Appeal 6004037

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

There are two appeals relating to the refusal of planning permission and advertisement consent for a [name] 3 incorporating integrated advertisement screens. Although these appeals fall under separate legislative regimes, they are intrinsically linked. Therefore, in the interests of expediency and to avoid unnecessary duplication, both appeals have been addressed within a single decision letter.

In relation to Appeal A, 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 Appeal Decision 6004037 & 6004039 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 A are not determinative in the assessment of advertisement consent, they have been considered as material considerations where relevant.

The main issue in both appeals is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area, including its amenity, with regard to the significance of the Bowes Park Conservation Area.

The appeal site is situated on the footpath along the southern side of [site address] . It currently accommodates an existing telephone kiosk which has been in situ for a significant period, which would be removed to facilitate the proposed structure incorporating integrated advertising screens. The proposed unit would be taller and wider than the existing kiosk and would introduce two digital display screens, which are not currently present. The footpath also contains a range of other street furniture, including cycle racks, bollards, refuse bins and street lighting.

The site is within the Bowes Park Conservation Area (CA). I have therefore had regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which requires the decision maker to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The appellant has not established the significance of the CA as required by paragraph 207 of the Framework. From the evidence before me including my site visit, the significance of the CA, particularly within this locality, is derived from the consistent rhythm of the original shopfronts and the prevailing traditional shopfront framework, including pilasters, console brackets, cornices, and fascias. A number of shopfronts retain fragments of historic fabric, and there are notable examples of largely intact 19th-century shopfronts. [site address] exhibits a scale, rhythm, and pattern characteristic of late 19th-century suburban development in London. The buildings display a distinct texture, rhythm and grain, with a richness of materials complemented by finely detailed decorative elements. While there is no adopted [name] or Management Plan. I have had regard to the non-statutory document [name] – Conservation and Regeneration of [site address] (2011) prepared for the Council, however given its age and status, the weight attached to this document is limited.

The principle of installing a communications structure at this location is established by the presence of the existing telephone kiosk. The kiosk is in a dilapidated condition and does not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. Although the proposals would result in its removal which would be a benefit given its condition, it would be replaced by a unit that is noticeably wider and taller than the existing installation. Appeal Decision 6004037 & 6004039

Whilst the existing kiosk is smaller in scale and incorporates design features such as a domed roof form clearly informed by the design of the traditional early twentieth century telephone box and retains a degree of transparency (notwithstanding the posters covering much of the door), the proposed hub presents a stark contrast. Its monolithic form and dark colour would introduce a markedly larger and more solid structure into the streetscape.

Although the proposals would not increase the number of items of street furniture at this location, as one structure would replace another, they would nevertheless result in a more dominant and visually intrusive feature within the street scene.

The identified harm would be further exacerbated by the proposed display screens. The appellant draws attention to a number of examples of illuminated signage within the area; however, observations from my site visit indicate that such signage is generally modest in scale and largely confined to traditional shopfront signage zones and is therefore less prominent than would be the case with the proposal given its positioning and orientation on the street.

In this context, the scale and prominence of the proposed advertisement screens would result in a visually intrusive and insensitive addition to the street scene, to a far greater degree than the existing kiosk. Whilst the luminance levels may accord with industry best practice guidance and could be controlled through planning conditions, the introduction of large digital screens on both elevations would nonetheless appear incongruous within an environment characterised by relatively low levels of illumination. This would remain the case irrespective of whether the content displayed is static or moving.

I have been referred to numerous examples of similar [name] 3 installations which the appellant states have been, and continue to be, rolled out across the country as part of a nationwide initiative to upgrade telecommunications infrastructure. However, I am not aware that any of these examples are located within the same London borough, and each would be subject to its own site-specific circumstances, which would have informed the decision as to whether planning permission should be granted.

The prevalence of such installations in other locations does not, in itself, justify harm arising within the particular circumstances of this site. [name] have had regard to the information provided indicating that the installation is part of a national programme, my assessment is based on the proposal before me at this site, which I have considered on its own merits.

The proposals would therefore harm the character and appearance, including the amenity of the area, which would also harm the significance of the CA. In this regard I note that the appellant also acknowledges that there is likely to be some impact on the CA.

