# Land outside 81 Fishergate, Preston (communications kiosk with digital advert)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Heron
- **Authority:** Preston (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6012248
- **Application reference:** 06/2026/0424
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Freestanding communications kiosk with defibrillator and illuminated digital advertising display on the pavement (Appeal A planning; Appeal B 6012249 advertisement consent)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), DP3(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Central Lancashire Core Strategy 2012 Policy 16, Preston Local Plan 2015 EN8, EN9, EP7, Preston City Centre Plan 2016 SP1
- **Main issues:** character and appearance including heritage assets (A), amenity (B)
- **Tags:** street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, advertisement, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, conservation-area-setting, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2

## Summary
A pavement communications kiosk with a defibrillator and an illuminated digital advertising screen on Fishergate, Preston's main shopping street, was refused on appeal with its linked advertisement consent (6012249). The kiosk would stand out of line with the street's carefully aligned furniture, add clutter and draw the eye away from the nearby conservation area and a Grade II landmark church. The low heritage harm was not outweighed by modest public benefits.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The parties have had the opportunity to provide comments on it in relation to these appeals" (DL ¶4).
- **Character.** "Despite its heritage style canopy and integrated functions, its size, form and siting, would make it a highly conspicuous and incongruous addition" (DL ¶10).
- **Heritage settings.** The advert "would compete for visual attention and detract from the appreciation of their architectural and historic qualities" (DL ¶12). "The degree of harm to both designated heritage assets would be low" (DL ¶14).
- **Public benefits: modest.** Benefits are "modest, given the small scale of the proposal, and the availability of similar facilities and defibrillators within the locality" (DL ¶15). Tree planting and 4G could not be secured (DL ¶16). "these modest public benefits would not outweigh the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, to which substantial weight must be given" (DL ¶17).
- **Temporary consent.** "the structure and advertisement are integral to one another and their presence would be harmful, even for a specified timescale" (DL ¶13).

## Planning balance
HE6(4) (DL ¶14, ¶17), then plan-led for Appeal A (DL ¶24). No S4 step, and no CO1 weight to telecoms. The letter gives "substantial weight" to the harm itself rather than stating the HE6(3) formula (considerable importance and weight).

## What made the difference
Siting on an uncluttered, formally laid-out street in views towards a listed landmark, and benefits already available nearby. A site in line with existing street furniture, away from heritage views, might have fared better.

## Transferable points
- Street hub benefits (free calls, defibrillator, wayfinding) are modest where similar facilities exist nearby (DL ¶15).
- Unsecured offers such as tree planting or future 4G carry limited weight (DL ¶16).
- A five-year advertisement consent does not reduce harm where the kiosk structure depends on the advert (DL ¶13).

## Policy findings
- **DP3(1): conflict.** mapped (DP3 not cited) - tall kiosk out of line with the aligned street furniture, conspicuous and incongruous, adds clutter and disrupts perspective views along Fishergate (DL 7, 10-11, 14)
- **HE6(3): harm.** low harm to setting of Winckley Square CA and Grade II former Fishergate Baptist Church (clock-tower landmark) from illuminated changing images; HE6(3) wording on the weight of harm not stated (DL 12, 14)
- **HE6(4): fail.** free calls, defibrillator, wayfinding and messaging modest (similar facilities nearby); tree planting and 4G unsecured, limited weight; not outweigh harm "to which substantial weight must be given" (DL 14-17)
- **HE6: neutral.** no effect on Grade II Preston station or 95-99 Fishergate and 1 Lune Street (DL 21-22)
- **P5: pass.** mapped - narrower footway raises no public safety issue (DL 23)

## Key facts
- Joint letter with Appeal B 6012249 (advertisement consent, Reg 17), also dismissed on amenity (DL 1, 20)
- Operator NWP Street Ltd; heritage-style canopy (DL 10)
- Five-year advert consent and claimed reversibility do not answer harm as structure and advert are integral (DL 13)
- Luminance and transition conditions would not overcome the harm (DL 12)
- Appeals APP/R5510/Z/16/3157043, APP/K5600/W/17/3190377 and 22/0734/FUL cited but not comparable (DL 18)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012248

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012248.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.