BT have been seeking planning permission for a number of BT Hubs in Bristol. They aim to replace phone boxes with fibre-connected digital ‘community hubs’ – ‘Street Hubs’ – offering ultrafast Wi-Fi, phone calls and public messaging capabilities. In return they are seeking to install more advertising screens on our streets.
The applicant has long lost any financial interest in running payphones, so it appears to be all about how may digital advertising opportunities can they get away with on prime pavements in major cities. The latest totems have a digital advertising screen on both sides, stand about 0.5m behind the kerb in order not to be hit by lorries, and have something like a free phone keypad for you to shout into in the rain in the opposite minor edge. The totem is around 3m tall. The disruption to the pavement is thus x, plus the kerb offset y, and the width of anyone trying to use the phone z.
As drivers we have enough going on avoiding ‘being in a bus lane’, looking out for pedestrians crossing green-lights, giving regular cyclists 5ft freeboard whilst other hire-wheelers all but elbow off our nearside wing mirrors swerving in and out of queues. Frustrating as this may all be, no one wants an accident and these street hubs are intended to grab drivers’ attention. So, who needs the street hubs? Nobody really. Do the applicants count on their taking driver attention? Absolutely, that’s why the traffic count drives the advertising rate-card. Do the applicants take any H&S responsibility? Not at all. The consequences are conceptually lost in the insurance industry for private motorists. Someone else’s problem, including the injured.
Not surprisingly the City Council is not keen on these totems, and road safety is one reason they end up congregating in pedestrian areas like Broadmead. But full process has to be done on each proposal, often with a blunderbuss full of applications launched at one time.
Here is the Civic Society view on the Aston Gate Stadium street hub: The Society regards the proposal as worse than an unnecessary piece of street clutter, adjacent Bristol City’s Ashton Gate Stadium, but rather a positive traffic and pedestrian hazard. It is of negative amenity value and will change every ten seconds. It narrows the pavement which needs to deal with occasional very heavy pedestrian flows in two directions, and these need to stay on the pavement – not stepping into a 30mph carriageway. And it presents an ambush point that a miscreant can hide behind. The blatant reason for installing this is to distract drivers facing lane choices and traffic lights ahead for a level crossing junction which unfamiliar drivers will not be expecting as they approach pedestrian crossing lights. It is therefore unsafe on traffic grounds. Please refuse the application.
All six of the following six digital totem applications were refused. All documents should show up to an appeal inspector, should appeals be made.
| Application number | Location | Status | BCS comment noted | Other public objections? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26/12212/F | Pavement At Bond Street Bristol BS1 3EN | Refused | No | YES (BID only) |
| 26/12216/F | Pavement At Bond Street, BS1 3EN | Refused | No | YES (BID and Bristol Cycling Campaign) |
| 26/12218/F | Pavement Adjacent South Bristol Trade Park, Winterstoke Road, Bristol BS3 | Refused | Yes | No |
| 25/12639/F 25/12640/A | Pavement Outside 9 St Augustines Parade, Bristol BS1 4UT | Refused | Yes | YES (BID and BCAP ) |
| 26/12099/F | Pavement Adjacent Temple Circus House Temple Way Redcliffe Bristol BS1 6HG | Refused | Yes | No |
| 26/12101/F | Digital Screen Outside 33 To 47 The Horsefair, Bristol BS1 3JE | Refused | Yes | No |
Stephen Wickham