Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 7 December 2023 by Eleni Randle BSc (hons) MSc FRICS FAAV MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:27.12.2023 Appeal A Ref: APP/G3110/W/22/3308264 Pavement o/s 101 London Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr James Browne (BT Telecommunications Plc) against the decision of Oxford City Council. • The application Ref 21/01151/FUL, dated 29 April 2022, was refused by notice dated 11 August 2022. • The development proposed is installation of 1 no. new BT Street Hub, incorporating 2 no. digital 75” LCD advert screens, plus the removal of 1 no. associated BT kiosks. Appeal B Ref: APP/G3110/Z/22/3308265 Pavement o/s 101 London Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE • The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 against a refusal to grant express consent. • The appeal is made by Mr James Browne (BT Telecommunications Plc) against the decision of Oxford City Council.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions • The application Ref 22/01152/ADV, dated 29 April 2022, was refused by notice dated 11 August 2022. • The development proposed is installation of 1 no. new BT Street Hub, incorporating 2 no. digital 75” LCD advert screens, plus the removal of 1 no. associated BT kiosks. Decisions Appeal A Ref: APP/G3110/W/22/3308264 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B Ref: APP/G3110/Z/22/3308265 2. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 3. Whilst each appeal is a separate consideration to be determined, they have both been considered and determined in parallel. Notwithstanding this, I confirm that I have determined each appeal separately and on their own merits in accordance with the respective processes and requirements that I am required to undertake. However, for clarity, efficiency and simplicity, given the nature of the refusal reasons for each appeal I have presented the outcomes of these two linked appeals within this one decision letter. 4. Since the determination of the applications, and the submission of these appeals, a revised National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework) was adopted on 5 September 2023.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions The refusal reasons reference specific paragraphs of the Framework however, it is not considered that this impacts https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions The refusal reasons reference specific paragraphs of the Framework however, it is not considered that this impacts https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/W/22/3308264 and APP/G3110/Z/22/3308265 upon the determination of the appeals given that the paragraphs referred to within the stated decision notices remain unchanged within the latest revision of the Framework. Main Issues 5. The main issues are for both Appeal A and B: i) the impact of the proposal upon the visual amenity of the area, street scene and public realm and ii) whether the proposal would be detrimental to road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. Reasons Appeal A and Appeal B Visual amenity of the area, street scene and public realm 6. The appeal site relates to land fronting 101 London Road which is currently part of the public highway, the pavement, along the main road through Headington. The proposed street hub itself (Appeal A) would be approximately 3 metres high, 1.24 metres wide and 0.35 metres deep. Two 75-inch display screens would be installed to the sides for illuminated advertisements (Appeal B). The Street Hub would also house telecommunications equipment with features noted to included upgraded wi-fi range, free direct 999 call button, USB rapid device charging point, environmental monitoring and expanded mobile network coverage with 5G. 7.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions The immediate area surrounding the application site is predominantly commercial in nature and is noted to have commercial and retail shop fronts occupying ground floor levels with more residential development occupying the upper levels. At the time of my site visit, I noted that the appeal site is adjacent to an existing layby, designated electric scooter parking/storage area as well as being surrounded by existing street furniture such as lamp posts, cycle racks and bins. Such features are small scale, and low level, and blend into the street scene as part of the established character and appearance of the area. I also observed a notable number of people walking in and around the area between the scooter parking and the edge of the pavement. The proposal would narrow the available pavement in an area which appeared widely used during my site visit. Whilst I appreciate that my visit is only a snapshot in time I also note, from evidence submitted by third parties, that the area is generally busy especially at certain times of the year. 8. The Street Hub would be of a notable size, scale and massing and I find that it is of design that would be entirely alien to the character and appearance of the area.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions Its overall height would contribute to its negative prominence. This, combined with advertisements, would result in a discordant feature which would be unduly prominent, and dominant stood forward of the existing street furniture only around a metre from the edge of the pavement. The combination of these factors I find would detract from the visual amenity of the area due to being visually incongruous. The proposals would also add clutter within the street scene and public realm within a short distance when taking into account the existing street furniture, scooter parking, bin storage and general activity in the area. 9. The surrounding commercial units are noted to benefit from a wide variety of illuminated, and non-illuminated, signage. The signage in shop fronts is, however, generally sympathetic and more traditional in terms of proportions https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/W/22/3308264 and APP/G3110/Z/22/3308265 relative to the shop frontage/unit frontage and size. I found the area to be typically characterised by advertisement confined primarily to shop fronts with limited advertising, on bus shelters or phone boxes, at low level which is a direct contrast to the proposal which is before me. I do not find that the proposal would declutter the footpath due to a reduced footprint given that there is no such feature currently present at the appeal site. The proposal would introduce an entirely new feature. Whilst I acknowledge the activity, general signage and commercial activity within the area, the Street Hub and advertisements would negatively impact upon the character of the area. 10. I appreciate, that the nature of the proposal is to stand out, but this would be in contrast to the low-lying character of the area and the proposals would appear incongruous and obtrusive within the street scene against the generally modest appearance of the backdrop of shop facias and road signage.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions The presence of the advertisements would be exacerbated as a result of proposed illumination, however, even in the absence of such illumination, the proposal for the Street Hub and the associated advertisements would still appear as an unduly prominent and dominant structure that would detract from the visual amenity of the area due to their overall size and location. 11. There are secondary and tertiary uses and functions to the BT hubs as have already been outlined. It is noted that 5G needs to be provided and it is also understood that the locational needs are such that 5G has a smaller radius compared to previous and earlier network requirements. I am of the opinion that there is likely scope for more appropriate ways of providing enhanced telecommunications through 5G/Wi-fi as opposed to the proposal for a Street Hub of this scale, in this location, accompanied by large advertisements. Whilst it is stated that the proposal would encourage more people to walk or use public transport there is no evidence or justification to demonstrate this robustly which limits the weight which can be relied upon or attributed to this claim.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions The Wayfinding feature is not a part of the street hub itself as the street hub does not contain an interactive map or equivalent software feature, but simply provides wayfinding by allowing people who have access to a phone, or tablet, to utilise free wi-fi or 5G to be able to utilise such features on their own device. 12. I understand, as noted by the appellant, there would be public benefits to such features, however, in this case the proposals go beyond providing genuine telecommunications infrastructure including the other features noted that are not essential equipment equal to other telecommunications paraphernalia and the proposal falls to be considered under the relevant planning and advertising legislation and associated policies. Aside from the physical structure of the Street Hub itself, the impact of the proposal would be exacerbated by people, or groups of people, standing around the Street Hub to utilise features such as, for example, phone charging which would further narrow the available pavement for general users within the vicinity.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions The appellant acknowledges that the proposed Street Hub may have some negative impact, from an objective perspective, however I am not convinced that the benefits, in this case, outweigh the harm which I have identified to the character of the area or visual amenity. 13. It is understood that the street hubs have caused safety concerns in some areas of the country with some street hubs having to turn off their free calls feature due to some members of the public abusing this service. There is a https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions The appellant acknowledges that the proposed Street Hub may have some negative impact, from an objective perspective, however I am not convinced that the benefits, in this case, outweigh the harm which I have identified to the character of the area or visual amenity. 13. It is understood that the street hubs have caused safety concerns in some areas of the country with some street hubs having to turn off their free calls feature due to some members of the public abusing this service. There is a https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/W/22/3308264 and APP/G3110/Z/22/3308265 detailed objection from Thames Valley Police (TVP) who have concern regarding misuse of this feature as well as objections on the grounds of negative impact on crime and disorder, drug offenses, honeypot effect, street clutter, pinch-points and cycle theft. I do not doubt that BT seek to work closely with Police Forces throughout the UK, and I acknowledge the Street Hub Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan V2 (the management plan). Even if I had found that concerns of this nature could be overcome with the imposition of a condition for management in accordance with the management plan, as suggested by TVP, the proposal would still fail due to the other issues I have identified. 