Appeal 6005028

[name] and B are dismissed.

The two appeals are for related proposals on the same site. Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission for the proposed [name] unit. Appeal B relates to the refusal of an associated advertisement consent for two digital display screen advertisement panels on either side, which would be an integral part of the proposed [name] sought under Appeal A. I have considered both on their individual merits, but as they raise similar issues, I have combined these cases into a single decision letter to avoid duplication.

In respect of Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) stipulate that control may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Therefore, whilst the development plan policies referred to on the decision notice are not determinative, I have taken them into account only insofar as they are relevant to amenity and public safety, in respect of Appeal B.

The emerging Middlesbrough Publication Local Plan (March 2025) (the MPLP) was submitted for examination in September 2025. The weight to be given to the policies is dependent upon the extent to which there are unresolved objections, Appeal Decisions 6005028 and 6005030 and the degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I have referred to the emerging policies as needed in my decision.

Having regard to the above, the main issues in relation to Appeal A are the effect of the proposal on: • highway and pedestrian safety; • the character and appearance of the area; and • the risk of crime and antisocial behaviour in the area.

The main issues in relation to Appeal B are the effect of the proposal on: • public safety; and • visual amenity.

The appeal site comprises part of a pedestrianised area to the eastern end of [address] and adjacent to [address]. It is within the town centre close to a group of commercial premises. Leisure and commercial uses, including food outlets, are also located to the opposite side of [address] from the appeal site at the Middlesbrough Leisure Park. The proposal would be sited close to a tall telecommunications mast and lower-level equipment cabinets close to [address], which are separated from the road by metal railings. Low-level benches and a refuse bin are also located close to the appeal site. Together these features create a concentration of street furniture in this part of the public realm.

A telephone kiosk shown on the submitted plans has already been removed from the area. Other street furniture in the surrounding area comprises low-level bollards, cycle stands, a way finder signpost and taller street lighting columns, with street trees also situated in sections of pavement. A signalised junction with pedestrian crossing over [address] is close to the telecommunications mast and cabinets. A bus stop with shelter is located on the northbound section of [address] close to the appeal site.

At the time of my visit, during late morning to early afternoon, I observed a moderate level of pedestrian movement in the area of the appeal site, which will likely fluctuate at different times of day. Pedestrians, including groups of people, were predominantly passing in both directions to and from the nearby pedestrian crossing, through the area of pavement close to the appeal site and between the existing telecommunications mast, cabinets, benches and refuse bin. There were continuous flows of vehicular traffic travelling in both directions along [address]. The above factors contribute to a generally busy environment for pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

The submitted plans indicate that the [name] would be situated towards the edge of a section of pavement, close to the existing telecommunications mast and cabinets. Whilst there is a relatively large area of pavement forming the overall public realm to this end of [address], the concentration of street furniture Appeal Decisions 6005028 and 6005030 close to the appeal site reduces the available width in that immediate area. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) suggests there are inaccuracies on the submitted plans regarding the position of the existing street furniture and the extent of pavement between this. From my observations on site, and noting the position of the existing mast, cabinets, benches and bin in relation to the differing surface materials in this area, which are indicated on the plans, the existing structures appear to be sited closer together than shown. The apparent discrepancies hinder my understanding of the proposal’s impact in this location.

The siting and scale of the proposal close to the existing street furniture, which would extend further into the pavement than the existing cabinets, would reduce the pavement width in this area. The introduction of a relatively large structure would create a pinch point alongside the existing street furniture to this part of the pedestrian route between the town centre, the pedestrian crossing and nearby bus stop, and in an area that experiences higher pedestrian movements.

I acknowledge the appellant’s references to guidance on footway widths. However, from the information before me and my observations on site, I am not satisfied that the proposal would provide sufficient pavement width in this area, minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians or allow for sufficient unobstructed movement through this part of the public realm. Consequently, the proposal would likely result in inconvenience for pedestrians with an adverse and harmful impact on such movements in this area, particularly at times of higher flows. Although a nearby telephone kiosk has already been removed, that was in a different position, in a wider and more open part of the pavement compared to the appeal site. There is nothing before me to suggest this impeded pedestrian flows to any harmful extent in the same way that the current proposal would be likely to.

