BT Street Hub at 55 - 67 Cricklade Road, Gorse Hill, Swindon

What was proposed

The application proposed one BT Street Hub and removal of associated BT payphones, alongside digital advertising screens requiring separate consent.

“The application site is an area of adopted highways controlled land, located on the pavement outside of 55-67 Crickdale Road, near to the Town Centre. Crickdale Road is identified as a District Centre in the Swindon Local Plan. Cricklade Road is a busy highway for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic which can be described as an ‘arterial route’ for Swindon.”

“The application seeks planning permission Installation of 1no. BT Street Hub. The application has been submitted in conjunction with advertisement consent application (S/ADV/25/0755) to display 2no. digital 75" LCD display screens, one on each side of the proposed BT Street Hub unit.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Several similar Street Hub applications in the wider area had been granted, refused or remained pending, with no relevant history at this site.

“Relevant Planning History and Associated Applications: Application Number: S/25/0549 Status: Granted Description: Installation of 1no. BT Street Hub and removal of associated BT payphones. Application Number: S/ADV/25/0550 Status: Granted Description: Installation of 2no. digital 75" LCD display screens, one on each side of the Street Hub unit. Application Number: S/25/0551 Status: Granted Description: Installation of 1no.”

“…the Street Hub unit. Application Number: S/25/0754 Status: Pending Description: Installation of 1no. BT Street Hub and removal of associated BT payphones. Application Number: S/ADV/25/0755 Status: Pending Description: Installation of 2no. digital 75" LCD display screens, one on each side of the Street Hub unit. Application Number: S/25/0756 Status: Refused Description: Installation of 1no. BT Street Hub and removal of associated BT payphones.”

Officer report

Officers advised approval

Officers recommended permission because the proposal would support economic growth and town-centre regeneration without visual, highway or amenity harm.

“The Highways Officer has also recommended a suite of conditions to control the intensity of the illumination and content of the digital advertisements, to avoid dazzle and glare of highway users in the interests of highway safety. It is highlighted that the Application Form states that the illumination levels from the digital HD display screens shall be 5000cd/m2, which exceeds the limit considered to be safe for illuminations facing the public highway.”

“The broad principle of the development is supported by virtue of Paragraph 119 of the NPPF and Policies SD1 and IN3 of the Local Plan. The proposal would support the growth of the local economy, comprise a modern and beneficial update of existing BT Technology and would complement Town Centre regeneration. This weighs heavily in favour of the proposal.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection, while the parish council and a councillor objected over obstruction, visibility, safety, appearance and other impacts.

“Councillor Milner-Barry Councillor Milner-Barry (22 nd July 2025): Objection. Due to (in summary), Impact upon the character and appearance of the area. Pedestrian and vehicle safety. Use of energy/strain on the grid. Anti-social behaviour. Cumulative impact.”

Officer report

Who spoke

No one made a submission at the meeting in support of or against the application.

Members debated safety

Members were told that phone-box removal was not secured, cycling concerns were irrelevant, and no later applicant correspondence had been received.

“The responses provided by officers to questions raised as part of the Members only discussion can be broadly summarised as follows:”

“The removal of existing BT phone boxes as part of the rollout of Street Hubs will take place at BT’s discretion and would not be secured by condition. • There has been no supplemental correspondence between the applicant and officers, subsequent to the application having been submitted.”

Minutes

The vote

Eight councillors supported refusing permission and one councillor opposed refusal.

“Councillor Neil Hopkins proposed the planning permission be refused, on the basis that the proposed Street Hub may obscure pedestrians attempting to cross Cricklade Road from drivers, thus presenting a serious health and safety concern. Moreover, the proposal fails to meet the objective of achieving well-designed places and is therefore contrary to paragraph 135 (a, b and c) of the NPPF. Councillor Matthew Courtliff seconded the proposal.”

“Eight Councillors were in favour of the proposal to refuse planning permission, and one was opposed.”

Minutes

The committee refused permission

Permission was refused because the hub could obscure pedestrians crossing the road from drivers and failed to achieve well-designed places under the NPPF.

“Resolved – That planning permission be refused, on the basis that the proposed Street Hub may obscure pedestrians attempting to cross Cricklade Road from drivers, thus presenting a serious health and safety concern. Moreover, the proposal fails to meet the objective of achieving well-designed places and is therefore contrary to paragraph 135 (a, b and c) of the NPPF. 65.”

Minutes