Appeal 6003653

[name] and B concern proposals for the installation of a pavement-mounted ‘[address] Hub' (the [name]). Appeal A seeks planning permission for the structure itself, and Appeal B seeks express advertisement consent for its integrated double-sided digital advertisements. [address] Hub would replace an existing ‘BT ST6 Unit’ (the ST6 Unit).

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the 2007 Regulations), together with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG), establish that advertisements may be controlled only in the interests of amenity and public safety.

[name] and B fall to be determined under different legislative regimes, the Council’s reasons for refusal substantially overlap. Both appeals principally concern the visual effect of the proposals including their effect on the [address], Scarsdale and Abingdon Conservation Area (the ESCA), and the setting of the Kensington Conservation Area (the KCA). I shall therefore address these matters together, while applying the relevant statutory tests to each appeal.

The main issue in Appeal A is whether the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the ESCA and the setting of the KCA.

The main issue in Appeal B is whether the proposed advertisements would have an acceptable effect on visual amenity, including whether they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the ESCA and the setting of the KCA.

The appeal site lies on the south side of [site address] and within the ESCA. [address] forms the northern boundary of the ESCA and the southern boundary of the KCA, such that the land on the opposite side of the [address] lies within the KCA, and the appeal site therefore falls within its setting.

The ESCA Appraisal identifies that the northern part of the conservation area, particularly along [site address] , is characterised by substantial commercial frontages, varied building forms, and a busy public realm with signage Appeal Decisions 6003655 and 6003653 and street furniture, in clear contrast to the quieter residential streets to the south. Its significance derives from this varied but coherent historic townscape and the relationship between the [address] frontage and the more domestic areas behind. Although no equivalent appraisal for the KCA has been provided, my site observations indicate that, in this context, its significance is derived in a broadly comparable way.

[site address] is a busy arterial route defined by a commercial streetscape with signage, lighting and street installations. The existing ST6 unit is a utilitarian structure with a static, non‐illuminated advertisement and forms part of the established street furniture, alongside bus shelters and other infrastructure.

The proposed [name] would replace this with a more contemporary unit of similar function, combining communications equipment and digital display within a single structure. Although more modern and capable of illumination, it would be comparable in overall presence, with a reduced depth and footprint. It would therefore read as a logical evolution of existing street furniture within the [address] environment, rather than a materially more intrusive addition.

The ESCA Appraisal recognises that the [address] frontage comprises a mix of building types, commercial uses and modern interventions. In that context, the proposal would sit comfortably within a dense and visually active corridor, with its visibility largely confined to the [address] rather than affecting wider views within either conservation area. While cumulative effects are a relevant consideration, the proposal would not alter historic fabric or disrupt established architectural views or vistas. Instead, it would sit within a part of the ESCA that is already commercial in character and capable of accommodating a degree of contemporary intervention.

Given the separation provided by [site address] and the already urbanised character of the frontage, the proposal would not materially affect the significance of the KCA. Its effect on the setting of that conservation area would therefore be neutral, thus preserving its significance.

Turning to the advertisements, illuminated digital displays are already present on nearby bus shelters on both sides of [site address] , within both the ESCA and the KCA, establishing that such displays form part of the prevailing townscape.

While the Council raises concerns about cumulative impacts and clutter, these advertisements exist within an established commercial environment defined by active shopfronts, signage, street furniture and transport infrastructure. Although the proposed displays would be double‐sided and brighter than those on the existing unit, they would remain consistent with the [address]’s commercial function and would not introduce an unfamiliar form of advertisement. Within this existing context, they would not appear dominant or intrusive.

The ESCA Appraisal recognises that retail frontages are particularly sensitive to change and identifies features such as large fascias, modern awnings and back‐lit signage as potentially harmful where they are unsympathetic to the established character. However, those circumstances are not comparable to the proposal before me, which represents a rational evolution of street-level advertisement in an established location that would be visually compatible with the surrounding streetscape. Accordingly, the proposed advertisements would not detract from the character or appearance of the area, or the significance of the conservation areas. Appeal Decisions 6003655 and 6003653

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposals would not harm the character and appearance of the area for the purposes of Appeal A, nor visual amenity for the purposes of Appeal B. In both cases, the significance of the ESCA and the setting of the KCA would be preserved. The proposals therefore accord with Policies CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD15 and TR4 of the New Local Plan Review July 2024, which collectively seek to secure high‐quality design that responds to context, preserves heritage significance and setting, protects important views, and maintains an attractive and coherent streetscape. The advertisements subject to Appeal B would also comply with the relevant provisions of the 2007 Regulations.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council for Appeal A against the requirements of the Framework and PPG, amending or omitting them where necessary to ensure full compliance with those tests.

Conditions relating to the statutory time limit and approved plans are necessary in the interests of certainty. Further conditions requiring the removal of the existing ST6 unit before the [name] is brought into use, and the reinstatement of the footway both prior to its operation and within a specified period following cessation of the use, are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

Advertisements granted express consent are subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations. Whilst the PPG confirms that additional conditions can be imposed where they are supported by specific and relevant planning reasons, the parties have not suggested additional conditions for Appeal B, and I find no compelling reason to impose any.

For the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B should be allowed, subject to the conditions in my formal decisions.