Regulations:

In daylight hours, the intensity of the illuminance of the advertisements 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 2500cd/m2 to accord with the guidance set out in the Institution of [name] - [name] (PLG 05) 'Brightness of [name] including [name] (2023) (or its equivalent in a replacement guide).

In the hours of darkness (between dusk and dawn), the intensity of the illuminance of the advertisements shall be no greater than 600cd/m2 to accord with the guidance set out in the Institution of [name] - [name] (PLG 05) 'Brightness of [name] including [name] (2023) (or its equivalent in a replacement guide).

The digital display screens shall not display any moving, or apparently moving, images (including animation, flashing, scrolling three dimensional, intermittent or video elements).

The minimum display time for each piece of content on the digital display screens shall be 10 seconds. The interval between successive displays shall be instantaneous and the complete screen shall change with no visual effects (including swiping or other animated transition methods) between displays, and the display will include a mechanism to switch to a blank screen with a black background in the event of a malfunction. END OF SCHEDULE Appeal Decisions 6004369 and 6004368 Appendix 1 - List of those who have appealed Case Reference Appellant Reference Appeal A 6004369 [name] on behalf of BT Telecommunications PLC Appeal B 6004368 [name] on behalf of BT Telecommunications PLC