Appeal 6004034

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

There are two appeals relating to the refusal of planning permission and advertisement consent for a multifunctional communication hub. Although these appeals fall under separate legislative regimes, they are intrinsically linked. I have considered both on their individual merits, however, in the interests of expediency and to avoid unnecessary duplication, both appeals have been addressed within a single decision letter.

In relation to Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) require that decisions on advertisement appeals are determined solely with regard to the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account any other material considerations. This approach is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

Accordingly, while the development plan policies referenced by the Council in its decision notice for Appeal B are not determinative in the assessment of advertisement consent, they have been considered as material considerations where relevant.

In respect of both appeals, the appeal site is in very close proximity to the rear perimeter wall of a Grade 2 listed building ([address] and [address], the [name] 1195528) and very close to the boundary of three conservation areas (CAs). Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special regard to be given to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting, whilst Section 72(1) requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. These duties apply to development affecting the setting of such heritage assets, including proposals outside their boundaries.

The description of development relating to both appeals has been amended from that originally stated on the planning application form. The revised wording aligns with that used in the Council’s decision notices and more accurately and succinctly describes the proposed development.

Having regard to the above, the main issue in respect of Appeal A is: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the [address], Clerkenwell Green, and Hat and Feathers Conservation Areas (the CAs), as well as on the setting of nearby listed buildings. • The effect of the proposed development on trees.

In respect of Appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on visual amenity.

The appeal site lies just outside the boundaries of the [address], Clerkenwell Green and Hat and Feathers Conservation Areas, which converge immediately to the west. The surrounding townscape is varied, comprising a mix of modern development, shopfronts and building entrances of differing design, and a range of signage and illumination. Notable features include the substantial rear perimeter wall of the [name] listed [address] and [address] at the Charterhouse, together with other large-scale development in the vicinity.

The proposed communications hub would be located adjacent to the carriageway on a relatively wide section of pavement. Existing street furniture in close proximity includes a telephone kiosk, which would be removed as part of the proposal and cycle parking which would be relocated. Several mature London plane trees are situated near the proposed location and make a significant positive contribution to the street scene, softening the otherwise urban character of [address], a major arterial route.

The significance of the nearby CAs derives from their collection of buildings of architectural and historic interest, reflecting various stages in the area’s evolution. Whilst the appeal site lies outside the designated areas, it contributes to their setting by virtue of its proximity and relationship to key features, in particular the rear boundary wall of the listed [address] and [address] buildings.

The relatively open character of this section of pavement forms part of the wider public realm and allows for important views through the area. These views contribute positively to the appreciation of the significance and setting of the surrounding heritage assets.

The Grade II listed [address] and [address], located to the immediate north of the Charterhouse is located to the west of the appeal site on the same side of the road. Its significance is derived from its architectural and historic interest as part of the wider Charterhouse complex. Its large perimeter wall is a prominent feature within the street scene that acts to screen most views of the building inside and is most readily appreciated from the public realm along [address]. At present, views towards this wall are relatively open when approaching from the west, although views from the opposite direction are more constrained by existing street clutter.

The proposed development would introduce a sizeable, free-standing structure within this relatively open part of the pavement. By virtue of its siting, scale and design, it would appear visually intrusive and incongruous within the street scene, adding to existing street clutter. The illuminated digital displays would further increase its prominence, drawing attention to the structure and exacerbating its visual impact.

The digital displays would face pedestrians approaching from both easterly and westerly directions, and would be particularly prominent in views from the east. In these views, the structure would interrupt, or be clearly perceptible within, views towards the listed building and the nearby CAs. It would therefore appear as a discordant feature within their setting. The proposed illumination would further compound these adverse effects.

Whilst conditions could be imposed to control luminance levels, hours of operation, or the switching off of the display during night-time periods, such measures would not sufficiently mitigate the harm arising from the presence and prominence of the structure itself.

The removal of the existing telephone kiosk would provide some limited benefit, including marginal improvements to views of the listed wall from the east. However, the kiosk is materially different in scale and does not incorporate digital advertising. Its removal does not therefore offset the harm identified from the introduction of the proposed communications hub.

I note the presence of an existing digital advertising installation of a similar design to that proposed further along the street to the east, together with other elements of street furniture such as lighting columns, cycle stands and bins. Whilst these contribute to a degree of visual clutter, and the siting of the proposal adjacent to the trees would offer some limited mitigation, this does not overcome the harm identified. Rather, the proposal would add to the cumulative clutter within the street scene.

Overall, the proposal would represent an incongruous and visually intrusive addition to the public realm. It would fail to enhance the quality of the streetscape and would erode the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would detract from the contribution the site makes to the setting of nearby conservation areas and the listed [address] and [address] buildings.

I therefore find that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the nearby conservation areas and listed buildings and would fail to preserve the setting of designated heritage assets. It would result in harm to their significance.

The harm identified would be localised and, given the limited scale of the proposal, would amount to less than substantial harm to the significance of the conservation areas and listed buildings, at the lower end of that spectrum. Nevertheless, paragraph 212 of the Framework requires that great weight be given to the conservation of heritage assets. Paragraph 215 requires that such harm be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant identifies a number of benefits associated with the proposal, including enhanced digital connectivity, provision of community messaging, support for local economic activity, and the delivery of public services such as a defibrillator and potential CCTV capabilities. I also acknowledge that similar installations have been implemented elsewhere and that the proposal incorporates sustainable design features.

These benefits attract moderate weight as public benefits contributing towards economic, social and environmental objectives. However, they do not outweigh the great weight that must be afforded to the conservation of heritage assets, nor the considerable importance and weight to be given to the identified harm.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and would fail to preserve the character or appearance of nearby conservation areas or the setting of listed buildings. It would therefore conflict with Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), and Policies PLAN1, DH1, DH2, DH6 and ST3 of the Islington Local Plan (2023) (the Local Plan), which seek high-quality design, respect for local context, and the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets and the public realm.

The proposal would also conflict with Policy AAP8 of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan (2023) and the guidance within [name] (2017), both of which require development to respond positively to local character and heritage significance.

Whilst London Plan Policy T2 is referenced by the Council in their reasons for refusal, I do not consider it determinative in this case, as it relates more generally to sustainable transport and pedestrian movement.

Overall, the proposal would conflict with the Framework’s objective of achieving well-designed places that add to the overall quality of the area and conserving the historic environment.

Two mature London plane trees are located in close proximity to the proposed siting of the hub unit. The Council has identified a risk of harm to the root systems of these trees arising from excavation works required for the installation of the hub and associated infrastructure, including cable trenching and the installation of cycle racks, which form part of the proposal. In the absence of an arboricultural impact assessment, arboricultural method statement, or tree protection plan, there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the development would not adversely affect these trees.

In the absence of such information, I find that the proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Policy G4 of the Local Plan, which seeks to ensure the protection and retention of existing trees. As such, the proposal is also contrary to Policies G1 and G4 of the Local Plan.

I recognise that similar structures have been installed in urban locations across the country. However, each proposal must be assessed on its own merits, taking into account the specific characteristics of the site. My assessment has therefore focused on the particular effects of the proposal in this location.

The absence of harm to public safety, including the lack of objections to the proposal from the Highway Authority or the Council’s Community Safety Officer, is a neutral factor and carries no weight either in support of, or against, the appeals.

For the reasons set out above, I find that both appeals conflict with the development plan, although in respect of Appeal B this conflict is not determinative. Nevertheless, having regard to the harm identified, and noting that the benefits of the proposals would not outweigh that harm, I conclude that both appeals should be dismissed.