14. The Council’s delegated report has considered the siting and location of the street hub in relation to the non-designated heritage asset (105 London Road) but note that the proposal would be sufficiently sited some 20 metres plus away and are as such, of the opinion that the proposal would not give rise to any harm to the character, appearance or setting of the non-designated heritage asset.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions Based upon the evidence before me, and my site visit, I find no reason to conclude differently on this particular element. 15. It is stated, within the description of the development and the application documentation, that a BT kiosk located outside the convenience store at 50 Gladstone Road would be removed as part of the application. Removal of an existing kiosk may well return space in terms of square metres and cubic metres, to the public realm, however, the proposals before me is in a visually isolated and exposed location which would be overbearing in the overall context of the street scene and would create an unacceptable prominent and dominant feature for the reasons I have outlined. 16. Additionally, the kiosk in question (at Gladstone Road) does not fall within the application site boundary and no mechanism has been submitted, by the applicant, which would secure its removal. I note that the appellant has suggested a condition can be attached stating the unique phone number designated to each individual payphone kiosk.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions In addition, where kiosks cannot be identified, the appellant has offered to provide necessary comfort that each kiosk would be removed as proposed but I find that this approach would be insufficient in the context of the tests required for the imposition of conditions upon any permission granted. 17. It has not, overall, been demonstrated that the suggested planning conditions would meet the six tests set out within the Framework. Notwithstanding the fact that the existing kiosk proposed to be removed does not stand within the application site boundary as outlined above, the proposal for removal is in excess of 800 metres away from the appeal proposal. Even if an appropriate mechanism had been submitted by the appellant to secure its removal, I do not find that this provides justification for the proposed Street Hub. 18. I note the appellant’s contention that the Council does not support kiosks in the area, however, regardless of this I have considered the cases on their own merits.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions I acknowledge that BT has an Electronic Communications Code Licence and Universal Service Obligation (USO) covered by Ofcom, but this does not override the need for appropriate location, and sizing, of such proposals to enable the appellant to deliver such obligations in a sensitive and appropriate manner. It is only the telecommunications infrastructure which is strictly necessary for BT to fulfil their functions to deliver an appropriate electronic https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions I acknowledge that BT has an Electronic Communications Code Licence and Universal Service Obligation (USO) covered by Ofcom, but this does not override the need for appropriate location, and sizing, of such proposals to enable the appellant to deliver such obligations in a sensitive and appropriate manner. It is only the telecommunications infrastructure which is strictly necessary for BT to fulfil their functions to deliver an appropriate electronic https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/W/22/3308264 and APP/G3110/Z/22/3308265 communications system. I note that BT also has a USO to provide and maintain publicly accessible call boxes on the street however, the proposal for the Street Hub before me goes beyond providing an accessible phone box. Furthermore, whilst the USO is noted this is not a material planning consideration which limits the weight this can carry within the consideration of the proposals. 19. Overall, there is no evidence to support that existing kiosks cannot be replaced in the same, or similar, locations in line with BT’s default preferred option which is to replace existing kiosks. In the case of this proposal, the Street Hub would remove usable pavement space and be located in a visually prominent location resulting in an inappropriate structure in terms of character and appearance. It would be only around a metre from the edge of the highway at a height of just under three metres (which is understood to be around 0.8 metres taller than existing kiosks in the locality) with advertisements either side which would be illuminated.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions From the evidence before me, I find that the proposal is in no way comparable to the existing kiosk on Gladstone Road even if appropriate mechanisms had been included to secure its removal as part of any consent granted. 20. The proposal would be contrary to Oxford Local Plan 2020 (LP) Policy DH1 which confirms that planning permission will only be granted where proposals are designed to meet the key design objectives and principles for delivering high quality development and LP Policy DH6, which confirms advertisement consent will only be granted where the design responds to and positively contributes to the character and design of existing buildings and surroundings. The proposal would also be contrary to 136 of The Framework which outlines that the character and quality of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed. The proposal would also be contrary to Headington Neighbourhood Plan which confirms that new developments will only be permitted where they respond and enhance the distinctive local character. Road users, including pedestrians and cyclists 21.