Salisbury Street Hub appeals fail over screen brightness

The Salisbury Street Hub appeals were dismissed on 8th October 2026 after a Planning Inspector found that a proposed telecommunications kiosk with large digital advertising screens would harm the appearance of a prominent pedestrian area beside St Paul’s roundabout. Both the planning appeal and the associated advertisement appeal failed.

The proposals concerned a BT Street Hub on Devizes Road near the A36 in Salisbury, with two 75-inch LCD advertising displays and the removal of an existing payphone. Inspector R Cahalane examined the street setting, illumination proposals, the services offered and the evidence supporting the claimed public benefits.

The outcome was not a general objection to telecommunications equipment. The key point was that the proposed luminance limits were not shown to be appropriate for this particular location, despite the applicant relying on professional lighting guidance and the revised August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework.

Why the Salisbury Street Hub appeals failed

Two appeal routes were considered in one decision letter. Planning appeal 6012932 challenged refusal of application PL/2026/02555 for the kiosk and payphone removal. Advertisement appeal 6012933 challenged refusal of application PL/2026/02790 for digital displays on the structure. Both were dismissed.

The main issue was the effect of the structure and displays on visual amenity. The appeal site lay beside a busy roundabout and a modern convenience store with extensive glazing and some illuminated signage. Nevertheless, the paved foreground itself was relatively open and free of existing clutter.

The Inspector considered that the hub’s height and conspicuous position would create a visually intrusive addition. Traffic signals, streetlights and vehicle headlamps are necessary highway features, not a planning justification for a new commercial advertising screen at an otherwise comparatively uncluttered location.

Screen brightness: the difference between 600 and 300 cd/m²

The Salisbury Street Hub appeals turned substantially on technical illumination evidence. The proposed display could operate at up to 5,000 candelas per square metre in daytime. A suggested planning condition would cap the brightness at 600 cd/m² between dusk and dawn.

The appellant relied on the Institution of Lighting Professionals’ Professional Lighting Guide 05/23. Although aspects of the proposal corresponded with general figures in that guidance, the Inspector also considered the location-sensitive recommendation in Table 10.4. For this display and its ambient setting, the relevant suggested night-time limit was 300 cd/m².

The evidence did not show a mechanism limiting brightness to 300 cd/m² at night, or properly adjusting daytime luminance to ambient light conditions under Table 10.5. The guidance was treated as a material consideration rather than planning policy, but its context-sensitive figures were important.

What the August 2026 Framework actually requires

The main parties had an opportunity to comment on the revised National Planning Policy Framework published on 17th August 2026. Policy CO1 gives substantial weight to maintaining and improving electronic communications network coverage, capacity, reliability and resilience, including newer wireless technology.

However, CO1 also requires the siting and design of equipment to minimise visual impact so far as practicable. The Inspector considered that the prominence and proposed illumination of this structure were not compatible with that qualification. Policy DP3’s emphasis on development responding to its context also carried weight.

The decision applied settlement policy S4 to the planning appeal. National support for connectivity did not create an automatic approval, particularly where visual disadvantages were identified and the precise local public benefits were inadequately quantified.

Why removing a kiosk did not offset the harm

The applicant argued that the new facility would replace an ageing payphone and offer a wider range of public services. The Inspector inspected the existing kiosk location and found it relatively inconspicuous, tucked away near the entrance to a supermarket car park.

Accordingly, its removal did not provide a significant townscape improvement that could balance the effect of a taller, more prominent modern hub. The application description referred to payphones in the plural, but the evidence established that only one payphone was to be removed.

These details matter because the correct existing baseline can change a planning balance. A replacement scheme should not assume that removing a structure generates substantial public benefit without establishing the visual harm caused by that structure in its actual setting.

Public-benefit evidence was not persuasive enough

The suggested benefits included public Wi-Fi, charging, information and the potential ability to count transport movements or monitor environmental conditions. The Inspector recognised that such functions could be useful in modern urban life.

However, there was little site-specific evidence of a shortfall in 4G, 5G or Wi-Fi services, or failure to meet relevant universal service obligations. The evidence also lacked a precise legal mechanism securing some of the potential data collection functions presented as public benefits.

Potential functionality and evidenced, deliverable benefits should be distinguished. Applicants relying on a substantial public-benefit argument should show a demonstrable local need, what services will actually be supplied and how continued operation could be secured.

Planning and advertisement controls have different tests

The planning appeal was under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, whereas advertisement appeal 6012933 proceeded under regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. The Inspector considered the cases together but determined each on its proper basis.

The Wiltshire Core Strategy and Salisbury policies were relevant to the planning appeal through the statutory development-plan approach. In the advertisement appeal, the same policies could inform the assessment of amenity but did not have the identical status or weight.

The Salisbury Street Hub appeals therefore demonstrate why obtaining planning permission for infrastructure would not, by itself, authorise digital advertisements. The display requires its own assessment of amenity and public safety, including its illumination and visual prominence.

Heritage was not the actual reason for dismissal

The vicinity includes conservation areas and listed buildings. The Council’s evidence did not identify direct heritage harm, and the Inspector agreed that the structure would not adversely affect the significance or settings of the identified designated heritage assets.

The decisions instead turned on the character and appearance of the immediate street and the unsatisfactory lighting regime. That difference should be made clear in submissions. Planning harm to an ordinary townscape is distinct from harm to the significance of a protected heritage asset.

Local policies included Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, saved Salisbury District policy PS7 and policy 6 of the Salisbury Neighbourhood Development Plan. The Inspector also considered the relationship between older design guides and adopted planning policy.

The contrast with Hounslow and Selby

Planning Geek has reported a Hounslow Street Hub decision where telecommunications and digital displays were found acceptable in a different context. It would be misleading to treat that result as creating a presumption that every busy high street can accommodate a similar unit.

The Selby digital screens appeal provides another useful comparison: daylight-only operation contributed to an outcome permitting some displays while refusing others. The surrounding environment, intensity and enforceability of the lighting regime all matter.

For comparable projects, a competent submission should contain photographs from actual public viewpoints, a dimensioned streetscape context, ambient brightness assessment, enforceable luminance controls and a realistic explanation of community benefits.

Practical lessons and primary decisions

The Salisbury Street Hub appeals illustrate that a manufacturer’s standard lighting specification is not enough. Applicants should address the full relevant guidance, distinguishing maximum technical capability from an acceptable operational level for the immediate ambient conditions.

Objectors should identify genuine effects on visual amenity rather than simply repeating opposition to digital advertising. Equally, applicants should address the structure, lighting and separate advertisement consent directly, rather than relying on national support for communications technology as a complete answer.

The planning appeal 6012932 and advertisement appeal 6012933 were decided on 8th October 2026. The combined text can also be reviewed through Appealbase. These are Inspector decisions on their particular facts, not judgments of a court.