Appeal 6005158

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission to erect a street hub unit. Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent for advertisement panels on either side of the street hub unit. The two appeals relate to the same site and to each other. I have considered each on its individual merits, but as they are intrinsically linked and raise similar issues, I have combined these cases in a single decision letter.

In respect of Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) require that decisions are made only in the interest of amenity and public safety. Therefore, whilst I have taken account of the policies that the Council considers to be relevant, these have not been decisive in my determination of this appeal. Appeal Decisions 6005158 and 6005159

The main issues in respect of Appeal A is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect on living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

In respect of Appeal B, the main issue is the effect on amenity.

The appeal site is an area of pavement located outside [name] and adjacent to a mini supermarket. Street furniture in the vicinity includes bollards, a bin, railings, street signage and benches. Also located nearby are traffic lights and a pedestrian crossing. On this stretch of [site address] , there are several commercial units at ground floor with residential units located on the upper floors above. As a result, the area has a mixed commercial and residential character.

The main parties refer to recent appeals on the highway outside the train station. Linked appeals1 (Appeals 1) for the installation of 1 no. new communications kiosk with integrated advertising display were dismissed in April 2025. I have also been referred by the parties to an appeal2 for the display of 1 x internally illuminated digital information and advertising screen (Appeal 2). This appeal was determined in February 2026, following the submission of the appeals before me. At the time of my site visit in May 2026 the digital information board and advertising screen had been installed on [site address] .

In dismissing Appeals 1, the Inspector referred to the visual harm as a result of the height and monolithic design of the proposal, which would be 2.4m high and 1.1m wide. The proposal before me would be notably taller and wider at almost 3 metres in height and 1.2m in width.

The street hub would be located on a straight stretch of road. Within this context, despite its modern design with a narrow profile, its significant height and overall scale would result in an overly prominent addition to the area. [name] note that the neighbouring commercial premises display projecting and shopfront signage, due to the proposal’s positioning adjacent to a variety of street furniture, including a bench, bin, street sign and planter, it would add clutter and harmfully erode the openness of the parts of the pavement it would be sited on.

In allowing Appeal 2, the Inspector concluded that the internally illuminated digital information and advertising screen would respect the character of the townscape. However, the addition of a second large street hub unit, within such close proximity on the same stretch outside the train station, would result in further visual clutter, to the detriment of the area.

The appellant indicates that, whilst there are no existing phone boxes located at the appeal site, two existing phone boxes within the local area would be removed as part of the appeal proposal. This was not offered as part of the proposals for the previously dismissed Appeal 1. However, as the two phone boxes are some distance from the appeal site, their removal would not mitigate the harm arising 1 [name]: APP/P3610/W/24/3356729 and APP/P3610/H/24/3356730 2 [name]: APP/P3610/Z/25/3364400 Appeal Decisions 6005158 and 6005159 from the proposal in this specific location. Furthermore, from the evidence before me, the phone boxes have transparent glazing and do not include illuminated displays. They are therefore less prominent than the proposed street hub unit.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the street hub unit would unduly harm the character and appearance of the area. In relation to Appeal A, the proposal would conflict with Policy CS5 of the [name] (2007) (CS) and Policies DM9, DM10 and DM15 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015) (DMPD) which seek to enhance the townscape, and require proposals to incorporate principles of good design, whilst ensuring that advertisements cause no demonstrable harm to the local character. There would also be conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (Framework), which states that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed.

The Council also alleges a conflict with Policy DM14 of the DMPD with regards to this matter. However, my attention has not been drawn to any words in it that are relevant to this issue. The policy has therefore not been determinative in my

In terms of Appeal B, and in accordance with the Regulations, I have taken into account the provisions of the development plan in so far as they are relevant. Policy DM15 of the DMPD outlines that the Council require proposals for advertisements to demonstrate that their design and siting do no demonstrable harm to the character of the surrounding townscape. As such, this is a material consideration insofar as it relates to this appeal. I conclude that the advertisements would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area.

The appeal site is in a busy, town centre location adjacent to an entrance to the train station and a mini supermarket. There is a taxi rank located on the adjacent section of the highway. As a result, it seems to me that the area is likely to be busy with pedestrians and vehicles throughout much of the day and night, with associated noise from conversations, closing vehicle doors and general comings and goings. In addition, due to its location close to the railway, it is likely to be affected by noise from railway infrastructure and passing trains.

The submitted evidence includes a Noise Management Plan (NMP) which outlines measures to mitigate noise disturbance associated with the street hub. This includes limiting speaker volumes to 60% of their maximum volume during night-time hours.

Given my observations on the existing background noise in this location, I find that noise from users interacting with the proposed hub would be unlikely to be discernible above the general activities that currently take place in this area. Overall, I have been presented with no substantive evidence that noise from voice calls at the unit would be unduly noisy, or that they would cause disturbance to the nearest residential properties.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the street hub would not unduly harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. In relation to Appeal A, the proposal would comply with Policies CS5 and CS6 of the CS and Policy DM10 of the DMPD insofar as they require proposals to have regard to the amenities of neighbouring Appeal Decisions 6005158 and 6005159 occupiers. Nor would there be conflict with the aims of the Framework which seeks to create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The appellant has indicated other proposals granted permission in a number of locations across the country. There will be situations where street hubs are appropriate in visual terms, but I do not have sufficient information to determine whether the sites referred to had the same characteristics as the appeal site, and consequently these decisions do not alter the conclusion I have come to regarding the harm that the proposal would cause.

The proposal would provide a number of benefits to the local community, which in summary include ultrafast [name], environmental monitoring (including air quality, noise, and traffic), 5G mobile network coverage, free phone calls, USB ports for rapid device charging, access to public services, multiple accessibility options, the display of community and emergency messaging, and free advertising for the Council and local businesses.

These benefits would be in compliance with a number of the Council’s development plan policies and relevant paragraphs of the Framework, including paragraph 119 and 120 of the Framework which state that, amongst other things, advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social wellbeing, and that planning decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G).

However, the Framework also states that the number of communications masts, and the sites for such installations, should be kept to a minimum. Even if the proposed hub would help boost 5G coverage, no compelling evidence has been provided demonstrating that the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure has been sufficiently explored. Very little weight is therefore attributed to the public benefit that would arise from any boost to 5G services in the area.

I note that the street hub would be powered by 100% renewable carbon-free energy and that a maintenance regime would be put in place. The unit would be monitored and would have weekly inspections and bi-weekly cleaning services to keep the unit to a high standard of finish within the existing streetscape. The main parties agree that the proposal would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway.

However, the proposal would give rise to adverse impacts in relation to the unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, in the terms I have described above. The Framework outlines at paragraph 131 that, amongst other things, the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. I consider that the public benefits should be afforded moderate weight and would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area that I have identified. Planning conditions could not overcome this harm.

In terms of the planning application, the harm and related policy conflict would be such that the scheme would not comply with the development plan when Appeal Decisions 6005158 and 6005159 considered as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I conclude that the planning appeal should therefore be dismissed.

With regard to the advertisement appeal, the display in this position would be unduly harmful to the amenity of the area and I conclude that this appeal should also be dismissed.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, both Appeal A and Appeal B are dismissed.