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions I note that Oxfordshire County Council, as highways consultee, objected to the Street Hub itself (Appeal A) on the grounds of impact to local highway safety due to obstructing vision of cyclists/drivers travelling along London Road as well as vehicles exiting the parking bays within the layby. Concern is also raised that the Street Hub would also obscure views of pedestrians approaching the crossing and cyclists emerging from the cycle stands. They consider this to result in a detrimental impact on the local highway in safety terms. This is highlighted in the Council’s delegated report. Despite this in relation to the advertisements (Appeal B) I note that the comment, from Oxfordshire County Council, stated that the proposals are unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the local highway network in traffic and safety terms with no objection raised to the advertisements themselves. 22. It is acknowledged that the advertisement itself is not the same size as the proposed Street Hub. The proposal would, however, still result in a 75-inch screen on either side of the street hub with illuminated advertisements.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions As noted above, when reviewing the consultee responses themselves, Oxfordshire County Council only objected to the construction of the street hub itself for the reasons outlined. For the reasons outlined I have considered that the construction of the Street Hub and display of advertisements in this area to be https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions As noted above, when reviewing the consultee responses themselves, Oxfordshire County Council only objected to the construction of the street hub itself for the reasons outlined. For the reasons outlined I have considered that the construction of the Street Hub and display of advertisements in this area to be https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/W/22/3308264 and APP/G3110/Z/22/3308265 detrimental to visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area within the first main issue. Even if I found the advertisements themselves to be acceptable with regard to highway safety, the appeal would ultimately still fail due to the advertisements being intrinsically linked to the erection of the Street Hub proposed in Appeal A as well as my findings that the advertisements would be detrimental in other regards. 23. The appellant acknowledges the Highway objection but relies on a statement that no evidence has been produced, by Oxfordshire County Council, to confirm the extent of the issue that the proposed street hub would cause and, as such, states that it is impossible to assess if there is any possibility that it would affect public safety to the degree it would warrant refusal of the application. I would, by contrast, suggest this equally demonstrates that it is therefore not sufficient evidence that the proposal would not affect public safety to support approval. 24.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions In the case, which is before me, I found, at the time of my site visit, that London Road was a busy road with cars coming, and going, utilising spaces in the layby as well as the site being heavily utilised by pedestrians, cyclists and users of the scooter parking facility. Based upon the evidence before me, and my site visit, I find that the highway consultee concerns are well founded in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The appellant has not provided any evidence to show that the proposed development would not have an impact of highway safety such as, for example, a consideration as to visibility splays, vehicle tracking or similar in an attempt to fully consider the potential impacts of the proposal in terms of visibility arising from the construction of the street hub itself. 25. The submitted product statement, which accompanied the application, confirms the proposed advertisement is 95cm wide by 167cm high (76 inch in portrait).

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions It is acknowledged that, in general terms, it is reasonable to expect to place digital advertisements in locations alongside the nearside carriageway or overhead, however, I find the location of the Street Hub itself would obscure views which would be to the detriment of highway safety for cyclists, road users and pedestrians. Overall, I find that the street hub, at nearly three metres in height would, by virtue of its height, size and location be a highly prominent feature which would obstruct visibility which would be detrimental to the safety of all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists for the reasons outlined. 26. In terms of the advertisements themselves, within Appeal B, I do not find that illuminated advertisements within this area would have had a direct impact upon highway safety and this is, I find, supported by the fact that Oxfordshire County Council did not object to this element of the overall proposal as a separate application for advertisement consent. Levels of illumination or regularity as to the changing of images themselves could have been controlled by condition to ensure appropriate impacts to visual amenity and highway safety. 27.