# Pavement outside 30 New Bailey Street, Salford (telephone hub and digital advert)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 26 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew McGlone
- **Authority:** Salford (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008051
- **Application reference:** PA/2026/0124
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Freestanding telephone apparatus with defibrillator (Appeal A) and internally illuminated six-sheet digital advert (Appeal B, 6008052, PA/2026/0171)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE4(2), CO1
- **Development plan policies:** Salford Local Plan DM AP1, DG1, D1, D2, D3, D4, HE1, HE2, Places for Everyone JP-C1, JP-C2, JP-P1, Salford Central Planning Guidance SC4
- **Main issues:** setting of listed buildings, amenity (advert)
- **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, heritage-harm-decisive, co1-substantial-weight, advert-heritage

## Summary
An In Focus telephone and defibrillator hub with a digital advert, on the pavement by Albert Bridge in Salford, was refused planning permission and advert consent. Both appeals were dismissed. Low-level harm to the settings of a Grade II bridge and a Grade II* railway viaduct outweighed CO1's substantial-weight benefits, because the hub was not sited to minimise its visual impact.

## Issues and findings
- **Heritage setting: HARM.** "The proposal would cause harm to the significance of both listed buildings, by way of impact upon setting at the lower end of the spectrum in each case. That said, I give substantial weight to each asset's conservation, and any harm … should have a clear and convincing justification according to Policy HE4" (DL ¶14).
- **CO1: substantial weight, but siting failed.** "Framework Policy CO1 says that such benefits carry substantial weight, but equally this policy says that the proposed hub would not be sited or designed to minimise its visual impact, especially given that it would be a new structure. I conclude that they do not outweigh the collective or individual harm … having regard to Framework Policy HE6" (DL ¶15).
- **Council's own approval opposite: distinguished.** That site has a different character: the view there faces away from the viaduct, with trees in between (DL ¶11).
- **Advert: amenity harm.** It would bring visual activity that competes with the listed buildings' settings. Conditions would not overcome it (DL ¶19-21).

## Planning balance
An HE6 heritage balance: low harm to two assets, with substantial weight to conservation, against substantial CO1 benefits. The harm prevailed, and the scheme conflicted with the development plan (DL ¶23).

## What made the difference
The site's open, curving approach to both listed structures. The inspector read CO1's own requirement to minimise visual impact as limiting the weight of its benefits.

## Transferable points
- CO1 substantial weight is conditional in practice. A hub not "sited or designed to minimise its visual impact" loses to even low-level setting harm (DL ¶15).
- Low harm to setting still attracts substantial weight to conservation and needs HE4(2) "clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** harm at lower end of spectrum to settings of Grade II Albert Bridge and Grade II* Southern Railway Viaduct and Colonnade; substantial weight to each asset's conservation (DL 10-14)
- **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification (DL 14-15)
- **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** Wi-Fi, free calls, defibrillator etc. carry substantial weight, but the hub was not sited or designed to minimise visual impact (DL 15)

## Key facts
- 8 m wide footway at the curve of New Bailey Street by Albert Bridge; open character; existing kiosk on the opposite side to be removed (DL 3, 11-12)
- The council had approved an identical hub and advert on the other side of the road, distinguished because the view there is away from the viaduct and screened by trees (DL 11)
- Advert conditions on brightness and dwell time would reduce but not overcome the harm (DL 20)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008051
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/87e74df4-81c9-40d5-a1e2-6304ea3a90e7

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008051.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.