Appeal 6006294

[name] and B are dismissed.

Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission to erect a [address] [name] (Hub). Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent to display advertisements on the Hub. I have considered each on its individual merits, however, as they raise similar issues I have combined both decisions into a single decision letter.

With respect to Appeal B, Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) specify that decisions must be based solely on considerations of amenity and public safety. Therefore, while I have taken the development plan policies referred to by the Council into account, they have not been determinative in respect of Appeal B.

The main issues in relation to Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and highway safety.

The main issues in relation to Appeal B are the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity and public safety. Appeal Decisions 6006294 and 6006296

The appeal site comprises of a footpath outside No. [address], a three storey commercial premises that occupies a prominent position on the southern side of the busy [address], close to its junction with [address]. It forms part of a small parade of commercial units located on the edge of Luton Town Centre that provide a busy and commercial character to the area.

From observations at my site visit, the public realm in the vicinity of the appeal site is defined by the broad, open nature of the footway. The existing street furniture is generally discreet and unobtrusive, in the form of benches, waste bins and lampposts. This enables a good degree of openness within the footway, with an uncluttered pedestrian area running in front of the parade. An existing BT kiosk, which the appellant states is to be removed, would remove some clutter. However, it is positioned away from the proposed Hub and the open areas of the footway, in a recessed corner location set back from the main pedestrian route, as such its removal would limit the benefits on the open and uncluttered street scene.

The new Hub would be in an open and prominent position and would be clearly visible in both directions for pedestrians and for vehicles when approaching the site from the east along [address]. While it would be sited close to the existing street furniture, due to its height, width and overall solidity it would be the most prominent feature within its immediate setting. Due to its overall size and visibility, it would contrast unfavourably with the more discreet forms of furniture that are characteristic of the footpath. As such, despite the commercial character of the area, it would have an undue presence appearing as an incongruous and uncharacteristic feature in the street scene.

The adjacent commercial units display advertisement signage typical of a local parade, with modestly sized fascia signage and projecting signs that are proportionate to the scale of the shopfronts. Whilst there are some forms of large traffic signage nearby, these are non-illuminated and static. The double-sided illuminated advertisement display screens integrated with the Hub would be an uncharacteristic and prominent feature that would detract from the public realm and the open character and appearance of the footway. [name] acknowledge the proposed use of anti-glare glass and planning conditions could be used to control the level of illumination and frequency of image changes, such measures would not overcome the harm I have found to the visual amenity of the area.

Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude for Appeal A that the proposed Hub would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan 2017 (LP) which, amongst other things, require development proposals to be of a high quality design that improve or enhance the distinctiveness and character of the area. In addition, it would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that developments should seek to secure a high quality of design that are sympathetic to the local character (paragraphs 131 and 135).

With regard to Appeal B, I conclude the proposed advertisements would have an unacceptable harmful effect on the amenity of the area. Though not determinative, I have taken account of Policies LLP1 and LLP26 of the LP, which seek to ensure proposals do not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area and Appeal Decisions 6006294 and 6006296 result in proposals that are out of keeping in their setting, as such the proposed advertisements would conflict with these policies.

The proposed Hub would be positioned in the middle of the footpath measuring over 8m in width. A gap of over 3m would be retained either side of the proposed hub towards retail shop frontages as well as between the Hub and the metal railings adjacent to [address]. The proposed Hub would also be positioned a short distance from the existing street furniture on the footpath.

It was apparent from my site visit that the footpath is relatively busy, in particular with pedestrians walking towards the town centre to the south east and using the pedestrian underpass towards the Bury Park and Wardown Park areas to the west. Although this was just a snapshot in time, there is little substantive evidence before me to suggest that it is significantly different at any other particular time.

Therefore, given the overall width of the footpath and the space available, in my view, I consider the proposed Hub in this position would not cause an undue obstruction to pedestrians and would leave a substantial amount of unobstructed pavement for the free flow of pedestrian movement, including those with mobility impairments. As the proposed advertisement would be integral to the Hub’s structure, it follows that this would also not result in a harmful obstruction that would compromise the free and safe movement of pedestrians.

Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude with regard to Appeal A that the proposed Hub would not have a harmful effect on pedestrian and highway safety. Consequently, the proposal would accord with Policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the LP insofar as they relate to creating a safe and accessible environment for pedestrians and sustainable development.

For Appeal B, I conclude that the proposed advertisements would not cause harm to public safety. Though not determinative, I have taken into account Policies LLP1 and LLP26 of the LP, to ensure that the proposal does not have an adverse effect on traffic safety, including pedestrian safety. Given the conclusion on this issue with regard to Appeal B, the proposal would accord with these policies.

In support of the appeal the appellant has stated that the proposed development includes the removal of the telephone kiosks outside [address] and on the footpath on [address] and has referenced a range of appeals that include the replacement of existing kiosks and advertisements. However, I have not been provided the full details of these to know how directly comparable they are to the current proposal. I also note the kiosks proposed to be removed are not within the appeal site, do not have illuminated advertisements and in the case of the Kiosk on [address], are a considerable distance from the site.

Therefore, I am not satisfied this would mitigate the harm arising from the appeal proposals’, and I am also not satisfied the proposed condition to secure their removal would meet the six tests outlined within paragraph 57 of the Framework and advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance. This in turn limits the relevance of the highlighted appeals. In any event I have determined the appeals before me on their own merits. Appeal Decisions 6006294 and 6006296

I acknowledge the existing Hubs and advertisements on bus shelters in the locality highlighted by the appellant. However, they appear to have different locational characteristics as well as development characteristics, in terms of the bus shelters, to the appeal scheme and as such are not directly comparable to the appeal before me. As a consequence, whilst I have taken these other examples into account, they do not materially alter my conclusions on the appeal proposals.

The appellant states that the proposed development would contribute towards improving communications infrastructure in line with the principles of the Framework and the Code of [name] on Mobile Network Development in England 2022. I have considered the various benefits put forward by the appellant including upgrading of communications infrastructure through increased Wi-Fi connectivity, the ability to call 999 from the Hub, and to charge devices, as well as the Hub being powered by renewable energy. The appellant has highlighted the potential for advertising for local businesses, free services to the council, including the ability to obtain data from the Hub. The fact that the Hub would be inspected and cleaned regularly is a minimum expectation and would not represent a benefit.

The appellant has also raised their requirement to meet their [name] to deliver a public service to provide and maintain publicly accessible call boxes. This does not however override the requirement for proposals to be appropriate for their location, and it has not been demonstrated that the same benefits could not be provided in a manner less harmful than proposed.

The proposals would comprise economic, social and environmental benefits, however due to the limited scale of one Hub these benefits would be relatively modest, and there is no indication that they could not be achieved in a less harmful manner than proposed. [name] have given them some weight, these benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified in this case.

With regard to Appeal A, notwithstanding my findings on the lack of harm to highway safety this does not outweigh the harm found to the character and appearance of the area. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development is not in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole and Appeal A should be dismissed.

With regard to Appeal B, notwithstanding my findings on the lack of harm to public safety, the proposed advertisement would cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the area. Consequently, having regard to all other matters raised, they do not provide justification for allowing a proposal which would be harmful to the amenity of the area for the reasons set out above. Accordingly, Appeal B should be dismissed.