Appeal 6004728

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

The two appeals relate to the same site. They differ in that Appeal A relates to planning permission and Appeal B relates to express advertisement consent. However, to avoid duplication and as they raise similar and interrelated issues, I have dealt with the two appeals together, except where otherwise indicated.

In respect of Appeal B, the Regulations1 and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) require that decisions are made only in the interest of amenity and public safety. Therefore, whilst I have taken account of the policies the Council refers to insofar as they may be relevant, these have not been decisive in my determination of Appeal B. 1 Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007

Notwithstanding the description of the proposed development relating to Appeal A above, and the evidence before me which indicates that two telephone kiosks sat centrally on the pedestrian footpath close to the appeal site, I saw at my site visit that these have already been removed.

The main issues in respect of [name] and B are: • the effect on the character and appearance and amenity of the area; and • the effect on highway and public safety.

The appeal site relates to a section of the pavement on the opposite side of [address] to Nos.141-145. I found [address] to be a busy, well trafficked road in a predominantly retail and commercial area. This results in a vibrant and busy street scene.

The site is situated near the junction with [address]. This area has undergone public realm improvements, including the widening of the pavement and the creation of [address]. With the removal of the nearby telephone kiosks, the area is largely free of street clutter, giving it an open character.

[address] is a small green space, one of several ‘pocket parks’ introduced within the Council area to bring greenery into the streetscape. It offers both a visual and physical break from the surrounding built environment, thereby enhancing the overall quality of the street scene.

The appeal proposal would not encroach into the park or result in the loss of public open space. However, its siting in a prominent location adjacent to [address] would be in stark contrast to the natural appearance of the gardens. It would be a dominant feature, reducing the openness of this part of the street and detracting from the positive contribution that [address] makes to the street scene. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of this part of [address].

In a busy commercial setting featuring a mix of bus infrastructure, signage, and other street furniture, advertisements would not necessarily appear out of place. However, in this instance, the advertisements would be in a location which is free of such clutter. They would occupy a highly visible location and I have already found that the street hub on which they would be displayed would dominate the street scene. The scale, illumination and changing digital images would exacerbate this prominence and be harmful to the amenity of the area.

There is no substantive evidence before me that the proposal would result in harmful light pollution and in any event, the intensity of any illumination could be controlled by a condition, if the appeal were to be allowed.

Appeal A would therefore be contrary to Policies D3 and D8 of The London Plan 2021 and Policies DH1 and DH (c) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] requiring high quality design which responds to a site’s context, positively contributes to the improvement of the built environment and minimises its visual impact on the local environment including public realm.

With regards to Appeal B and having regard to the Regulations and relevant development plan policies set out above insofar as they are relevant, I conclude that the advertisements would harm amenity.

The perpendicular siting of the structure would restrict the width of the pavement. However, due to widening works which have already taken place this would still retain a 3.1m wide, unobstructed pedestrian footway. The Council is satisfied that this would exceed the minimum standard width for a footway of 2 metres. Therefore, even when the street hub was in use, this would be unlikely to hinder pedestrian flows to a harmful extent.

[address] forms part of the [address] Network and cycleway 4. There is a bus lane on the opposite, east bound side of the road. The busy nature of [address] means that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians require heightened attentiveness. Whilst the advertisements would be illuminated and consist of digital changing images, the speed of change could be controlled by condition. In addition, they would be set well back from the edge of the highway. Together, this would avoid harmful distraction.

Whilst the street hub would be located within 3 metres of the tactile paving at the [address] crossing, it would be set back on the pavement so that the front edge of the street hub would be in line with the back edge of the tactile pavement. For this reason, I find it unlikely that pedestrians, particularly those with visual impairment, are at risk of walking into the street hub having crossed [address] and following the tactile paving. Equally, if going in the reverse direction, I see no reason why the location of the street hub would make it more difficult for those users to locate and use the crossing of [address].

Therefore, in respect of Appeal A, the siting of the street hub would not conflict with Policies T2 and T4 of the TLP and Policy IM(b) of the LP which seek to promote walking and the provision of safe facilities for crossing roads and ensuring that the pedestrian environment enables access for people with disabilities. Policy IM(a) of the LP relates to major developments and is not relevant to the proposal before me.

With regards to Appeal B and having regard to the Regulations and relevant development plan policies set out above insofar as they are relevant, I conclude that the advertisements themselves would not harm public safety.

Paragraph 119 of the Framework, together with Policy SI6 of the TLP and Policy DH(c) of the LP supports the expansion of electronic communication networks. In this case, the street hub would provide free wi-fi, small cell coverage, capacity for 5G, wayfinding services, public calling and device charging facilities and allow capacity upgrades without street works. It would therefore have social and economic benefits to the local community, and together they carry moderate weight in favour of the proposals. The advertisements would be a means of raising revenue to fund these free services.

I understand that the street hub could accommodate sensors for monitoring air quality and traffic and provide public messaging capabilities although there is no mechanism before me which would secure these and therefore, I attribute only very limited weight to these as a benefit.

[name] note there is a requirement for the appellant to meet its obligations under the [name], I have not been directed to any substantive evidence that demonstrates that the obligation could only be fulfilled by the appeal proposal.

The benefit of providing the street hub in place of the existing telephone kiosks would not arise, as the kiosks have already been removed.

I have considered other matters raised by interested parties including, but not limited to, electricity consumption, air pollution, impact on wildlife, anti-social behaviour, biodiversity net gain but given that I have identified harm in respect of the main issues, these are not matters on which my decision turns.

I have been referred to an appeal2 in Birmingham. However, the surrounding context in that instance would appear to be very different from that before me and is not directly relevant to the circumstances in this appeal.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. These characteristics include age and disability. I acknowledge that the proposal would provide inclusive and accessible facilities for people who share one or more of these protected characteristics for the purposes of the PSED.

In considering the requirements of the PSED, a refusal of permission would not amount to unlawful discrimination. Allowing the appeal when the proposal would result in the harm I have identified, would undermine relations between people who do and do not share a protected characteristic. This supports my view that the need for the appeal proposal does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance and amenity of the area.

[name] have not found harm in respect of highway or public safety, for the reasons given above, the proposals subject to Appeal A and Appeal B would harm the character and appearance and amenity of the area. In the case of Appeal A, this would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Whilst the proposals would offer public benefits, these would not outweigh the harms identified. Accordingly, I conclude that both [name] and B should be dismissed.