Appeal 6003768

Both appeals are dismissed.

As set out above there are two appeals on this site that were submitted together on a single application form covering both planning permission and express consent to display advertisements. They differ in that Appeal A relates to planning permission, while Appeal B relates to express advertisement consent. I have considered each proposal on their individual merits, however, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together.

In respect of Appeal B, the Regulations, and the National Planning Policy 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. I have taken relevant policies into account as a material consideration; however, they have not, by themselves, been determinative.

The description of the proposals, in the banner heading above, differ from the appellant’s application form submitted to the Council. I have applied the Council’s descriptions as they more accurately describe the proposals before me. Appeal Decisions 6003768 and 6003767

Policy S.DH1 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan (2020) is a design related policy which aims to ensure that development respects and positively responds to its context. Given the proposed development would affect how people relate to, navigate, and experience their environment, I consider that this policy would be relevant to these appeal decisions.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the area; and • Highway safety.

The appeal site sits next to the road known as [site address] and the proposed development would be sited on the pavement close to 197 [site address] . On this side of the pavement, and near to the appeal site, existing digital style billboards are already sited outside No197 next to a bus shelter, and to the west just before the vehicular access which runs behind No 197. Street signs, a bollard, and a waste bin are also sited close to the appeal site. The immediate area is broadly defined by tall buildings although some more modest buildings also occasionally feature. The Docklands Light Railway runs opposite the appeal site which includes elevated concrete viaducts partially screened by trees.

The proposed development would install a freestanding [name] with two digital display screens which would display advertisements and information. Installations of this type are common in busy parts of [name], and they can reflect the city’s character. However, each proposal must be carefully considered in its specific context.

In this case, the appeal site is closely surrounded by existing displays along a short stretch of pavement. The installation of a further digital style hub with two screens of the height proposed would further increase the number of structures and displays along this modest section of pavement.

The appellant says that the proposed development would be smaller than some of the existing advertising installations and this is noted, however, the cumulative effect of the proposed development would add a further installation which would result in an overcrowded street scene along this stretch of pavement. This would fail to integrate sympathetically into the immediate street scene causing unacceptable street clutter.

I acknowledge the removal of a traditional phone kiosk at [address] would reduce some of the clutter and increase pedestrian space elsewhere. However, the positive weight I attach to this benefit would be limited as this other site falls outside the red line of the appeal site and there is no mechanism before me to secure its removal. Even if there was, this site is a considerable distance from the appeal site in a different road. Any benefit would not therefore be felt at the appeal site. Appeal Decisions 6003768 and 6003767

Concluding on this main issue overall, the proposed [name] would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, and I give this harm substantial weight. In relation to Appeal A, and as far as it is a material consideration for Appeal B, it would therefore conflict with the relevant provisions of [name].DH1, D.DH2, D.DH4, D.DH10 and D.DH11 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan and Policy D3, D4, D5, and D8 of the London Plan (2021). These, amongst other things, look to ensure that development responds sensitively to the local urban context and integrates sympathetically with the public realm.

The existing pavement is generous in width and, as set out above, a bus shelter and other digital display installations exist along the immediate stretch of pavement. There is limited evidence before me to suggest that the appeal site or the surrounding area suffers from an adversely negative walking experience or that pedestrian flows for all users of the highway are currently unsafe.

The proposed development would, however, reduce the amount of pavement available for pedestrians and the appellants drawings show that it would be setback 3100mm from the kerb edge of the road. The Council has not challenged these figures, and I note that this level of retained footway exceeds the recommended footway widths as set out in the Department for Transport’s document, [name] - A Guide to [name] on Access to Pedestrian and [name] (2021)1.

Even when the proposed [name] would be in use by individual users and considering the existing advertising installations and other street furniture nearby, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest the free movement or visibility of pedestrians, including those with visual impairments or impaired mobility, would be adversely impeded by the proposed installation.

[site address] is a broadly straight road, and the proposed development would be set back from the kerb edge. Digital adverts often sit near to the highway, and it would be reasonable to conclude that such adverts are broadly understood by drivers and cyclists. Indeed, Transport for London’s Guidance for [name] and [name] (2013) states that ‘research indicates that digital roadside advertising is not inherently unsafe but should be operationally managed in accordance with the site specific constraints of the location’2.

There is nothing before me to indicate that the geometry of this part of [site address] presents a complicated or demanding driving experience. In addition, there is limited evidence to suggest the proposed development would conflict with driver visibility, sightlines, traffic signs, signals or crossing points.

The appellant confirms that the proposed luminance levels of the [name] would comply with the [name] of [name] including [name] (2023). This could be controlled via conditions alongside restrictions on moving images and visual effects. 1 Paragraph 4.2 2 Paragraph 5.1 Appeal Decisions 6003768 and 6003767

Therefore, and tying these highway safety considerations together, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on highway safety. It would therefore accord with the relevant provisions of [name].DH10 and S.TR1 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan and Policies T1, T2, T3, and T4 of the London Plan. All of which seek to, amongst other things, ensure that development would not be detrimental to the safety of all highway users including vulnerable road users.

The proposed development would deliver several features including environmental sensors, insight counting, free calls, emergency services capability, USB charging, wayfinding assistance, and free screen time for public messaging. It would also provide free public Wi-Fi, small cell mobile connectivity and would be powered by 100% renewable carbon-free energy.

Advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure positively contribute toward environmental benefits, economic growth, and social well-being to a broad section of the public. I acknowledge that planning decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology and wider digital infrastructure. While these important benefits are noted, they are tempered as it has not been clearly shown that they could only be located at this appeal site. Therefore, and taking all these considerations together, I ascribe significant positive weight to these benefits.

I have found the appeal scheme to be acceptable in respect of highway safety, and the Council found no other harm apart from that set out above. This absence of harm, however, would be a neutral matter which neither weighs for nor against the proposed development.

Overall, I have found harm to the character and appearance of the area as set out above. While the benefits of the proposed development are noted and carry significant positive weight, the identified harm carries substantial weight. Accordingly, the benefits associated with the proposed development would not demonstrably outweigh the harm. For these reasons, and having considered all other matters raised, both appeals are dismissed.