Appeal 6004060

The appeal is dismissed.

I have also determined the appeal against the Council’s refusal of the corresponding application for express advertisement consent1. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is the effect of the development on highway and pedestrian safety.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that all advertisements are intended to attract attention, but proposed advertisements at points where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety. For example, at junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, on the approach to a low bridge or level crossing, or other places where local conditions present traffic hazards. There are less likely to be road safety problems if the advertisement is on a site within a commercial or industrial locality, if it is a shop fascia sign, name-board, trade or business sign, or a normal poster panel, and if the advertisement is not on the skyline2.

The appeal scheme would be located in a primarily commercial area and would replace a similar unit that is only marginally smaller. However, the proposed hub would be close to a busy road, and a dedicated cycle lane runs next to the appeal site.

I observed during my visit, on a weekday afternoon, that the footway was busy with people using it to access shops on [site address] . There are no pedestrian crossings in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site and therefore individuals crossing the road would have to rely on their own judgement. 1 6004059 2 Paragraph: 067 [name]: 18b-067-20140306

Given the height, width and solid design of the proposed hub, there would be a period whereby pedestrians crossing the highway would have a restricted view of vehicles approaching the carriageway. Similarly, users of the road would lose sight of pedestrians as they walk behind the hub. Furthermore, it would restrict mutual views between pedestrians and cyclists, and the proximity of the cycle lane is such that users would have a limited time to react in the event of a potential collision.

In my judgement this obstruction of views caused by the siting of the hub is a potential danger to highway safety, including vulnerable users, such as those with young children, or wheelchair users.

For example, a young child may be walking slightly ahead of their carer and lose sight and awareness of any oncoming vehicles or cyclists, due to the hub’s position so close to the road. In addition, they could also be easily distracted by its rotating digital display. Similarly, someone pushing a wheelchair or a child’s buggy in front of them might only see an oncoming cyclist or vehicle after they have cleared the hub.

Such scenarios not only present a danger to pedestrians, but also to drivers and cyclists. If a pedestrian suddenly, and unexpectedly, appears from behind the hub, close to the edge of the carriageway, it could cause them to break sharply or swerve. This therefore also causes a highway safety issue for road users, as well as pedestrians.

The appellant has sought to address concerns raised by the Council when they refused a similar scheme at the application site3. The scheme before me would allow for a greater distance between the proposed hub and existing public seating. Yet, this does not resolve my concerns in regard to public safety.

I acknowledge that the appellant refers to the distance between existing seating and the hub, at approx. 3.7m, as a sufficient distance to allow significant pedestrian permeability. Still, the remaining width of the pavement adjacent to the carriageway would be significantly smaller and the width of the pavement as a whole does not address my concerns regarding restricted views of both pedestrians and road users, at a point where there are conflicting movements of individuals crossing the road, cyclists and motorists. I am therefore not convinced that this is a sufficient set back given the short distance that would be provided between the proposed hub and the road.

In regard to the distance between the hub and the kerb edge my attention has been drawn to TfL’s Streetscape Guidance document and the guidelines of the Institution of [name] - [name] . However, full details of these documents have not been provided and in any case, they serve as guidance only.

As such, given my above concerns, and in the absence of detailed evidence of the visibility and sightlines that would be provided between pedestrians and road users, it is reasonable to take a precautionary approach in regard to this highway safety concern.

Taking all of the above into account, the risk to public safety would be likely to increase as a result of the proposed hub. In coming to that view, I have considered 3 P/2025/0936 & P/2025/0861 the potential to utilise conditions to control the levels of illumination and the frequency and method of change of the display. However, notwithstanding such conditions, the proposal would still have the ability to distract road users and restrict views at a time when they should be paying due care and attention to the road.

In view of all the above, based on the information before me, and my observations on site, I conclude that the siting of the appeal proposal would unacceptably obscure views between pedestrians and road users, to the detriment of public safety. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies CC5 and EC2 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030, which require that proposals demonstrate that adverse impacts on the public transport network are avoided and that advertisements and their associated structure do not adversely impact on pedestrian and vehicle movement and safety.

I note the environmental, social and economic benefits of digital advertisements as outlined by the appellant. Whilst these could be considered to be factors in favour of the proposal, they do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

My attention has been drawn to appeals that were allowed for advertisement units in Kensington and Chelsea4. However, full details of these appeals have not been provided; as such, I cannot be certain that the local conditions in that instance presented the same public safety hazards as the scheme before me.

The appellant asserts that a very low percentage of the units proposed have been refused at planning permission and advertisement consent stage. Still, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate this, in any case I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

The Council have raised no concerns regarding the effect of the scheme on amenity or the significance of any heritage assets. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree with the Council in regard to these matters.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.