A Street Hub appeal in Redcar has been dismissed after a Planning Inspector found that a proposed digital communications kiosk could worsen crime and anti-social behaviour in the town centre. The connected advertising appeal also failed on 12 November 2026, with the Inspector identifying unacceptable visual clutter on High Street.
BT Group had sought planning permission for a freestanding Street Hub outside commercial premises on High Street, together with separate advertisement consent for two illuminated digital screens. Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council refused both applications on 16 July 2026, and Inspector L Clark has now upheld those refusals.
The decisions illustrate an important distinction. The Inspector did not find the location unsafe for pedestrians or motorists, but considered police evidence about misuse of free calls and the prominent position of the new structure decisive. The Street Hub appeal also shows why replacing an old telephone box and installing a wholly new kiosk can lead to different planning outcomes.
Why the Street Hub appeal failed on crime concerns
The planning appeal, reference 6014428, involved a new BT Street Hub with a free telephone service, Wi-Fi and digital advertising. It was considered alongside advertisement appeal 6014430. Inspector Clark visited the area on 15 October and described a busy commercial street with a fairly wide, relatively uncluttered footway, a bus shelter, benches, bins and other comparatively modest street furniture.
Cleveland Police had objected on crime and anti-social behaviour grounds. Its evidence identified the wider area as a hotspot, with concerns about the night-time economy, and also drew on experiences with communications hubs elsewhere in Teesside. The Inspector acknowledged limitations in the police evidence but found that the appellant had not provided a persuasive answer to those concerns.
In particular, the decision recorded that the appellant did not dispute that, in a small number of other locations, the free call service had been used by local drug users. This was not a finding that the proposed Redcar kiosk had itself been used unlawfully: it was not installed. Instead, the Street Hub appeal turned on the predicted effect of adding that facility to a location already affected by anti-social behaviour.
BT supplied an anti-social behaviour management plan involving automated recognition and blocking of telephone numbers, informed by call patterns and other intelligence. The Inspector found no sufficiently clear evidence about the thresholds for triggering those measures. Even effective blocking after misuse would not necessarily prevent harmful conduct from taking place initially.
Inspector Clark wrote: I therefore attach significant weight to the concerns from CP.
CP refers to Cleveland Police. The Inspector concluded that the Street Hub could make an existing problem worse, contrary to the council’s Local Plan policy on human health and safety and the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework provisions concerning safe and inclusive streets.
Why a new kiosk was different from replacing phone boxes
A further issue in the Street Hub appeal was whether previous permissions for similar equipment should have changed the result. BT pointed to other Street Hub cases, including examples in Camden and elsewhere. However, several of those involved replacing existing telephone boxes rather than placing a new structure on an otherwise open part of the pavement.
There was an existing telephone kiosk elsewhere on Redcar High Street that the appellant indicated would be removed. The Inspector gave the potential public realm improvement limited weight because no mechanism had been identified to secure its removal as part of this appeal. It could not simply be assumed that a structure away from the application site would disappear.
The point matters for other applicants. A replacement facility may reduce existing clutter or substitute more useful equipment for a redundant kiosk. An entirely additional installation starts from a different position, and benefits elsewhere on the street cannot safely be treated as guaranteed without proper controls.
Digital screens would add unacceptable street clutter
The proposed kiosk would have been approximately 2.98 metres high, 1.236 metres wide and 0.35 metres deep, with advertisements changing about every ten seconds. The Inspector considered it substantially more imposing than nearby low street furniture, including the bus shelter’s existing advertising, which was integrated into the shelter rather than standing alone.
The Street Hub appeal therefore failed on design grounds as well as crime concerns. The Inspector found that a tall, illuminated, freestanding structure in a conspicuous position would disrupt the character of the street and visually extend the commercial frontage into the pavement. That harm applied to both the kiosk and its associated advertisements.
Advertisement appeal 6014430 was assessed separately under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. That regime is focused on amenity and public safety, rather than every planning issue raised by the overall development. The Inspector dismissed the advertising appeal because of harm to local amenity, not because the Inspector had found a road safety hazard.
Planning Geek’s advertisement consent guidance explains when a separate application is required. Our advertisement appeal guide also covers the distinct tests used when a council refuses consent, an important distinction in cases where planning and advertising permissions are both sought for one proposal.
Highway safety concerns did not succeed
The council also raised the potential distraction to drivers and obstruction to people using the footway. The Inspector rejected those objections on the evidence. The remaining usable width of pavement, the position relative to the nearby junction, and the presence of another digital display within the bus shelter meant that unacceptable danger to pedestrians, wheelchair users or motorists had not been demonstrated.
That finding is easy to miss if the Redcar decision is described simply as a street safety refusal. Crime prevention and highway safety were assessed differently, and the Inspector reached different conclusions. A proposal can fail because of security and townscape concerns even where its siting would leave an adequate pedestrian route and not significantly distract drivers.
The Street Hub appeal also involved a balancing exercise under the revised Framework. The Inspector recognised potential benefits from connectivity, public and emergency calls and network resilience. But the promised free public messaging and air-quality information were not certain, and any additional lighting benefit was modest in an already illuminated commercial street.
What the paired Redcar decisions mean
National policy gives substantial weight to maintaining and improving electronic communications networks, but it also requires equipment to minimise visual impacts as far as practical. In this case, the Inspector concluded that the limited benefits did not outweigh the crime-related and visual harms. Both appeals were dismissed, leaving the original refusals in place.
There is a wider lesson in the comparison with recently allowed Street Hub appeals. The practical difference between a replacement kiosk and a new addition matters; so do the local police evidence, available mitigation and whether removal of other equipment is secured. The mere existence of another permitted Street Hub is not a reliable indication of how a different site will be determined.
For applications involving communications equipment and digital advertising, the two approval regimes also need separate attention. The main planning appeal can consider matters including crime prevention, design and access, whereas the advertisement appeal must be decided on amenity and public safety. The same installation can fail both appeals for different, carefully defined reasons.
Both decisions were issued by Inspector L Clark on 12 November 2026. They concern Redcar and Cleveland application references R/2025/0661/FF and R/2025/0662/AD. The planning appeal 6014428 and advertisement appeal 6014430 are available from the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspector’s exact published decision text is Planning Inspectorate material under the Open Government Licence.
0 Comments