Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of application - Removal of existing BT phone box and installation of a proposed replacement BT street hub and associated display of advertisement on both sides of the unit.

This application was considered jointly with Item 4.5.

Oral representations from Ward Member Councillor Michael Tickner in objection to the application were received at the meeting. Councillor Tickner considered that the telephone hub was unnecessary and amounted to street clutter; it was only included in order to gain free advertising. By permitting this application, the Council would be giving the applicant leeway to earn money free of charge.

The Head of Development Management gave the following update which had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting:-

Paragraph 3.1 on page 89 of the report (second sentence) was amended as follows: “The new structure would measure 1.2m wide, 3m high and 0.35m deep.”

The following paragraph was added to page 94 of the report:-

‘7.2.7  The development would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation area.  It is considered that the proposed BT Street Hub would result in less than substantial harm to this designated heritage asset, and whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal would result in public benefit in the form of 5G enablement, free phone calls and access to emergency services etc. this would not outweigh the harm identified in this case.’

Paragraph 8.1 on page 94 of the report was replaced as follows:-

8.1  Having regard to the above, the development would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would result in less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset.  The proposal would incorporate additional communications infrastructure including wi-fi connectivity and expanded network coverage with 5G mobile enablement.  These would constitute public benefits which should be afforded significant weight in the overall planning balance, however in this instance it is not considered that the benefits would outweigh the harm that has been identified.

The recommendation remained as set out in the report.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED as recommended, for the reason set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning.