BT Street Hub at Footpath outside 174 Monton road, Eccles, Salford
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Salford Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel on 16 Oct 2025.
What was proposed
The application sought a freestanding BT Street Hub with digital advertising screens and communication and data monitoring capabilities.
“Planning permission is sought for the installation of a ‘BT Street Hub’ – a freestanding structure with LED-lit digital advertisement screens on either side and communication and data monitoring capabilities. The application is submitted alongside a separate application for advertisement consent (ref. PA/2025/1206).”
Officer report
The site
The hub was proposed on a public footway beside a terrace of commercial properties, with existing street furniture nearby.
“The application site relates to an area of public footway on the northeast side of Monton Road within the Eccles Ward. It is located to the north of the junction with Crawford Street and to the southeast of the junction with Partington Street which serves a car park.”
“The site spans the fronts of nos. 170-176 Monton Road - a short terrace with commercial uses at ground floor. This section of public footway contains other street furniture including a lamppost, bin, metal bench and cycle stand.”
Officer report
Earlier applications
Earlier applications for the same development at another part of Monton Road were withdrawn after highway safety concerns, and officers later identified this site as more suitable.
“Relevant Planning History PA/2025/0088 - Full planning permission Decision: Withdrawn Footpath Outside 142 Monton Road, Eccles, M30 9QD. Installation of 1No. BT Street Hub Unit. PA/2025/0133 – Advertisement Consent Decision: Withdrawn Footpath Outside 142 Monton Road, Eccles, M30 9QD.”
“The application(s) follow the withdrawal of planning application reference: PA/2025/0088 and Advertisement Consent application reference: PA/2025/0133 which sought permission for the same development along a different part of Monton Road. Following discussions with the Local Highways Authority and Road Safety Team, officers determined that this location was unsuitable due to its location close to a pedestrian crossing and the potential risks it posed to highway safety.”
Officer report
Officer assessment
Officers considered the proposal acceptable in principle and found no unacceptable effects on character, residents’ amenity or highway safety, subject to conditions.
“As such, and in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, the principle of such development is considered acceptable, subject to meeting the relevant criteria set out in other Local Plan Policies.”
“The Council’s Highways Officer has reviewed the application and is satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety, subject to conditions controlling the luminance and display frequency of the advertisement screens – these are to be attached to the accompanying advertisement consent.”
Officer report
Objections received
There were 101 objections from 94 addresses, raising concerns about highway safety, pavement obstruction, visual clutter, advertising, light, health and lack of community benefit.
“- The proposal creates visual clutter in an area already crowded with outdoor seating, signage, bins, and cycle stands. - Unsightly/ugly “eyesore” installations that detract from the aesthetic appeal of the high street. - Makes the area feel corporate, city-like, and homogenised rather than local and unique. - Detracts from local businesses by promoting 24/7 advertising for multinational corporations.”
“Other - The development would impact local businesses by pushing 24/7 advertising from corporations - It is not necessary - How would the revenue be spent to benefit the local area / community? - It would replace a bin which is more valuable to the community - It would interfere with ambitions for a safer Monton - It would have no benefits for the community - They take away from drivers looking at local businesses - Other such signs are often vandalised and in poor working…”
Officer report
Committee vote
The committee refused the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, with nine members voting for refusal, none against and three abstaining.
“Refused, contrary to the officer recommendation, by a vote of 9 for, 0 against and 3 abstentions…”
Minutes
The members' reasons
The minutes do not record the members' reasons for departing from the officers' recommendation.
Sources
- Salford Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel minutes, 16 October 2025
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Salford's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Council
- Salford
- Date
- Thursday 16 October 2025
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Refused, against officer advice
- Vote
- 9 for refusal, 0 against, 3 abstained
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Salford committee decisions →
Source: Plota analysis of the minutes.
This committee's year
17 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 2 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.