The harm I have identified to the CA would be less than substantial. As per paragraph 215 of the Framework, in this scenario this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

I have reviewed the benefits of the scheme as presented to me. These include the provision of free public Wi-Fi, free UK calls, device charging facilities, enhanced public safety features, and the ability to collect environmental monitoring data, Appeal Decision 6004037 & 6004039 together with dedicated Local Authority access to provide public information for up to 875 hours per annum.

I have also taken into account that the proposal involves the removal of the existing kiosk, alongside a further kiosk at a second location close to the site at [address], Haringey, [postcode] , resulting in a net reduction in street furniture across the borough. Reference is made to the Council’s decluttering programme; however no information is provided regarding this programme and I am therefore unable to specifically assess how the proposal complies. Nevertheless, this consideration does carry limited weight as a benefit of the proposal.

Furthermore, I have noted the Appellant’s statements that the current kiosk forms part of their public service commitment and would ordinarily need to be retained until a replacement is deployed or that the existing kiosk be replaced with a more modern unit providing enhanced public benefits.

While the existing kiosk may represent outdated technology and there is a clear need for modernisation, and although I accept that installations of the type proposed are typically of a standardised design such that bespoke solutions for individual locations would not be expected, this does not diminish the harm associated with the proposed [name] 3. Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan – [name] (2017) (the Local Plan) requires development to demonstrate good design. [name] note the appellant’s assertion that the proposed [name] 3 represents a high standard of design, the context within which it is proposed is fundamental in determining its appropriateness. For the reasons given above and primarily its scale and monolithic form incorporating dark colour and illuminated imagery, I am not persuaded that the proposal would represent good design within its surroundings. Accordingly, the requirements of the policy are not met.

There is clear support for the development of digital infrastructure at both the national and citywide level as part of developing a competitive economy. The Framework includes specific support for the delivery of high-quality communications infrastructure and advises that decision-making should facilitate the expansion of such networks. Similarly, Policy SI6 of the London Plan (2021) supports the provision of digital connectivity across London. While this consideration does attract significant weight, this support does not negate the need to consider other harms associated with such development, particularly in sensitive areas such as CAs, as part of the overall planning balance.

I note that no objections were raised by the Highway Authority in relation to highway safety, and this matter does not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal. Whilst this indicates that the proposal would not give rise to harm in this respect, it does not represent a positive benefit. I therefore afford this matter neutral weight in my assessment.

Furthermore, I have found no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would give rise to harm in respect of public safety, including matters such as pedestrian movement, the content of the advertisements, light or noise pollution, or anti-social behaviour. Assertions to this effect from the Council’s Public Health Department have not been supported by evidence and, as such, carry very limited weight. Appeal Decision 6004037 & 6004039

The benefits arising from the replacement of the existing kiosk are acknowledged and attract significant weight. Conversely, the Framework makes clear that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. In addition, I have identified harm to the character and appearance of the area and to visual amenity, which weigh significantly against the proposal. When all of these considerations are balanced, I find that the benefits of the scheme are insufficient to outweigh the harm identified. Accordingly, the proposal is not justified.

In summary, the proposal conflicts with Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Policies SP11 and SP12 of the Haringey Local Plan – [name] (2017), and Policies DM1, DM3 and DM9 of the Haringey Development Management DPD (2017). Taken together, these policies require development to respond positively to local context, character and historic significance, and to preserve the significance of heritage assets, including conservation areas.

Reference is made to pre-application consultation between the appellant and the Council, with feedback reportedly indicating that ‘conversion’ sites, where existing kiosks would be replaced with [name] 3 units, would be supported by Planning Officers. However, no evidence of this consultation has been provided. Accordingly, I have not given this matter weight in my determination.

Reference has been made to a number of other development plan policies, within the London Plan (2021). These are: CG1 – Building strong and inclusive communities SDG6 – Town centres and high streets D5 – Inclusive design D11 – Safety, security and resilience to emergency S1 – [name] social infrastructure E1 – Visitor infrastructure HC6 – Supporting the night-time economy SI1 – Improving air quality T2 – [name]. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate how the proposal complies with, or is supported by, these policies. I therefore find no clear or convincing justification to conclude that the signage accords with the aims and objectives of the aforementioned policies.

For the reasons set out above, I find that both appeals conflict with the development plan, although in respect of Appeal A 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.