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions The proposal, for the Street Hub itself, would be contrary to LP Policy M1 which states that permission will only be granted for development that is laid out and designed in a way that prioritises access by walking, cycling and public transport and LP Policy RE7 which seeks to avoid unacceptable transport impacts effecting the existing transport network. The proposal would also be https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions The proposal, for the Street Hub itself, would be contrary to LP Policy M1 which states that permission will only be granted for development that is laid out and designed in a way that prioritises access by walking, cycling and public transport and LP Policy RE7 which seeks to avoid unacceptable transport impacts effecting the existing transport network. The proposal would also be https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/W/22/3308264 and APP/G3110/Z/22/3308265 contrary to paragraph 111 of the Framework which seeks to prevent development on highway grounds if there would be unacceptable impact upon highway safety as well as paragraph 112 which confirms that applications for development should minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Other Matters 28. I note that there are third party comments, and objections, in relation to the proposals within both of these appeals. Given the main issues which have been raised, I have dealt with these within the main issues within this decision letter. 29. The appellant submits a decision letter relating to appeal reference APP/N5660/W/18/3199793 (pavement outside 158 Westminster Bridge Road). Whilst this decision letter is noted, along with the commentary which the appellant has referenced within their statement, no copies of the proposal itself in terms of overall scale, massing or positioning has been provided which limits my ability to ascertain the context in which such comments were made, as well as apply any approach of this nature to the appeal proposal which is before me. 30.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions I note the appellant has submitted information, and guidance, relating to the Transport for London Guidance for Digital Roadside Advertising and Proposed Best Practice. This advice is not directly applicable to areas outside London, and I find that the guidance is provided as justification for siting and positioning of such proposals based upon guidance specifically for London. I do not find that the appeal site, whilst a busy area just outside Oxford, is comparable to that of London and I would apply limited weight to such guidance outside of London in support of the proposed advertisements. 31. The second refusal reason, within both appeals, references paragraph 109 and 132 (of the then 2021 Framework) with both of these paragraphs being the same wording, and numbering, within the current revision of The Framework. Paragraph 109 relates to the importance of providing adequate overnight lorry parking facilities and paragraph 132 relates to pre-application engagement between the Local Authority and the local community. I do not find that the stated paragraphs, of the Framework, are of direct relevance to the second refusal reason outlined within both decisions which are the subject of the appeals before me. 32.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions I note the appellants reference to appeal reference APP/Z4310/W/18/3205104 (Outside numbers 1-5 Forever 21), in particular reference to paragraph 23 of the Inspector’s decision letter. The information before me regarding this appeal is limited (to the decision letter), however, it would appear that there are distinct differences between that appeal proposal and the appeal which is before me. This includes, for example, the use of bollards preventing motorised traffic which results in the street in question (Church Street) being pedestrianised for large parts of the day. 33. In addition, it would appear that there were numerous existing digital screens in the vicinity, of a similar size, which provided further evidence that such proposals in that area had not resulted in any issues and the Inspector considered the proposal to improve circulation as a result of the overall scheme with removal of two payphones in the same area. I do not, therefore, find this to be comparable to the proposal which are before me. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/W/22/3308264 and APP/G3110/Z/22/3308265 34. I also note submission of further site examples, by the appellant, such as the approval by Manchester City Council (13472/FO/2021), however, that case was found not to obstruct pedestrian or vehicle sight lines which I have found to be the case within the appeal before me. Looking at the site plan provided the case, in Manchester, does not carry similar site characteristics being on a straight line of pavement with no evidence of layby parking, scooter parking or similar which are to be taken into account on the London Road. APP/N5660/W/18/3199793 (Waterloo Road, Outside Waterloo Station) is submitted, but I only have the decision letter before me. Notwithstanding this the site adjoins a major transport interchange in London and is unlikely to result in the same impacts I have outlined based upon the specifics of the appeal site before me. Conclusion Appeal A 35. The proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon character and appearance and would be an incongruous addition which would also result in an unacceptable impact to road users, pedestrians and cyclists. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Appeal B 36.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Appeal Decisions The proposal would result in acceptable impact to road users, pedestrians and cyclists in terms of public safety, however, the advertisements themselves would be detrimental to visual amenity and character and appearance of the area. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Pavement o/s 101 London Road, , Headington, Oxford, OX3 9AE — Oxford City Council — Eleni Randle INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8