The LPA raise no concerns regarding the siting of the proposal and the potential for driver distraction for vehicles heading in a northbound direction on [address]. Due to its proposed siting in relation to the adjacent telecommunications mast and cabinets it would not be fully visible to any significant extent, therefore I see no reason to take a different view.

[address] Hub and one of its advertisement displays would be visible to motorists travelling in a southbound direction on [address], although it would not face directly towards the road. At this point users join the road from a roundabout in one of two lanes, with the road sweeping left as it passes the appeal site on the approach to the traffic lights and pedestrian crossing. The proposal would be within the field of vision of motorists travelling in this direction and before reaching the traffic lights, albeit viewed across the northbound lanes on [address]. Beyond the traffic lights, vehicles would continue ahead on [address] or turn left towards the Leisure Park uses in that area. This contributes to a relatively busy road environment for users of the highway where drivers may be changing lanes, slowing down to turn left, as well as approaching the traffic lights and pedestrian crossing with stationary vehicles. Consequently, drivers will need to take more care in such a location.

Despite the bend in the road, the proximity of the traffic lights and pedestrian crossing, this does not comprise a particularly complex arrangement, nor present significant difficulties for drivers in a town centre location. The siting and scale of the proposal in relation to the southbound carriageway, including the likelihood of other vehicles travelling northbound limiting views towards it, would reduce its Appeal Decisions 6005028 and 6005030 overall visual impact and prominence for motorists as they approach the area along [address]. Therefore, whilst it would be sited and designed to attract attention, the proposal would not be likely to appear as a significant feature that would unduly distract drivers travelling in this direction.

I acknowledge the [name] and Infrastructure comments that raise concerns regarding distraction for drivers travelling southbound on [address]. However, I have no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that there would be adverse effects in this regard from the siting and scale of the proposal resulting in unacceptable impacts on highway safety.

However, for the reasons set out above, the proposed siting and scale of the [name] and its advertisements would likely result in an obstruction for users of the pavement and public realm, which would lead to the potential for increased conflict between pedestrian users. Consequently, in the absence of compelling evidence to indicate otherwise, I am not satisfied that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its effect on highway and pedestrian safety.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway, pedestrian and public safety. It would therefore conflict with Policy DC1 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (February 2026) (the CS). Amongst other things, this policy aims for proposals to take account of the layout of development and ensure there is limited impact upon existing transportation infrastructure with no impact on highway safety.

Three-storey properties with ground floor shop frontages, and a vacant two-storey building that appears to have previously been in commercial use, are in the area of the appeal site, although the proposal would be sited away from these in a more open location towards the roadside. The mix of uses in the surrounding area contribute to a varied character and what may reasonably be expected in a town centre location. As established above, the proposal would be sited in an area with a concentration of street furniture and structures. There are variations in the form of advertisements in the immediate and wider area of the site, including a large digital billboard display to the side elevation of a nearby property and poster displays to nearby bus shelters facing [address]. I also observed digital advertisement displays on other parts of [address] and elsewhere in the town centre, including to other hub structures and bus shelters, although these are not prevalent in the immediate area of the appeal site.

Other than the telecommunications mast, the existing street furniture closest to the site is of a relatively low level that reduces its prominence. The proposal, with its associated advertisement displays, would have a taller and bulkier appearance in comparison. The illumination of the advertisements could be controlled, although these would further increase the prominence of the proposal and its overall visual impact in this location. Despite the height of surrounding buildings, it would add to the concentration of street furniture in a relatively small area. It would therefore appear as a visually intrusive addition to the open edge of this part of the public realm. Adding to the proliferation of street furniture in this immediate area would also be harmful given that pedestrians would experience this as they pass by.

Given its scale and appearance, the removal of the nearby telephone kiosk has resulted in some improvement to the visual amenity of the area, including a Appeal Decisions 6005028 and 6005030 reduction in visual clutter. Whilst close to the appeal site, this was in a different location and a more central area within this part of the public realm. Despite the aim to free up space around the existing benches, and its modern and slimline design in comparison to the kiosk, the proposal would also be sited close to these. It would add to the cluster of street furniture in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site and result in clutter that would have an adverse visual impact in this area.

