# York bus shelter digital adverts (12 linked appeals, Bauer Media Outdoor)

- **Decision:** split, 19 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Mrs Chris Pipe
- **Authority:** York (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009003
- **Application reference:** 25/01092/ADV
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Replacement of illuminated 6-sheet bus shelter posters with digital displays changing every 10 seconds at 12 York locations
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(1)
- **Development plan policies:** City of York Local Plan 2017-2033 (2025) D13, T1
- **Main issues:** public safety
- **Tags:** advertisement, digital-advertising, public-safety, conservation-area, he6-substantial-weight, transitional-no-consultation, linked-appeals

## Summary
Twelve linked appeals to digitise bus shelter adverts in York were decided in one letter. Eleven were allowed; one, on a highway-complex stretch of Boroughbridge Road, was dismissed on public safety. The case is recorded for two reasons. It is an early example of the new Framework being applied without consultation. And, unlike Chelmsford and Newcastle, the inspector cited HE6's "substantial weight" in an advertisement case.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) has been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (2026) … No party would be prejudiced or caused any injustice by me proceeding with the appeal in light of this change" (DL ¶14).
- **Heritage.** "Policy HE6 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation when considering the potential effect of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset. This is irrespective of the level of harm" (DL ¶15). No harm to heritage amenity was found.
- **Appeal A: public-safety HARM.** It sits in "a particularly complex section of the highway network … the digital display has the potential to divert the attention of highway users at a location where their focus should remain on negotiating the competing highway movements" (DL ¶19).
- **Appeals B-L: no harm.** The reasons were: open layout with good forward visibility (DL ¶20); single inward-facing screens (DL ¶21, 24); cycle routes segregated from the carriageway (DL ¶20, 22); and slow city-centre traffic (DL ¶23, 27).

## Planning balance
None. The decision turned on public safety and amenity under the Regulations.

## What made the difference
Site-by-site highway complexity. The one dismissal had a petrol station access, several junctions, a bus gate, crossings and on-carriageway cycle lanes all within view.

## Transferable points
- Digital displays changing every 10 seconds are not inherently unsafe. The test is local cognitive demand: junction density, cycle lanes in the carriageway, speed (DL ¶18-29).
- Single-sided, inward-facing screens reduce distraction (DL ¶21, 24).
- Some inspectors cite HE6's "substantial weight" to heritage conservation in advertisement appeals (DL ¶15), while others hold HE6 inapplicable (PINS-6009587, PINS-6011428). The point is unsettled.

## Policy findings
- **HE6(1): pass (substantial weight).** seven sites in conservation areas; HE6 substantial weight to conservation "irrespective of the level of harm" noted; no amenity harm to heritage assets found (DL 15)
- **P5: harm.** Appeal A (Boroughbridge Road) - complex junctions, PFS access, bus gate, crossings, cycle lanes; changing display an unacceptable distraction (DL 19, 31)

## Key facts
- Linked appeals 6009003, 6009015, 6009018, 6009019, 6009023, 6009053, 6009025, 6009031, 6009041, 6009047, 6009065, 6009082 - one letter
- Appeal A (6009003) dismissed on public safety; B-L (11 sites) allowed for five years
- Decisive factors were junction complexity, cycle lane integration, speeds, and whether screens were single-sided inward-facing
- Decided two days after the new Framework took effect; no consultation (DL 14)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009003
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bad4aad2-6d64-428f-b5f9-30123fee1896

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009003.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.