Appeal 6004716

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] , Outside 48, Manchester [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 144339/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] , Outside 48, Manchester [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 144340/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 “the removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit”. The Council’s description of development as set out in the respective decision notices accurately describe each 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 illuminated digital advertisement display. To avoid unnecessary repetition, both Appeal Decisions 6004716 and 6004715 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 are 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 appeal site is located within a conservation area, and listed buildings are located within the site’s vicinity. As a result, in reaching my decision on Appeal A, I have had special regard to Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and, in relation to Appeal B, to Section 72(1) only.

The main issues for Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on the: • on the character and appearance of the local area, with particular regard to whether it would preserve or enhance character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings; and • highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian movement.

For Appeal B, the main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity and public safety.

The appeal site comprises an area of pavement to the front of 48 [site address] . The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of commercial uses, with a variety of shopfronts. It is occupied by an existing InLink Unit1, which provides a range of digital services including fee 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 is located centrally, broadly in line with mature trees which are interspersed throughout the centre of the street.

[site address] is a pedestrianised area, forming part of the City’s retail core and primary shopping area. The area contains a number of contemporary and traditional elements of street furniture including bollards, lighting columns, bins and electrical cabinets. There is also a range of signage, including fascia signage, A-boards and other examples of digital displays. Within the area, a number of restaurants and cafes have external seating areas within the paved areas. The majority of these are also located centrally within the footway.

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area (the CA), which contains a number of grand Victorian and pre-Victorian buildings including landmarks such as the [name], [name], and [name]. The 11 Planning Application Refs: 118645/FO/2017 and 118466/AOH/2017 Appeal Decisions 6004716 and 6004715 significance of the CA is primarily derived from its large number of well-preserved buildings and spaces that illustrate the historic development of the City.

[site address] is experienced as a linear street, with continuous facades on both sides exhibiting a varied patterns of styles and finishes. These buildings display a high degree of visual interest. There are also a number of Grade II Listed Buildings, including 33, 35 and 37, 48, 54 and 56 [site address] and the [name]. The appeal site is also visible within the wider setting of further listed buildings located along [site address] .

33 King Street2 is a late 19th century shop building constructed in red brick with stone dressings and slate roof. The four-storey façade is architecturally eclectic and divided into two contrasting halves, combining decorative shopfront and oriel windows with a robust Gothic upper section featuring sashed windows, corbel tables, gable and pinnacles. Its significance is derived primarily from its architectural interest and contribution to the wider historic group value.

35 and 37 King Street3 is a former early 18th century town house, later converted and extended for banking use, with attached railings. Built in 1736 and converted into a bank Iin 1788 it is constructed of red brick with sandstone dressings and a hipped slate roof. The five bay symmetrical centre block retains strong Georgian character, including sash windows, a pedimented doorway, moulded cornice and basement railings. Later 19th century extensions in ashlar sandstone and late 20th century glass and steel additions reflect its continued commercial use. Its significance is derived primarily from its architectural and historic interest.

48 King Street4 is a late 19th century Gothic style shop in red brick with sandstone dressings and slate roof, arranged on a narrow three bay plan. It retains distinctive decorative features including crocketed columns, sashed windows, stone balconies and a prominent central gabled arch, contributing positively to the area. Its significance is derived primarily from its architectural and historic interest.

54 and 56 King Street5 is an early 18th century town house, now shops and offices, much altered externally but retaining a simple three bay stuccoed façade with sash windows and a bracketed cornice. Its principal significance lies in the interior, which preserves high quality late 17th /early 18th century panelling, plaster decoration and staircase of strong historic interest. Its significance is derived primarily from its architectural and historic interest.

The Old Exchange6 (including 5, 6 and 7 [name]) is a late 19 th century eclectic range of shops with a central through passage, dated 1897, clad in red sandstone and terracotta with a mansard roof. Despite later alterations (20th century) to shopfronts, it retains strong architectural interest through its monumental pilasters, decorative terracotta detailing, elaborate window treatment and prominent roofscape, contributing positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal seeks planning permission and advertisement consent for the replacement of the existing [name] with a [address] Hub 3. The replacement 2 [name]: 1291607 3 [name]: 1282985 4 [name]: 1197938 5 [name]: 1282986 6 [name]: 1197936 Appeal Decisions 6004716 and 6004715 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 90mm taller than the existing unit. The proposal would also incorporate a larger advertisement screen measuring approximately, 0.95m by 1.67m. The unit would be finished in a black powder coated cladding.

