Appeal 6001476

The appeal is dismissed.

I have also determined the appeal against the Council’s refusal of the corresponding application for express advertisement consent1. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision.

My attention has been drawn to previous appeals for planning permission and advertisement consent2 for ‘the replacement and upgrade of an existing illuminated and advertised enclosed telephone kiosk with a multifunctional communication Hub including advertisement display’, which was dismissed at appeal in November

The Inspector’s decision in regard to these appeals is a material consideration in my assessment of the proposal.

The appeal site is located within the Albert Embankment Conservation Area and it is within the setting and approach of the Westminster World Heritage Site.

Having regard to the reasons for refusal on the Council’s decision notice, as well as my statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Act, the main issue in respect of this appeal is the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area, including the Albert Embankment Conservation Area (CA) and the approach to the Westminster World Heritage Site (WHS).

The appeal proposal is for the replacement of an existing semi-enclosed telephone kiosk (incorporating a non-illuminated static poster advert) with a new telephone 1 APP/N5660/Z/25/3375477 2 3316134 and 3316137 (linked) kiosk hub featuring a digital display on one side. The digital advertisement screen would portray static adverts that could be changed remotely as required.

The appeal site is towards the outer edge of a wide pavement which is in front of railway viaduct arches which house some commercial businesses. The Albert Embankment road at this point is wide and the site is on the eastern side, outside no.74, close to the junction with [address] which passes under one of the arches.

In the vicinity there are, amongst other things, street trees, outdoor seating and a wide area of raised soft landscaping which separates the commercial uses from the wide pavement, rendering them less visible in the streetscene. There is an existing phone kiosk in the position of the replacement unit, which is proposed to be removed. The road is a busy one and vehicles travelling southwards would be closest to the proposed kiosk and the new digital advertising screen.

Other street furniture in the vicinity includes a litter bin, road signs, streetlights, digital advertising (a BT communications hub) and a bus shelter with advertising panels. In spite of a busy and wide road, a successful, distinctive and sympathetic pedestrian environment has been created in the area.

The CA extends along one half/side of the [name], with views from it to the WHS. Its significance includes its relationship with the cityscape along both sides of the Thames, including views of the WHS and the multitude of landmarks and heritage assets along the Embankment. Standing on the appeal site itself the view to the west is of the large post war buildings on the west side of the [name] including [address] and there are no direct views to the WHS, but it is nevertheless part of the public realm that approaches it, as well as being within the CA itself.

While the appeal site is not on the riverside, the Albert Embankment Conservation Character Appraisal May 2017 (the Appraisal) highlights this part of the CA as providing open space and greenery. I have no reason to disagree with this view and found that several mature street trees and minimal street furniture gives the pedestrian environment a pleasing verdant quality.

The proposed location of the call-box is in close proximity to the WHS which means that it is located within its ‘approaches’ i.e. the public realm leading to the WHS. In accordance with the WHS Management Plan the Council is committed to managing these approaches to ensure they present a high quality, clutter- free public realm. The Appraisal notes that illuminated bus shelter advertisements and free-standing advert panels cause harm to visual amenity on [name] resulting in harm to the approach to the WHS.

The appeal proposal would replace an existing call box and would be narrower and only marginally taller, in that sense it would not add to a proliferation of street furniture in the area. It is also notable, that based on the evidence before me, the appeal scheme would be smaller than the communication hub proposed under the previous scheme at the site detailed above. However, the illuminated LCD advertisement display would have an overtly more modern and eye-catching appearance.

Consequently, it would have a greater degree of prominence in the street scene which would distract from the visual amenity of the area and would introduce an incongruous element that would harm the significance of the CA. It would also distract from the ‘approaches’ to the WHS where discordant features, such as digital advertising impact negatively on the experience of the WHS as a whole. This would be the case even if the levels of illumination and the speed and frequency of image transitions on the display screen was carefully controlled. My concerns in this regard are not resolved by examples of large scale contemporary architecture within the wider streetscape.

In view of the above, I find the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance and setting of the CA, albeit at the lower end of the scale. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Paragraph 119 of the Framework states that an advanced, high quality and reliable communication infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. The Framework also seeks to support the expansion of electronic communication networks. The hub would therefore support the Government’s aim of improving digital infrastructure.

The proposal would upgrade the existing apparatus at the site and public benefits include free calls, wifi hotspot capabilities and public safety messaging.

The kiosk would also provide some indirect lighting and be powered by green energy, which is an environmental benefit. I also note the appellant’s view that the proposed unit would save labour and energy requirements as the digital display would negate the requirement to replace paper signage periodically.

When taken together, I find that all the above-mentioned public benefits attract moderate weight in favour of the appeal proposal. However, these public benefits do not outweigh the considerable importance I must attach to the designated

I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the approach to the WHS.It would also fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policies Q5, Q19 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 which require that the local distinctiveness in Lambeth is sustained and only permit development effecting conservation areas where they preserve or enhance their character or appearance. This approach is consistent with the requirements of Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. They also seek to protect approaches to WHS requiring development to demonstrate that it preserves or enhances its Outstanding Universal Value, authenticity and integrity.

Policy Q7 of the LLP relates to new development, specifically new buildings and conversion schemes, it is therefore not determinative in my assessment of a replacement call-box.

My attention has been drawn to a recently approved application for advertisement consent for the display of a double sided, internally illuminated LDC advertisement panel3 on a bus shelter. The application site for this advert is close to the appeal site. However, in that instance the LDC panel was replacing signage that was already internally illuminated, and the structure of the existing bus shelter remained unchanged. In this instance the existing call-box and advert would be replaced and the existing advert is a non-illuminated paper display. As such the circumstances in the example provided are not the same as the appeal before me.

As detailed above I have considered the environmental, social and economic benefits of digital advertisements as outlined by the appellant. Whilst these could be considered to be factors in favour of the proposal, they do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.