Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — by J D Westbrook BSc(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 December 2023

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — • The appeal is made by JC Decaux UK Ltd against the decision of Oxford City Council. • The application Ref 22/02437/FUL, dated 10 October 2022, was refused by notice dated 13 January 2023. • The development proposed is described as the installation of a multifunction hub unit featuring an integral advertisement display and defibrillator.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE • 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.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — • The appeal is made by JC Decaux UK Ltd against the decision of Oxford City Council. • The application Ref 22/02438/ADV, dated 10 October 2022, was refused by notice dated 13 January 2023. • The development proposed is described as the installation of a multifunction hub unit featuring an integral advertisement display and defibrillator.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/W/23/3317215 and APP/G3110/H/23/3317216 Main Issues 3. The main issues in respect of Appeal A are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the Central Conservation Area (CA), and • highway safety along Cornmarket Street with particular regard to pedestrian movement. 4. The main issue in respect of Appeal B is the effect of the proposed advertisement on the character, appearance and amenity of the CA. Reasons Character and appearance – both appeals 5. The appeal site is located on the western side of Cornmarket Street, outside of the Clarendon Centre, which is a large modern building with shop units on the ground floor. Cornmarket Street is a busy pedestrianised shopping street running north-south in the centre of Oxford. From signage at the ends of the road, it would appear that motor vehicles are prohibited, whilst cycling is only allowed at certain times. The appeal site is located roughly half-way along Cornmarket Street, near to its junction with Market Street. 6. The proposed hub would comprise a unit with a height of around 2.6 metres, a width of 1.3 metres, and a side profile (with canopy) measuring 0.9 metres.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. The communication element of the unit includes the projecting canopy and an integral defibrillator. The hub would be grey in colour and would include a number of sustainable design and operational features. 7. Policy DH1 of the Council’s adopted Local Plan 2036 (LP) indicates that planning permission will only be granted for development of high-quality design that creates or enhances local distinctiveness. Policy DH3 indicates that planning permission will be granted for development affecting a designated heritage asset that responds positively to the significance, character and distinctiveness of the asset and the locality. It goes on to state that great weight will be given to the setting of the asset where it contributes to its significance. Policy DH6 indicates that advertisement consent will only be granted for forms of advertisement where the design, positioning, materials, colour, proportion and illumination are not detrimental to assets with heritage significance or visual amenity, including where visual clutter is avoided. 8.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. The Council contends that the proposed hub, by virtue of its siting, scale, materials, digital display, illumination and overall design and appearance would result in a harmful and discordant feature that would be an unduly prominent and dominant commercial display that would detract from the visual amenity of the area. The proposal would introduce a visually incongruous addition and unacceptable amount of clutter to the street scene and would detract from the special interest, character and appearance of the CA, and the settings of the nearby listed buildings. In addition, the hub, by virtue of its height, width and bulky form, as well as its illumination, would be a highly prominent feature that would be a visually distracting feature, obstructing visibility. It would add to the level of street clutter in this location and would have a detrimental impact on pedestrian mobility and safety in an area of heavy footfall. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/W/23/3317215 and APP/G3110/H/23/3317216 9. The appellants contend that the proposal, as part of a network of hubs, has been carefully designed in terms of unit location and distribution across the city, to ensure that it integrates successfully into the urban fabric. Moreover, they note that the context of the appeal site is a typical commercial centre with many retail properties lining the streets and providing the scale of the surroundings. While it is identified that the site lies within a conservation area and near identified Listed Buildings, the surrounding buildings style and design are typical of a commercial high street. 10. As part of the Oxford Historic Urban Character Assessment (UCA), Cornmarket Street lies within the Historic Urban Character Area 18 of the city centre commercial core. The document notes that the character area comprises of mostly modern retail development in an area defined by the extent of former tenements, associated yards and side streets fronting onto Cornmarket Street. It is a wide pedestrianised street reflecting its role as a location for the weekly medieval town market.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. The visual character of Cornmarket Street is dominated by the view along the main street looking south towards the Town Hall and Christ Church Tom Tower and north towards St Michael’s Tower and St Mary Magdalen Church. It indicates that, although the built character is largely 20th century in design, particularly in the southern end at Carfax, there are a number of post-medieval mixed-use townhouses to the north. These include Listed Buildings at Nos 23 and 26/28,ghghg as well as St Michaels Church. 11. The Oxford City Centre Street Scene Manual (SSC) states that the design and management of streets in Oxford city centre will prioritise the needs of pedestrians. All new street furniture should be placed in such a way as to avoid creating hazards or obstructing the movement of pedestrians. With all elements in the street scene, including advertising and telephone kiosks, it is important that they are sited in appropriate locations. As well as functional convenience, factors such as visual impact, potential obstruction and safety should be considered.