I conclude that the proposal would have an unduly harmful impact on the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies CS5 and DC1 of the CS. Amongst other things, these policies aim for proposals to demonstrate high quality design, contribute to the character and appearance of the area, and take account of the visual appearance and layout of development and its relationship with the surrounding area. The LPA also refers to Policy CS4 of the CS in respect of Appeal B, which amongst other things, aims to deliver high quality design that contributes to improvements in the quality of the townscape. Insofar as it is relevant to Appeal B and relates to amenity, the proposal would not be in accordance with this policy.

The LPA refers to the evidence submitted by [name] (CP) to support refusal reason 3 in respect of Appeal A. The comments from CP highlight concerns regarding opportunities for crime and antisocial behaviour, and I acknowledge the references to issues that have arisen from similar hubs in other locations. However, there is limited evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would increase the risk of crime or antisocial behaviour close to the appeal site.

Despite comparable comments from CP, the LPA has permitted other similar [name] proposals where they have been found to be acceptable in relation to matters of visual impact, highway and pedestrian safety. The LPA acknowledges it did not consider the CP concerns alone to be sufficient in those cases to justify refusal of the applications. However, whilst it has found harm in this instance on other grounds, it is not clear to me why the CP concerns would also amount to a refusal of the application under Appeal A, despite similarities with other proposals.

The appellant’s Antisocial Behaviour Management Plan sets out various measures that could be implemented should problems with crime and antisocial behaviour occur due to the proposal. These include remote monitoring, a review mechanism for reports of antisocial behaviour, tailoring the review process to each local situation, and automatic recognition of misuse and blocking of identified numbers based on an algorithm. [name] proposing to allow the appeal, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the management plan could be imposed to mitigate potential effects in this respect.

The LPA has referred to Policy CR3 of the emerging MPLP, which amongst other things aims for proposals to create a safe environment where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. The LPA state the examination of the MPLP is still ongoing, and so it does not have full statutory weight in decision making terms relative to the policies contained within the development plan for the area. Nonetheless, the MPLP has reached a relatively advanced stage following public consultation.

In any event, for the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the proposal would increase the risk of crime and antisocial behaviour in the area, therefore it Appeal Decisions 6005028 and 6005030 would not conflict with Policy CR3 of the emerging MPLP, the aims of which are set out above. Furthermore, the proposal would not conflict with the Framework and its aims to achieve safe places which are safe and accessible.

I have had regard to the suggested benefits of the proposal. These include the replacement and upgrading of a telephone kiosk, provision of ultrafast public Wi-Fi, access to public services, USB charging, free calls, community and emergency messaging, environmental sensors and some free advertising space for businesses. I also note the sustainable design credentials of the proposal. These would contribute to the economic, social and environmental objectives set out in the Framework, and I give them moderate weight. However, these benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified of the proposal in this location. Whilst the appellant’s aims for the proposal are noted, it has also not been adequately demonstrated that these could not be achieved in a less harmful way.

There would be some modest benefit regarding the removal of another telephone kiosk further away from the appeal site. However, this is not within the same site context as the appeal proposal. As it does not form part of the appeal site, it is also not clear how its removal could be secured through this appeal. Therefore, I give this limited weight, which would not outweigh the harm.

There is also support within the Framework for advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure and the delivery and upgrade of high quality digital infrastructure. The proposal also draws some support from the emerging MPLP with regard to digital and communications infrastructure. I have also had regard to information provided by the appellant demonstrating support for infrastructure delivery, relevant best practice and guidance. However, these matters do not justify the identified harm in this instance.

In addition, I note that similar structures have been installed in locations across the country. I have also had regard to the appeal decisions provided by the appellant. Whilst there may be some similarities regarding the nature of the proposals and main issues, the full details of those schemes are not before me, therefore I am unable to determine if they are directly comparable to the proposal before me. In any event, other proposals will have different circumstances and site-specific characteristics, and my assessment has been made having regard to the effects of the proposal in this location. These do not alter my conclusions.

Notwithstanding my findings in respect of the risk of crime and antisocial behaviour, the proposal, insofar as it relates to Appeal A, would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. The material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.