Appeal 6005277

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission for the installation of a [address] Hub. Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent to display advertisements on the hub which is proposed under Appeal A. As they are intrinsically linked and raise similar issues, I have combined both decisions into a single decision letter.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposals upon visual amenity; and, • the effect of the proposals on highway safety.

The appeal proposal would be located on an area of the pavement outside of [address], next to [address]. The proposed unit would be of a considerable height, incorporating advertisement screens sited on each side of the street hub. Appeal Decisions 6005275 and 6005277 This immediate area has a very strong commercial character. Within both the immediate street scene and broader locality, it was evident during my site visit that this strong commercial character is further heightened through the presence of street furniture. This furniture consists of various elements of differing scales including lampposts, traffic lights, litter bins, post boxes, flower planters and road signage, amongst other things.

The proposed development would introduce an additional item of street furniture into a location where similar items are prevalent. Its siting, adjacent to the highway, would be reflective of the position of existing road signage and lampposts along [address] and [address]. These are the main thoroughfares in this locality. In this context, both the advertisement displays on the hub and the physical form of it would integrate comfortably within the mixed streetscape, where modern street furniture and various forms of advertising, including those which are illuminated, are established and visually prominent elements.

Based on the above considerations, I conclude that the proposed street hub and its associated advertisements would not appear incongruous or visually harmful within this predominantly commercial location. The development would therefore not conflict with Policies SD1, SD2 and SE1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan 2017 (LP), Policies GEN1, GEN 3 and RET9 of the Cheshire East Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022 (SADP) and Policy PR1 of the Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan 2017. Collectively, these policies require development and advertisements within the public realm to be appropriate to the character and appearance of that area, ensuring that they achieve a sense of place that is of an appropriate quality, amongst other things.

I recognise that the aforementioned policies are not decisive with regards to Appeal B. The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) Regulations are clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, I have therefore taken them into account as material considerations only.

The proposed plans demonstrate that the hub would be positioned with its elevation facing the highway, allowing strong visibility of its advertisement screens to face drivers travelling in either direction along [address]. It would also be close to the highway, at the junction with Green Lane. This would not only present the advertisements directly towards oncoming drivers, but would also create an opaque barrier close to the highway. It is also a location where due to the presence of surrounding buildings and busy close proximity junctions, attention is significantly demanded.

My attention is firstly drawn to vehicles travelling in an eastward direction towards the appeal site. The advertisement displays would be highly visible to these drivers on their approach to it. By their very nature, advertisements are intended to capture the attention of individuals. The appellant themselves notes that the PPG states that all advertisements are intended to attract attention. But, proposed advertisements at points where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety, at junctions, for example. In this instance, the proposed position of the hub and its advertisement display which would face drivers travelling eastwards would attract their attention. Appeal Decisions 6005275 and 6005277

This is also a location where vehicles may wish to turn left onto the junction with Green Lane. At this point, a pedestrian may be waiting to cross Green Lane, to continue their journey eastwards. It would not be unusual for a pedestrian to cross at this point, especially if their vehicle is parked on the small parking area on Green Lane, or if an individual wishes to walk further along [address].

The turn from [address] into Green Lane is off a busy stretch of the highway, where multiple junctions meet. This is also a location where there is not a significant amount of time to react. Therefore, any sudden stoppage due to unexpected pedestrians would have the potential to have implications upon highway safety through following vehicles being required to suddenly stop. When the attention-grabbing nature of the proposed advertisement displays, and the physical presence of the hub are collectively considered, this leads me to the conclusion that the proposals would distract drivers, but would also present a physical barrier which would prevent clear visibility onto Green Lane for those wishing to turn left. Therefore, the location of the hub would obscure visibility of any pedestrian located in this space, leaving limited room to stop safely as they come into view when travelling eastward.

For vehicles travelling in a westward direction, drivers would be met with traffic signals prior to the junction with [address]. As such, this would require their concentration to be on the highway, preparing to stop when these signals turn to red. When travelling in this direction, the proposed advertisement display would be to the right of the driver. Due to the proposed advertisement’s position to the right of the highway, drivers approaching from this direction would need to turn their heads to view its content, thereby diverting their attention from the road ahead. [name] have stated previously, advertisements by their very nature are there to attract attention. The proposal would cause distraction near a signalised junction where drivers may be required to stop unexpectedly. This concern would be further compounded by the presence of other vehicles along this busy route, which would further restrict the space available for safe deceleration and stopping.

The appellant has provided various reasoning to overcome these apprehensions regarding highway safety. They note that the luminance of the advertisement screens are proposed to be kept to a technical minimum and that imagery would be static, changing only every 10 seconds. This is a matter that can indeed be controlled by the use of a planning condition. However, this would not overcome the concerns I have with regard to the physical position of the structure, or that any advert, static or otherwise, would attract the attention of drivers, as is intended with any advertisement. It is also contended that the footpath would retain a sufficient overall width. In my assessment of this matter, owing to the space that would be afforded across the footpath post construction, I do not disagree with this point. However, it would not overcome the concerns raised above with regard to the position of the proposals and how they would distract and reduce visibility for road users.

Several appeal decisions have been submitted for consideration in relation to highway safety. These decisions have been provided in full. However, the cited cases relate to locations such as Bracknell, York, Haringey, and Islington, with the nearest example being located in Bury. These areas are all a significant distance from the appeal site and are therefore likely to present materially different highway contexts. Moreover, appeal decisions are determined on their own merits. The fact Appeal Decisions 6005275 and 6005277 that a similar form of development has been allowed elsewhere does not, in itself, indicate that an appeal should be allowed at the appeal site location.

Therefore, to conclude, the proposed development and advertisements would have an unacceptable impact upon highway safety. No convincing technical evidence to demonstrate otherwise has been provided in the evidence before me. Therefore, the proposed development would conflict with Policy INF3 of the SADP, insofar as it is a material consideration with regards to Appeal B. This policy seeks for development to not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, amongst other things.

The appellant suggests that any harm arising from the proposals would be minor and would be outweighed by the associated public benefits. The benefits of the development are clearly set out within the appeal submission. These include the provision of free Wi‐Fi, access to public services, device‐charging facilities, emergency and community messaging, renewable‐energy operation, a defined number of free advertising hours for the Council and local businesses, and equipment to monitor certain environmental conditions, among other features. Taken together, I afford these benefits moderate positive weight.

I also note that the proposed development would replace an outdated element of the BT telephone kiosk estate. Where such installations have become worn and visually tired, their replacement is a positive consideration. However, the kiosk to be removed is not located within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. It is located a significant distance away. As a result, this matter attracts only very limited, albeit positive, weight.

In this case, although the identified public benefits collectively attract moderate positive weight, they do not outweigh the unacceptable impact the development would have on highway safety. Highway safety is a matter of paramount public importance, and the level of harm identified carries significant negative weight in my overall assessment. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight or significance before me to justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan or the National Planning Policy Framework.

For the reasons given above, the appeals should be dismissed.