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. Finally, street furniture must be limited to essential items such as seating and cycle parking and should be located in a way that minimises its visual impact and obstruction of pedestrian flows. 12. In respect of both appeals, I note that the shop fronts in the immediate vicinity are modern and mixed in design. On that basis, I find that the design of the hub would not, in itself, conflict significantly with the appearance of the modern shop fronts in the immediate vicinity. However, in the wider context of the buildings and historical significance of Cornmarket Street, which is a significant and central part of the CA, the hub would be seen very much in the context of the Listed Buildings sited a little further north up the street and would, effectively, form part of their setting. By virtue of its height, design and prominence it would be harmful to views of those buildings looking north. Furthermore, the only street furniture along Cornmarket Street would appear to be low-level elements such as seating, planting boxes and bins, such that the scale of the hub would appear incongruous in the context of the overall visual appearance of the pedestrianised area.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. It would introduce an element of clutter into the otherwise largely open pedestrian street and appear out of scale with the other limited low-level and low-key items of street furniture. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. It would introduce an element of clutter into the otherwise largely open pedestrian street and appear out of scale with the other limited low-level and low-key items of street furniture. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/W/23/3317215 and APP/G3110/H/23/3317216 13. With regard to both appeals, therefore, I find that the proposed hub would be in a prominent position close to a number of Listed Buildings, and it would add a degree of visual clutter to the area. It would be a prominent feature with a siting, scale and design that would be harmful to the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings. In the light of this, it would not create or enhance local distinctiveness, nor would it respond positively to the significance, character and distinctiveness of the heritage assets and the surrounding locality. On this basis, it would be harmful to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the CA, and would conflict with Policies DH1, DH3 and DH6 of the LP as well as with guidance in the SSC. Highway safety – both appeals 14. Policy M1 of the LP promotes walking in the city and improvements to the pedestrian environment. Amongst other things, proposals should ensure that the urban environment is permeable and safe to walk through and ensure that footways are sufficiently wide to accommodate the level of use. 15. Cornmarket Street is a wide, pedestrianised street.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. It is heavily used by pedestrians and has a foodscape which demarcates wide pavements from the central part of the road. The limited existing street furniture is low-level and sited within the pavement element. The proposed hub would be sited in line with existing nearby seating on the pavement, close to the central roadway and some distance from the shop fronts. On this basis, I do not consider that the hub would represent any significant additional hazard to the movement of pedestrians, particularly given the additional width of the roadway, which is also available for use by people walking in what appears to be a very safe environment. 16. In the light of the above, although the hub would add a degree of clutter to this section of the pavement, it would not represent a meaningful obstruction to free pedestrian movement along the street. In this regard, it would not, therefore, be harmful to highway safety. On this basis, it would not be contrary to Policy M1 of the LP, nor would it conflict with Paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited. Balance 17.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. Paragraph 199 of the NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, whilst Paragraph 200 states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset, should require clear and convincing justification. In terms of the NPPF, the harm I have identified to the CA would be less than substantial. Paragraph 202 of the NPPF requires me to weigh this harm against the public benefits of the scheme. 18. The NPPF also notes the importance of high-quality communications infrastructure and that the planning system should support such development, aiming to secure high quality and reliable digital infrastructure. However, I https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/W/23/3317215 and APP/G3110/H/23/3317216 must balance this against the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and I have identified harm in that regard. 17. I acknowledge that the proposed hub would provide some free services to the public, including a defibrillator. These services would provide a useful function to members of the public and as such are a benefit of this development. In addition, the appellants contend that the multifunction interactive screens could be used to promote Council initiatives, provide public information, to facilitate wayfinding, and contribute to the vitality and viability of the street. However, I am not persuaded that such services could not be provided in a less obtrusive way or location, and that the benefits would not, in this case, outweigh the harm identified. Conclusion 15. The NPPF notes the importance of high-quality communications infrastructure and that the planning system should support such development. However, I must balance this against the acceptability of the character and appearance of the proposal, and also against its impact on highway safety.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — both in a single decision letter. Whilst I do not consider that the proposed hub would be harmful to highway safety, I have identified harm to character and appearance of Cornmarket Street and the wider CA, including specific harm to the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings further north along the road. 16. For the reasons given above and having considered local plan policies and all other material considerations, I conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.

Pavement outside 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford, OX1 3JE — Oxford City Council — J D Westbrook INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5