Appeal 6003102

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

In my heading above, I have taken the description of development from the original application form used for both proposals. Appeal A seeks planning permission for the installation of a [name] with digital display panels, mounted on the pavement. Appeal B seeks advertisement consent for the display of two illuminated digital display screens within the apparatus. The two appeals are intrinsically linked, and I have considered them together to avoid unnecessary duplication.

In respect of appeal B, the Regulations and National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) both make it clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account cumulative impacts. Regard does not need to be had to the development plan. Therefore, while I have taken relevant policies into account as a material consideration, they have not been determinative.

The main issue with respect to Appeal A is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including Holland Park Conservation Area and [address]/Scarsdale & Abingdon Conservation Area.

The main issue with respect to Appeal B is the effect of the proposed advertisement on the amenity of the area.

The appeal site is within Holland Park Conservation Area (the CA), which is a designated heritage asset. The CA is significant for [address] and its parkland, and the development that has grown around and enclosed it. The site is outside of a six storey terrace of brick Edwardian mansion flats. The terrace contributes to the character and quality of the CA through its scale and architectural style.

The ground floor comprises a parade of commercial shop. Their shopfronts have a harmonious appearance through their proportions and rhythm, including the fascias with simple lettering and subtle illumination. The pavement is wide with contrasting paviours, and large planters and benches are a particular focal point. Taken together, the shops and public realm appear carefully designed and harmonious. Therefore, they make a positive contribution towards the character and appearance of the CA.

Existing street furniture, including the BT ST6 Unit, is spaced out along the street, functional in appearance and muted in colour including advertisements. The bus stops in the vicinity are sited further away, the closest being at the western end of the parade of shops, and the advertisement panels are a smaller part of their primary transport function. As such, they are not overtly distracting features.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

Policies CD3 and CD4 of the Local Plan1, give great weight to a heritage asset’s conservation, and require development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance and significance of conservation areas, amongst other things. Their provisions reflect paragraph 212 of the Framework.

The proposal would comprise a tall, freestanding structure, not unlike the existing BT ST6 Unit, or the kiosk that was on site prior to this. However, a 1 New Local Plan Review, July 2024, The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. considerable portion of its two wider faces would be illuminated and would feature sequential, albeit static images. Standalone displays of a similar size, with digital illumination to the extent proposed, are not found in the immediate vicinity. As a result, it would be unduly prominent within the street, readily apparent in longer views in both directions along [site address] and would be discordant with the harmonious appearance of the street scene.

For these reasons, and regardless that luminance, timing and image displays can be controlled by way of planning conditions, the unit would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area, and it would erode the significance of the CA. In light of the relatively modest scale of the proposal and it being a replacement of an existing, albeit less intrusive, structure, the harm to significance would be less than substantial at the lower end of the scale.

[address]/Scarsdale & [name] is opposite the appeal site, and its northern area is significant for its mansion flats and high street frontages. The appeal site is separated from this CA by a wide and heavily trafficked thoroughfare, which has trees growing in the centre that breaks up views between the two sides of the street. Owing to this separation and the proposal’s small-scale, I am satisfied that it would not diminish the setting in which this CA is presently experienced.

I am referred to the removal of the existing BT ST6 Unit, and an additional unit nearby which sits within the [address]/Scarsdale & Abingdon Conservation Area. The appellant considers the removal of these would mitigate the impact of the appeal proposal. The existing unit is less harmful than the appeal proposal, and therefore its replacement would not amount to mitigation.

Notwithstanding the question of whether these is any appropriate mechanism to secure its removal, I accept that removing the additional BT ST6 Unit nearby would reduce the level of street clutter. In so doing the [address]/Scarsdale & [name] would be enhanced to a modest extent. Nevertheless, that unit is some distance from the appeal site, and its removal would not affect the setting of Holland Park Conservation Area. As such, any associated improvements would be too remote to address the identified harm to the significance of the identified designated heritage asset.

The appellant refers to two sets of linked appeals in which the Inspector allowed [name] 3 units, where [name] were to be removed, within Conservation Areas2. I note that the Inspector found the local context in these cases, to be a variety of colours, styles, illuminated and non-illuminated signage, and street furniture. This is somewhat different, to the appeal site context, and is therefore not comparable.

In respect of Appeal A, paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Policies CD3 and CD4 of the Local Plan, also require such a balance. 2 APP/K5600/W/25/3372034 & APP/K5600/W/25/3372037 ([address] Gate); APP/K5600/W/25/3371814 & APP/K5600/W/25/3371816 (north side, [site address] ).

The proposal would contribute towards the provision of modern communications infrastructure for the public. This is supported by paragraph 119 of the Framework, and various national strategies and policies3, including Policy SI6 of the London Plan4. It would provide phone calls and wi-fi services, for which there is a demand, and I am mindful that revenue from the digital displays would fund this free-to-use service. The unit would also be powered by renewable energy. These are clear public benefits of the proposal, albeit modest in scope due to its scale.

The appellant states that the advertisement panels could be used to display public information messaging, and I am told that 5% free screen time, would be available to the Council as well as discounted rates for local businesses. It has also been put to me that the proposed unit would be designed to accommodate monitoring sensors, such as for air quality and traffic, and small cell mobile infill. However, I am not persuaded that these specific matters could be reasonably required by planning condition, and there is no other mechanism before me to secure these benefits. I therefore attribute limited weight to these matters.

Taking these factors together, and in light of the statutory duties, policies of the Framework and the Local Plan, considerable importance and weight is given to the harm to the designated heritage asset. Therefore, public benefits would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

Accordingly, in respect of appeal A, I find that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, and would harm the significance of the CA. Therefore, it would conflict with the relevant provisions of policies CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD15 and TR4 of the Local Plan. These primarily seek high quality development that respects context, the protection of heritage assets, and avoiding clutter, including resisting freestanding structures such as telephone kiosks where the function for the display of adverts dominates the primary purpose of the structure. The proposal would also conflict with the relevant provisions of the Framework.

In respect of appeal B, I have taken account of the provisions of the development plan, insofar as they are material in respect of amenity. In this case, the aforementioned policies. I find that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of the area. I also find that the advertisements would fail to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 141 of the Framework, which seeks control of advertisements to ensure the quality and character of places does not suffer.

Some footway would be returned to public use as a result of replacing the existing BT ST6 Unit, however the amount is so small as to be immaterial. In any event there is nothing before me to demonstrate that the existing unit significantly impedes pedestrian flow. The proposal would not result in driver distraction, there would also be noise limiting measures, anti-social behaviour 3 Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in England; London Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2050 4 The London Plan, The spatial development strategy for [name], March 2021. safeguards, and regular cleaning and inspection. However, these are neutral points, which do not mitigate the visual harm I have identified.

The appellant advises that there will be 19 units in the borough by mid-2026. There is no compelling evidence of a link between these units and the appeal scheme. For example, an essential network connection. Accordingly this has no bearing on my decision.

With regard to Appeal A, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. With regard to Appeal B, the advertisements would cause harm to the amenity of the area. Accordingly, I conclude that both Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.