Appeal 6005766

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

The address in the banner headings above has been taken from the decision notices as this accurately reflects the appeal site location. The two appeals are for related proposals on the same site. I have considered each appeal on its individual merits, however, as they raise similar issues, I have combined both decisions into a single decision letter.

In respect of Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (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 where relevant.

The main issue in Appeal A is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The main issue in Appeal B is the effect of the proposed advertisement on public safety. Appeal Decisions 6005766, 6005767

The appeals site comprises an area of pavement within a mixed-use area. It is proximate to a dropped tactile pedestrian crossing and a loading bay, and nearby to the vehicle entrance to the car parking at B&M and a care home.

The appeal site is said to have been chosen to ensure baseline provision of accessible communication facilities across towns and cities. While there would be some set back from the pavement edge, the kiosk and advertisement would be located on the outer edge of the pavement, with the advertisement visible on approach from the south. Despite being deliberately designed to minimise its physical presence within the streetscape, owing to its width and height the kiosk would detract from the existing good visibility along the street. The position of the proposal proximate to the loading bay would obscure views for northbound road users, reducing visibility of the loading bay and whether it was occupied or if a vehicle was leaving it and rejoining the carriageway.

It is not disputed that the siting of the kiosk would allow for pedestrian movement on the footpath to be maintained. Nevertheless, it would reduce visibility at a section of the road that is already sensitive to distraction or confusion where drivers need to take more care. Vehicles could be accessing or leaving the loading bay and pedestrians crossing the road. I have also taken into account that at the appeal site locality the road has central hatching which reduces the carriageway width and that northbound cyclists could be in the main carriageway as there is no cycle lane.

The Planning Practice Guidance1 states that all advertisements are intended to attract attention, but advertisements at points where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety. While visibility along the A167 is good, and the advertisement screen is said to be slightly smaller than standard highway advertising formats, the changing illuminated display close to the loading bay would have the potential to distract motorists and other road users at a section of highway where concentration is required.

In combination with the physical structure of the kiosk that it would be affixed to the advertisement would be detrimental to public safety. The imposition of conditions to control the illumination levels and changing of images of the proposed advertisement would not adequately address the harm to public safety because of the harmful effect of the advertisement’s associated structure.

For these reasons, the proposal would harm highway safety, and as such, it would be in conflict with Policy CS13 of the Planning for the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne 2010-2030 (2015) and Policy MSGP15 of the [name] for Growing Places Local Plan Document for Gateshead (2021). Amongst other things, these policies require development to avoid unacceptable impacts on the safe operation of the transport network. It therefore follows that the proposed advertisement would harm public safety.

Paragraph 119 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. The Framework also seeks to support the expansion 1 Paragraph 067 [name]: 18b-067-20140306 Appeal Decisions 6005766, 6005767 of electronic communication networks. The proposal is said to modernise outdated infrastructure with a future ready approach to urban communication, providing efficient, reliable and free to use public services including for vulnerable users who may not have access to a mobile phone. The proposed kiosk would therefore support the Government’s aim of improving digital infrastructure, which is a clear benefit of the scheme.

It is indicated that the advertising display could be used to connect the local planning authority, charities, community groups and local businesses with the public. Nevertheless, there is no substantive evidence that the display would be likely to be used in this way and no mechanism to secure the display of public messages. In any event, matters not relating to amenity and public safety fall outside the scope of Appeal B, as defined in the Regulations.

A defibrillator would also be provided as part of the kiosk, available twenty-four hours a day which is a social benefit, although there is no evidence that this is the only such location where a defibrillator could be installed. The operators intend to plant one street tree for every kiosk installed, working in partnership with Trees for Cities. No details have been advanced as to how this would be achieved. In any event, the planting of a tree in another location would not be directly relevant to the development and would be unlikely to meet the tests for either planning conditions or obligations. As such, this is not a consideration attracting favourable weight.

While there would be benefits from the scheme, overall, given the nature and scale of the proposal, this limits the weight I afford to them, which in practical terms would be modest. Therefore, the benefits do not provide justification for allowing a scheme that would cause the harm identified under the main issues above.

In respect of Appeal A, my above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

In respect of Appeal B, the proposed advertisement would harm public safety.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed, and Appeal B should be dismissed.