Agenda item

The Officer summarized the report as follows:-

1.      The application was for the installation of 1 BT Street Hub incorporating 2 LCD advert screens and associated BT phone kiosk removal;

2.      It was before the Committee as it had been called in by a local ward Councillor on the grounds of visual impact, street clutter and accessibility impact;

3.      It was recommended for approval with conditions.

The following points arose from questions and debate:-

1.      Councillor Eddy stated that these applications were never popular with the public but digital advertising was policy compliant and had a member not referred the application to Committee it would have been delegated for officer decision. He reminded the Committee that if it was refused it could be lost at appeal so any objection needed to be sustainable;

2.      A Grampian permission or negative condition meant that work on site could not be commenced until something off site had taken place;

3.      There was no application for additional power supply;

4.      Transport Development Management had removed their objection regarding service access as this would be undertaken when the shops were closed;

5.      There was nothing in the BID late statement that had not already been covered in the report;

6.      Reference was made to DM27 – something that contributes positively to the local character. The Committee was informed that there was minimal difference to the phone box it would replace but its benefits were that it would provide high speed Wi-Fi to the area, access to maps and technical tools for public use. The LED screens were also more energy efficient than the telephone box;

7.      Officers had discharged the public sector equalities duties and the hub would be placed in a location to allow good site lines for those with visual impairment. Autism had not been considered as officers were not qualified to assess that impact. There were already a range of visual distractions within the public realm;

8.      If the hub was granted, the advertising consent would be for 5 years;

9.      Public surveillance was not a planning consideration and could not therefore be applied;

10.  Councillor Eddy stated there were no sustainable grounds to refuse so he would vote for approval;

11.  Councillor Varney suggested that the removal of the phone box was being used as a bargaining tool to approve the hub. He noted that the hub would not be in the same location as the phone box and that permission for them had been given elsewhere so he would vote for approval;

12.  Councillor Hathway observed that there seemed to be different interpretations on the policies of crime and fear of crime and easy access to the public realm and would vote against approval;

13.  Councillor Jackson would vote for approval;

14.  There were no further comments and Councillor Eddy moved the officer recommendation and it was seconded and on being put to the vote it was:-

RESOLVED – (6 for, 2 abstentions and 1 against) – That the application be granted subject to Conditions.