The Council states that the proposed totem would be larger, bulkier and appear starker as a result of its dark colour. They state that it would have a more prominent presence with the street scene, which would detract from the visual interest and vibrancy of this premier shopping street. They have also raised concerns regarding its siting, stating that it would encroach further into the public highway.

In terms of its design and appearance, the existing unit is predominantly silver and black, whereas the replacement would be black and incorporate a larger digital screen. However, it would be seen alongside surrounding street furniture, including bins, streetlights and signage, which are largely black in colour. It would be of a similar scale and appearance to the nearby totem-style units. The area also contains a high degree of visual variety, including some illuminated advertisements of a similar scale. Consequently, whilst the proposal would introduce a more modern feature, in this context, I find that it would not cause unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the area.

In terms of its siting, the replacement hub would be wider by approximately 346mm but would be located in a broadly similar position within the footpath. It would also be marginally taller. I accept that the proposal would not make a meaningful contribution towards the Council’s Strategy to reduce clutter, nor would it provide similar benefits to the previously approved unit in that it would not involve the removal of any existing street furniture. I have also had regard to the Council’s concerns in relation to its current siting, and its relationship to surrounding items of street furniture. However, the proposal would involve the replacement of an existing unit, albeit of a marginally larger size. As a result, it would not lead to unacceptable harm in relation to its siting, nor would it increase or lead to an over-proliferation of totem structures in this location.

Furthermore, the site is located in between tall, mature trees, and alongside tall buildings. Therefore, even accounting for the modest increase in size, it would not be unduly prominent within the street scene and would not detract from the quality of the public realm or make this busy pedestrian route a less pleasing place to walk. Therefore, by virtue of its siting and marginal increase in footprint, I find that it would not increase the impression of street clutter in this location and would not cause harm to the quality of the pedestrian experience. Consequently, I find that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.

In terms of the proposed advertisement, each display screen would measure approximately 950mm by 1670mm, which is larger than the existing screens which measure approximately 689mm by 1215mm. The luminance would also be d 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 Appeal Decisions 6004716 and 6004715 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. Subject to such controls, the proposed advertisement would not result in unacceptable 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. Furthermore, 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.

In relation to the nearby listed buildings, the proposal would not be prominently sited within the setting of these buildings, as it would be centrally located and viewed alongside a wide range of street furniture which occupies the central areas of [site address] . [name] accept that it is of a modern, minimalist deign which contrasts with the ornamental features of the upper floors of these building, the ground floor level typically contains a variety of shopfront designs, include some modern examples. As such, taking into consideration the wider context of the appeal site, I find that it would not be at odds with the prevailing character of the area. Furthermore, in this context and having regard to the presence of the existing unit, it would not appear as an obtrusive modern element and would not appear conspicuously dark and blocky. Therefore, whilst the proposal would be located within the setting of these listed buildings, I find that it would not cause harm to their significance or setting.

In relation to the CA, I accept that the proposed hub would introduce a larger unit. However, given its context within this busy commercial setting, with numerous advertisements and other examples of street furniture, I find that it would not appear as a obtrusive, incongruous or overly dominant addition. For these reasons, I find that its siting, scale, design, appearance, and means of illumination would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find that the setting and significance of the CA would be preserved.

My attention has been drawn to a number of appeal decisions7 within the same local authority area. [name] don’t have full details of the appeal schemes before me, they would appear to differ from the current appeal proposal on the basis that they relate to the installation of a new street hub unit, rather than a replacement of an existing unit. Therefore, I find that they are not directly comparable to this appeal proposal and I attribute them 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, 7 Appeal Refs: APP/B4215/W/25/3369446; APP/B4215/W/25/3369503; APP/B4215/W/25/3369504 Appeal Decisions 6004716 and 6004715 with particular regard to the setting of nearby listed buildings and the CA. Therefore, I find no conflict with Policies SP1, CC9, EN1, EN3 and DM1 of Manchester’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted 2012 and amended 2024 (the CS), Saved Policy DC19 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester, adopted 1995 (the UDP) and [name]-P1, JP-P2 and JP-C5 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan, adopted 2024 (the PfE Plan). 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; incorporates high quality in the design and finish of the public realm; and preserves heritage assets, the historic environment and the setting of listed buildings.

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 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; and that heritage assets (including their settings) are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.

Paragraph 117 of the Framework states that development should create places that are safe, secure and attractive, which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards.

The Council has referred me to the City Centre Transport Strategy to 2040 which seeks to encourage journeys by foot, cycle or public transport, including by improving streets to improve the movement of people and goods. My attention has also been drawn to the [name] for [name] sets minimum standards for footways.

The Council has raised concerns that the increased footprint of the totem will impede pedestrian movement and accessibility in an area which experiences significant footfall. They also state that this is also a location which hosts the [name] and other street events, which contribute to congestion. Nonetheless, whilst I do not dispute that the area experiences significant footfall, there is sufficient space between the existing totem and the other items of street furniture in the immediate locality. The proposal would retain a pavement width of 5.6 metres on side and 4.5 metres on the other side. It would also be Furthermore, the proposal represents only a marginal increase in footprint, such that it would not exacerbate issues with street clutter or be at odds with the Council’s strategy to declutter and rationalise street furniture with a view to improving the pedestrian experience. Appeal Decisions 6004716 and 6004715

Whilst the Council state that the proposal would detract from the pedestrian experience by requiring pedestrians to navigate a number of obstacles, I am not persuaded that the proposal either in isolation or in combination with other elements of street furniture would be likely to result in harm to pedestrian flow, such that it would warrant refusal of the application. Based on my observations, there are two clear channels for pedestrians to walk down, these are located immediately to the front of the shop which border each side of the street. The central area of [site address] was in use a pavement seating for cafes and restaurants, and these uses present a greater obstacle to the flow of pedestrians, but not unduly so. There are plenty of opportunities to cross from one side to the other and there is a generally open pleasant atmosphere to the street. In my view the proposal would not harm the existing pedestrian environment, result in reduced levels of pedestrian comfort or result in local pedestrian navigation confusion.

I have also had regard to the comments of the Council’s Neighbourhood Team which state that the ‘[name] installed at the eastern end of [site address] is due to be discontinued by the end of 2026. It was still in situ at the time of my site visit. Nonetheless, even is this unit will be removed as part of the Council’s strategy to declutter the pedestrian city centre environment. For the reasons given, I have found that there would not be harm to pedestrian movement or accessibility in this location, particularly having regard to the wide width of the pedestrianised street. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence before me which indicates that the existing totem was intended to be a temporary installation. Therefore, I attribute this very limited weight.

For the reasons given above, in respect of Appeal A I conclude that the proposal would not harm pedestrian flow or safety. Therefore, I find no conflict with Policies SP1, CC5, T1 and DM1 of the CS, Saved Policy DC22 of the UDP and [name]-P1 and JP-C4 of the PfE Plan. Together, these policies seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development is safe and easy to move around; has regard to road and community safety; and would not be injurious to public safety.

In relation to Appeal B, I conclude that the proposal would not harm public safety. In accordance with the relevant Regulations, I have considered the provisions of the development plan to the extent that they are applicable. The proposal would not have a harmful impact on public safety and would meet therefore meet with the objectives of the above policies.

In addition to the matters addressed under my main issues, I have also taken into account further concerns raised by interested parties regarding the potential impacts on safety, including ant-social behaviour and the perception of crime. However, there is no substantive, site-specific evidence before me to indicate that the proposal would give rise to increased crime or anti-social behaviour. Consequently, these concerns do not outweigh my findings in relation to the main issues of this appeal.

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. Appeal Decisions 6004716 and 6004715

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 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 6004716 and 6004715

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: • 25004466_LOC_S1_1.1 - Location Plan • 25004466_PLN_SI_2.1 - Proposed Site Plan • 25004466_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: • [address] Hubs v2.1 ([name] 2025) • Anti-Social Behaviour Management 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 6004716 and 6004715 Appendix 1 - List of those who have appealed Case Reference Appellant Reference Appeal A 6004716 [name] on behalf of BT Telecommunications PLC Appeal B 6004715 [name] on behalf of BT Telecommunications PLC