Appeal 6004538

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

There are two appeals on this site, one against the refusal of planning permission and the other against the refusal of advertisement consent. They are intrinsically linked and raise similar issues. To avoid repetition, while considering each upon its merits, I have dealt with both in a single decision letter.

In respect of both appeals, the Council has drawn my attention to the policies it considers to be relevant, and I have taken them into account as a material consideration. However, powers under the Regulations to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. In my determination of appeal B, the Council’s policies have not therefore, by themselves, been decisive.

So far as appeal B in concerned, the appellant describes the application as for the installation of a modern multifunction Hub unit featuring an integral advertisement and defibrillator. I have used the description in the Decision Notice of the local Appeal Decisions 6004538 and 6004539 planning authority (LPA) in the banner heading as it more fully describes the proposed development.

A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision-making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issues, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusions below regarding the appeals.

The main issues in respect of Appeal A are the effect of the proposal upon (i) the character and appearance of the area and (ii) the effect upon highway safety. The main issues in respect of Appeal B are the effect of the proposed advertisement upon (i) the visual amenity of the area and (ii) public safety.

The proposed digital display screen would have a height of 2.63 metres and a depth of 0.317 metres (0.917 metres including its canopy). It would include a display screen at the rear, capable of showing both static and animated displays in sequence, comprising commercial and community messages. It would include a telephone and defibrillator at the front and solar panels on the top.

[site address] is a busy, commercial high street in Greenford town centre, with two-way traffic passing along it, with relatively wide pavements to either side and with generally two-storey premises lining it. Traffic speeds are limited to 20mph. In the immediate vicinity are street trees, street lamps and benches. There is a bus shelter some 15 metres from the proposed site which includes a double sided display screen, set in from the kerb by approximately 3 to 4 metres. There is a pull-in parallel to the highway to accommodate buses, and which extends towards the proposed location of the multi-function screen.

An existing cycle stand would be relocated approximately 14 metres to accommodate the display screen. The proposed screen would be set back some 2 metres from the kerb, leaving a clear pathway along the pavement.

On my site visit, I was able to see that, despite the presence of the street features which I have mentioned, the immediate area has generally an uncluttered appearance. However, the extended area of the street includes a number of billboards and digital displays.

These include three other similar multifunctional hubs to which the appellant has referred, two on [site address] and one on [address]. However, I have no details before me as to their planning histories, including what the sites were like before their approval and whether they replaced any other structures. The nearest one to the appeal site is relatively close to the application site and which generally serves the same purposes as the proposed development. Appeal Decisions 6004538 and 6004539

In any event, I have determined the appeals upon their own merits, taking into account the amenity and public safety issues pertinent to the immediate area.

I consider that, by its size and its illuminated, changing advertisements, it would add a cluttering feature into the street scene to the latter’s considerable detriment.

Therefore, in terms of Appeal A, I conclude that the development would not accord with policies 7.4 or 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document ( 2013) (DPD), or policies D3 or D8 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), all of which require development to respond to the character and appearance of the area in which it is set. Policy D8 of the LP specifically states that ‘applications which seek to introduce unnecessary street clutter should be refused’. It would not accord with the Transport for London: Streetscape Guidance (2022) (TFL) in so far as it relates to the appropriateness of street equipment, nor with chapter 12 of the Framework which requires development to add to the overall quality of an area.

In respect of Appeal B, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would have an unacceptable impact upon visual amenity for the above reasons. I have had regard to the policies set out above where they are material to this issue.

[site address] is a busy thoroughfare with two way traffic and with pedestrians crossing the road to attend the various shops, commercial buildings and getting to and from the bus stops on both sides off the road. One such bus shelter adjoins the appeal site and the bus pull-in, and which adds to pedestrians crossing the road, often as I was able to observe, between, behind and in front of parked buses waiting in the pull-in. The siting of the display, only some two metres from the pavement edge, and where people are milling about, would add a further distraction and therefore to potential conflicts between pedestrians and drivers in an area where driver and pedestrian concentration is especially necessary.

I consider that these factors would mean that the proposed multifunctional hub would be a particularly unwelcome distraction to drivers, causing an adverse impact upon highway safety. Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development, by its siting with regard to appeal A, and by it siting, scale, brightness and its changing images with regard appeal B, would not accord to LP policies D3 and D8 which require proposed development to achieve safe environments.

The proposed hub would include a defibrillator which would be an asset in the area. However, it would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm which I have found with regard to the amenity of the area and to public safety in terms of traffic and pedestrian movements.

The proposal would give rise to unacceptable public safety concerns, and the character and appearance of the area would be adversely affected. Therefore, both Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.