Appeal 6003011

The two appeals are for related proposals on the same site. Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission for the proposed [name]. Appeal B relates to the refusal of an associated advertisement consent for two digital display screens on either side, which would be an integral part of the proposed [name] 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 to avoid duplication.

In respect of Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) stipulate that control may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Therefore, whilst the development plan policies referred to by the Council are not determinative, I have taken them into account only insofar as they are relevant to amenity and public safety, in respect of Appeal B.

Refusal reason 1 of the Council’s decision notice for Appeal B refers to the [address] Conservation Area. However, the Council has subsequently confirmed that the appeal site is not located within a conservation area. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Having regard to the above, the main issues in relation to Appeal A are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • highway and pedestrian safety.

The main issues in relation to Appeal B are the effect of the proposal on: • visual amenity; and • public safety.

The appeal site is located on part of the pavement close to the large ‘Hollywood Green’ building, which comprises a complex of commercial units and cinema dominating a corner position on [site address] and [address]. This building features modern glazed sections with large signage, including at a high Appeal Decisions 6003011 and 6003004 level, facing both [site address] and [address]. The elevation of the building close to the appeal site is a large and more solid elevation, although higher level advertisements are also situated to its corner with [address]. Due to its town centre location, the immediate area of the appeal site is characterised by a mix of commercial development with varying forms of advertisements. A bus stop with shelter featuring what appeared to be a double-sided poster advertisement display to one side elevation is also located close to the appeal site. Residential development is situated opposite the site and further east along both sides of [site address] . These factors all contribute to a busy environment, including from traffic and pedestrian activity passing the appeal site.

The proposed [name] would be sited on an area of pavement in a prominent position close to the kerb. As well as the bus shelter, street furniture in the immediate area of the appeal site includes a low-level waste bin, a column with CCTV camera and a taller street lighting column. Street lighting, traffic signals and road signage were also evident in the wider area reflecting the busy urban environment, particularly around the junction of [site address] and [address]. Other freestanding structures incorporating digital display screens and illuminated advertisements of a different design to the appeal proposal were evident in the surrounding commercial areas on [site address] and [address], although these are more prevalent on the latter.

The proposal would introduce a new freestanding structure into the public realm. Due to its size, modern design and illuminated digital displays, the proposal would attract attention and would be a notable new addition in this location. However, it would be seen within the immediate context of the large Hollywood Green building and existing street furniture, as well as the ground floor commercial units opposite. Despite the transition to a more residential character opposite the appeal site and further along [site address] , the proposal would be absorbed into the street scene and would not appear as a visually intrusive, incongruous or dominant feature given its proposed siting and the form of surrounding development. The proposal would relate to the commercial and town centre setting with advertisements, including digital displays, forming part of the character of the surrounding area.

Subject to a condition on nighttime illumination, the advertisements would not result in significant or unacceptable harm to the visual amenity of the area. Furthermore, due to its proposed siting within a relatively wide section of the pavement, the proposal would not result in excessive street clutter, either alone or in combination with other street furniture nearby. Consequently, the proposal would not appear unduly obtrusive, nor erode a particularly open part of the public realm to any unacceptable harmful extent. Therefore, the proposal would not result in significant or adverse effects on the quality and character of the area.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not unduly harm the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area. With regard to Appeal A, and insofar as they are relevant to Appeal B, the proposal would comply with Policy SP11 of Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013 - 2026 (2017) (the LPSP), Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Development Management DPD (July 2017) (the DPD) and Policies D3 and D8 of The London Plan (March 2021) (the LP). Amongst other things, these policies aim for proposals to be of a design that respects its local context and character, be sensitive to the surrounding street scene, respond to the existing character of a place and ensure the public realm is well-designed and related to the local context. Appeal Decisions 6003011 and 6003004

The Council’s refusal reason 1 on both appeals refers to Policy DM12 of the DPD. However, as this is relevant to housing design and quality, I do not find this to be determinative to the appeal proposal.

The proposed [name] would be sited close to the roadside in the outer part of the pavement, adjacent to the marked bus stop with the bus shelter nearby. As established above, the site and surrounding area comprise a busy environment given the town centre location and mix of uses, whilst it is also close to Wood Green Station. I observed continuous traffic flows in both directions along [site address] at my visit, with frequent bus movements and reasonably high levels of pedestrian activity in the area of the appeal site, particularly around the bus stop. Pedestrian activity increased considerably when passengers alighted from buses and the overall level of this and activity from traffic will likely fluctuate at different times of the day.

There was no formal pedestrian crossing on [site address] in the immediate area of the appeal site. Beyond the bus stop there are traffic lights with a signalised pedestrian crossing over [site address] , close to the crossroads junction formed by [site address] , [address] and [address]. There is designated space for taxis and loading to part of the front of the commercial premises on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site. Double yellow lines restrict vehicle parking either side of the bus stop in the area of the appeal site and to the front of the residential properties opposite on [site address] .

Given the width of the proposed [name], its proposed position and the relatively wide pavement in the area of the appeal site, I am not persuaded that the proposal would unduly impede pedestrian flows or reduce the effective width of the pavement to a harmful extent. Whilst there is other street furniture in this area, and notwithstanding periods of high pedestrian activity, there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would be inappropriately located, that the extent of pavement would not allow for sufficient unimpeded pedestrian access, that it would comprise unnecessary street clutter or that it would discourage use of the area by pedestrians.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that all advertisements are intended to attract attention but proposed advertisements at points where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety. This includes at junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings or other places where local conditions present traffic hazards.

