Appeal 3365431

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 25/01271/FULL, for installation of an open access communication Hub, including the removal of an existing communication apparatus, at [address], [address], London [postcode] , granted on 25 April 2025, is varied by deleting condition Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12, and substituting for them the following conditions:

The maximum luminance of the digital touchscreen forming the main user interface of the Hub shall not exceed [address] metre during hours of darkness, and shall at all times operate in accordance with the recommended luminance levels set out in the ‘Institute of [name] 05 (PLG05): The Brightness of [name], or any successor guidance.

The digital touchscreen forming the main user interface shall not display any content that resembles or could reasonably be interpreted as a traffic sign, as defined in section [address] Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The main issues are whether the disputed conditions are reasonable and necessary having regard to: • amenity, in the case of all conditions except No 4; and • public safety, in the case of condition Nos 3 and 4 only.

The planning permission is for an open‐access communication hub (the Hub). At the time of my visit, the Hub had been installed in accordance with the approved plans. It incorporates two digital screens: an interactive touchscreen beneath a canopy forming the main user interface, and a larger LCD screen on the rear façade, the latter of which benefits from separate express advertisement consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the 2007 Regulations).

[name] 2 to 8 primarily concern the advertisement display, which is regulated through the separate consent. However, as condition Nos 2 and 4 refer generally to the “digital display screens”, they also apply to the touchscreen. As this functions as the Hub’s main user interface and is not an advertisement, it remains subject to planning control. To that extent, a luminance limit (condition No

and a prohibition on content resembling traffic signs (condition No 4) are reasonable and necessary safeguards for amenity and public safety. These conditions should therefore be retained in part and revised to apply only to the touchscreen. The reference in condition No 2 to PLG05 remains appropriate, as luminance control of the touchscreen is a planning consideration independent of advertisement regulation.

As drafted, condition Nos 3 and 8 also fail to distinguish between the advertisement display and the touchscreen. However, imposing restrictions on moving images, transitions and other dynamic content would undermine the functionality of the touchscreen, which is inherently interactive. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the modest scale of the touchscreen and its interactive content would give rise to amenity or public safety concerns sufficient to justify controls that would impair its operation. Moreover, imposing those conditions on the advertisement panel would not meet the tests of being relevant to planning or the development. Conditions Nos 3 and 8 are therefore not reasonable or necessary.

[name] 5, 6 and 7 relate exclusively to the advertisement content, which is controlled under separate express consent. The Council has not demonstrated why the planning permission must duplicate controls exercisable under that separate statutory regime, nor has it identified any planning‐specific harm that would arise in the absence of those conditions. They therefore fail the tests of necessity and relevance and should not be imposed.

[name] 12 imposes a five‐year temporary permission. Although the Council argues that this would align with the express advertisement consent and allow the structure’s effects to be reassessed over time, it has provided no compelling site-specific evidence to support a temporary approach, nor any explanation as to why a replacement for a pre-existing kiosk requires time‐limiting. From my site observations, while similar installations exist in the wider area, none are in the immediate vicinity, and the Hub does not introduce uncharacteristic clutter or appear out of place within this busy urban setting. The Council’s justification is therefore generic and unsupported by site‐specific evidence. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that temporary conditions should be used only where a trial period is necessary or where circumstances are expected to change. The evidence fails to demonstrate that threshold is met in this case. [name] 12 is therefore not reasonable or necessary.

Accordingly, I conclude that condition Nos 2 and 4 should be varied and reimposed insofar as they relate only to the interactive touchscreen. [name] 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 do not meet the tests of necessity or reasonableness and should be removed.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and the planning permission varied, as set out in my formal decision.