- Decision
- dismissed, 18 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: C Harding
- Authority
- Barnsley (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6009866
- Application reference
- 2025/0219
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Communication kiosk (about 2.5 m high, over 1 m wide) with integrated defibrillator and illuminated digital advertisement (linked advertisement appeal 6009867, ref 2025/0294)
- Site context
- inside settlement, near station, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DP3(3), CO1(1)(b), S4(2)(c), S3
- Development plan policies
- Barnsley Local Plan 2019 BTC3, D1
- Main issues
- character and appearance; visual amenity
Summary
A communication kiosk with defibrillator and digital advertising, proposed immediately outside the entrance to the Barnsley Interchange. It would narrow a busy pavement and create an "excessively cluttered cluster" of street furniture. The inspector gave CO1 substantial weight to the telecoms benefits. But the scheme failed CO1(1)(b), because no operational need for this exact spot was shown, and it failed DP3(3), so S4(2)(c) applied. Both appeals were dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Character: harm. "It would lead to a noticeable narrowing of the pavement and would lead to an excessively cluttered cluster of street furniture being evident at this location. The digital illuminated advertisement would only serve to draw the eye further" (DL ¶14).
- CO1: substantial weight, but siting fails (b). "Being mindful of Framework Policy CO1, I afford substantial weight to the benefits that the communication kiosk would bring" (DL ¶24). "Framework Policy CO1 (b) states that telecommunications infrastructure should be sited and designed to minimise the visual impact … It has not been shown that there are any operational requirements which would prevent the proposal being located in a less harmful location" (DL ¶29).
- DP3(3). "This policy states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with aspects of the policy. The harm that I have found, in both cases, means that the proposal would not comply with this policy, and the harm I have found is not clearly justified" (DL ¶30).
- Other benefits discounted. Defibrillator: limited weight, because "it has not been shown that this could not be provided in another, less harmful, location" (DL ¶26). Information and communication benefits at a transport hub: likewise could be provided elsewhere (DL ¶27).
Planning balance
The S3/S4 presumption: "both the proposed communication kiosk in Appeal A and the proposed advertisement in Appeal B would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which states that proposals should be refused in specific circumstances" (DL ¶31). "I find that the adverse effects of the proposals within both appeals would substantially outweigh their respective benefits" (DL ¶32).
What made the difference
The specific spot, directly across the pavement in front of the Interchange doors, and the lack of any operational reason why it had to be there. That combination turned CO1(1)(b) and DP3(3) against the scheme. A kiosk on a wide pedestrianised street, as at Yeovil (PINS-6009864, the same operator), succeeded.
Transferable points
- CO1(1)(b) "so far as practical taking into account its operational requirements" puts the onus on the operator to show why a less harmful location is not practical (DL ¶29).
- Public benefits that could be delivered at a less harmful location carry reduced weight (DL ¶26-27).
- The DP3(3) conflict leads through S4(2)(c) to "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶30-32). This is the same reasoning as PINS-6003086, with two different inspectors.
- Unenforceable pledges, such as trees planted by a third-party charity, carry very limited weight (DL ¶25).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| CO1(1) | benefit | substantial | telecoms infrastructure benefits (DL ¶24) |
| CO1(1)(b) | fail | no operational requirement shown that prevents a less harmful location (DL ¶29) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | cluttered cluster in front of the Interchange doors, narrowing the pavement; harm "not clearly justified" (DL ¶12-16, ¶30) | |
| S4(2)(c) | fail | failure to comply with a "should be refused" national policy (DP3) (DL ¶23, ¶31) | |
| S4(1) | fail | adverse effects "substantially outweigh" the benefits for both appeals (DL ¶32) | |
| HE6 | not-engaged | setting of a conservation area and the Grade II Queen's Hotel; no harm alleged (DL ¶20) |
Key facts
- Kiosk about 45 cm from the Interchange frontage, set across the pavement in front of the main sliding doors; plans omitted some existing street furniture, so the claimed 3.7 m clearance was likely overstated (DL ¶12)
- 10 existing defibrillators in the town centre, including near the Interchange; the defibrillator got limited weight (DL ¶26)
- Tree-per-kiosk charity pledge not conditionable and given very limited weight (DL ¶25)
- Public service messaging on the screen not guaranteed and given little weight (DL ¶28)
- Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶5)
Related decisions
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.