Appeal 6002953

[name] and B are dismissed.

Appeal A relates to the refusal of planning permission for the proposed BT street hub. Appeal B is in respect to the refusal of an associated advertisement consent which would be an integral part of the proposed hub sought under Appeal A. I have considered both on their individual merits, but as they raise similar issues, I have combined these cases into a single decision letter.

In respect to Appeal B, Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) state that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. With respect to Appeal B, the development plan policies referred to by the Council are not determinative, but I have taken these into account as a material consideration.

In Appeal B, I have taken the description of the proposed advertisement from the appeal form rather than the application form as this is a more accurate description. Appeal Decisions 6002953 & 6002954

The description of development for Appeal A refers to the removal of associated BT payphones. In this respect, my attention has been drawn to previous appeal decisions1 in which Inspectors found the removal of existing telephone boxes to be a benefit of the proposal and therefore imposed conditions requiring their removal. However, I have limited details to confirm the full circumstances which the Inspectors considered in those cases.

Planning Practice Guidance confirms that conditions requiring works on land that is not controlled by the applicant, or that requires the consent or authorisation of another person or body often fail the tests of reasonableness and enforceability.

In the case of the appeal before me, only one of the payphones referred to is within the red line boundary which forms part of the application. I have little in the evidence before me to suggest that the removal of payphones outside of the application site could be appropriately secured either through a condition or a planning obligation. On this basis, my considerations relating to the removal of existing payphones relates solely to the payphone within the appeal site.

The main issue in relation to Appeal A is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The main issues in relation to Appeal B are the effect of the proposed advertisement on: • visual amenity, and; • public safety, with particular regard to pedestrian movement and the safety of users of the highway network.

The appeal site forms part of the footway serving the busy thoroughfare of [address], a Transport for London (TfL) red route. At the time of my site visit, there were high levels of both footfall and vehicular traffic.

The street has an active frontage with ground floor commercial units offering a range of goods and services. Street furniture within the footway is frequent. Within the appeal site itself there is an existing payphone. There are also two bus shelters in close proximity as well as other street furniture including signage, cycle stands and lampposts nearby.

The proposed hub would be positioned broadly between the two existing bus stop shelters. The hub would have illuminated advertisements on both the front and rear elevations.

When taken in the context of the existing illuminated advertisements within the nearby bus shelters, the proposal would lead to a cumulative saturation of illuminated advertisements in the immediate street scene. Rather than creating a 1 APP/P4605/W/18/3202341 & APP/P4605/H/18/3201305 decision dated 10 April 2019 and APP/K5030/W/22/3301229 & APP/K5030/H/22/3301230 decision dated 20 November 2023 Appeal Decisions 6002953 & 6002954 degree of consistency with the bus stop advertising, the proposal would add visual clutter to the street.

The existing payphone within the appeal site is in a relatively dilapidated condition but nevertheless has an overall neutral effect on the wider street scene. Whilst it establishes a precedent for street furniture in broadly this location, the proposed hub is not directly comparable to the payphone in its appearance. Notably, the proposed hub would be taller than the payphone, the height of which I understand to be dictated by the relevant technology which it would serve.

When combined with the illumination of the associated advertisements, the proposed hub would have a more dominating and intrusive visual effect. Thus, even with the ability to condition the removal of the payphone within the site, I find that the proposal would lead to an overall harmful effect on the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area.

Based on the above I find conflict with Policies QD1, QD2, and QD3 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025) (LLP) and Policy D8 of the London Plan (2021) (LP). These policies, amongst other matters, require development proposals to demonstrate an understanding of the site context to deliver a high-quality public realm.

There would also be conflict with Policy QD12 of the LLP which relates specifically to outdoor advertisements and digital displays, including requiring such installations to be appropriately sited to avoid an unsightly proliferation or dominance of signage and displays in the vicinity of the site.

Policy T2 of the LP relates to the provision of healthy streets, including in ensuring the promotion of travel by foot or cycle.

The width of the proposed hub would be greater than the existing payphone, thereby representing a greater encroachment into the width of the remaining footway. However, the overall footprint and volume of the hub would be less than the existing payphone within the appeal site.

The effect on the walkability or step free access onto the footway would be marginal. There would remain sufficient clear passage on the footway for users of the footway to deviate around the hub if needed, even in the context of heavy footfall. The proposed hub would be at a part of the footway which is already likely to be less used as a direct path line given the existing street furniture, namely the nearby bus stops. The proposal would therefore not impede pedestrian flow to a degree that it would be harmful to public safety.

I have been provided with a copy of TfL Guidance for [name] and [name] (2013). This outlines that static digital advertising is likely to be acceptable in locations where static advertising exists. This is applicable in the context of the appeal site through both the existing bus shelters and commercial units nearby.

The means of illumination and speed of advertisement change could be controlled by condition. On this basis, and notwithstanding my conclusions above in relation to the first main issue, I do not find that the additional advertisements would be a Appeal Decisions 6002953 & 6002954 greater distraction to users of the highway when compared to the existing context to which the advertisements would be experienced.

I therefore find that the proposed advertisements would have an acceptable effect on public safety, with particular regard to pedestrian movement and the safety of users of the highway network. In relation solely to this main issue, and as far as is relevant to Appeal B, I find no direct conflict with Policies D8 and T2 of the LP or Policy QD12 of the LLP.

The appellant has referred me to a recent appeal for a similar form of development which was allowed elsewhere in Lewisham2. In that case the Inspector found the proposal to be in keeping with the existing cluster of street furniture. However, I do not have the full details to which the Inspector assessed the proposal, including the street scene environment or existing level of illuminated advertisements. I therefore cannot be satisfied that it is directly comparable to the appeal proposal before me.

The appellant has also referred to an appeal decision in Croydon3 in the context of matters of public safety. Again, I do not have the full details but in any case, my conclusions in relation to public safety are consistent with that decision.

It is presented that the appeal proposal forms part of a wider rollout of such services across London, required by a [name] governed by Ofcom. As well as the proposed advertising, the hub would provide other services such as free wi-fi, device charging and calls including emergency calls. It would also provide wayfinding services which may in turn lead to an enhancement to tourism and the retail sector. The services would be more inclusive when compared to the existing payphone and in line with a management plan may lead to a decrease in anti-social behaviour.

The hub would also be powered by carbon free energy and would include functions to monitor air quality. Collectively, these represent environmental, economic and social benefits to which I have given some positive weight. However, given the scale of the proposal, the benefits associated with the development are limited and are not sufficient to outweigh the harm which I have identified in respect to the first main issue above.

[name] have found that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on public safety, this does not outweigh the harm I have found in respect to visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, for the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan when read as a whole, and all relevant material considerations including the provisions of the Framework, I conclude that both Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.