The digital advertisements would be visible on the relatively straight, single carriageway sections of road approaching the appeal site from either direction. Even with the bus stop nearby, the junction with [address] to the opposite side of the road to the appeal site and the exit from [address], this does not comprise a particularly complex arrangement in a town centre location with a general low travel speed, nor present significant difficulties for drivers. Therefore, there would be time for drivers to assimilate the road conditions in this location, including the proposed advertisements that would be within their field of view. This would be a similar situation to the siting of other digital displays in the wider area close to the roadside. Due to the orientation of the displays facing both directions along [site address] , these would not be prominent in the view of drivers exiting Appeal Decisions 6003011 and 6003004 [address] such that they would be unduly distracted. In this context, conditions to ensure images are static and illumination levels are appropriate would mitigate potential effects of driver distraction when travelling along [site address] .

Given the distance between the appeal site and the signalised pedestrian crossing on [site address] close to the junction with [address], as well as the general low speed on the approach to it, there would be limited scope for the advertisements to unduly distract drivers and increase the risk of conflict with pedestrians in that area. In the absence of a formal crossing point closer to the appeal site, any pedestrians choosing to cross [site address] in its immediate area would likely do so when the road is clear, which I observed at my visit. Consequently, there would likely be limited scope for the [name] and advertisements to distract drivers or restrict intervisibility and thus increase the risk of conflict with pedestrians in this respect.

I am mindful that the Council’s Transport comments raise concerns that the proposal would reduce intervisibility between pedestrian and vehicular traffic and also distract drivers. Whilst there is some evidence of accident reports in the area, there is no further detail before me in this respect, including the nature of those incidents or if they involved pedestrians and cyclists. I also note aims highlighted by the Council to encourage walking through pedestrian environments and to reduce accidents across the transport network. However, I have no compelling evidence before me to indicate that there would be adverse effects resulting in unacceptable impacts on highway, pedestrian and cyclist safety from the scale of the proposal in this location. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that the proposal would conflict with the LP objectives of promoting healthy streets.

For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the proposal would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on highway, pedestrian and public safety. With regard to Appeal A, and insofar as they are relevant to Appeal B, it would therefore accord with Policy SP11 of the LPSP, Policy DM3 of the DPD and Policies D3 and D8 of the LP. Amongst other things, these policies aim to ensure that proposals create high quality public realm that is easy and safe to use, do not cause a hazard to pedestrians or road users, minimise negative effects on vulnerable road users, and achieve safe, secure and inclusive environments.

The Council’s refusal reasons on both appeals also refer to Policy DM1 of the DPD, although as this is relevant to delivering high quality design, I do not consider it to be determinative to this main issue. For the same reasons as above, Policy DM12 of the DPD is also not determinative to this main issue on either appeal.

I observed the communication hub with digital advertisement situated outside of Hollywood Green at [address] referenced in the submissions. This is sited close to a signalised pedestrian crossing and the approach to a bus stop. It features a digital advertisement screen and therefore has some similarities to the proposal, although it is materially different in terms of its overall siting, appearance, site context, the extent of pavement in this area, more open character and apparent replacement of a previous telephone kiosk. However, for the reasons set out above, I find the proposal to be acceptable at the appeal site.

The submissions detail that a kiosk on [site address] has already been removed and two telephone kiosks at [address], [address] are proposed to be removed. The latter kiosks are located relatively close to the appeal site but are not Appeal Decisions 6003011 and 6003004 visually related to it. Notwithstanding any potential benefits of their removal, for the reasons set out above, these have not been determinative to my assessment and the appeals.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council, and I have considered these against the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice contained in PPG. In some instances, I have made minor changes to wording to improve precision and enforceability.

With regard to Appeal A, in addition to the standard condition on timescales, I have imposed a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans in the interests of certainty.

With regard to Appeal B, the five standard conditions are set out at Schedule 2 of the Regulations and they are not repeated in this decision. The appellant has suggested that a 10-year advertisement consent should be granted. However, I do not find that the arguments put forward for this amount to sufficient justification for a departure from the five-year period set out in the standard conditions.

As the proposed advertisements are to be illuminated, it is necessary to apply conditions to control the nature of the images, their period of change and to limit the luminance level in the interests of amenity and public safety. Notwithstanding the Council’s suggested condition, the Council’s statement and Transport comments suggest that at nighttime the luminance should be a lower maximum level of [address] metre rather than [address] metre having regard to the site’s location and relevant guidance, which the appellant does not object to. The condition therefore specifies this lower level between dusk and dawn.

The comments from Spatial Planning, Transport for London suggest conditions related to potential impacts of obstruction and parking arising during installation of the [name]. It is not clear how such measures could be adequately conditioned and if they would be necessary or reasonable in this instance. However, it would be reasonable to expect that contractors would adhere to relevant parking restrictions and other requirements affecting works within the highway during installation.

The Metropolitan Police suggest a condition in respect of anti-social behaviour. There is limited information to clearly demonstrate a specific issue related to anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder with such a proposal in this location. Nevertheless, the appellant’s submissions indicate that the proposal would be operated in accordance with a management plan that includes an algorithm regarding automatic recognition of misuse and blocking of identified numbers. From the information before me, and as the Council has not suggested such a condition is necessary, I have not imposed a condition in this instance.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B are allowed.