Appeal 6004787

Both appeals are dismissed.

As set out above there are two appeals on this site that were submitted together on a single application form covering both planning permission and express consent to display advertisements. They differ in that Appeal A relates to planning permission, while Appeal B relates to express advertisement consent. I have considered each proposal on their individual merits, however, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together.

In respect of Appeal B, the Regulations, and the National Planning Policy Framework, both make it clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account cumulative impacts. Regard does not need to be had to the development plan. I have taken relevant policies into account as a material consideration; however, they have not, by themselves, been determinative.

The description of the proposals, in the banner heading above, differ from the appellant’s application form submitted to the Council. I have applied the Council’s descriptions as they more accurately describe the proposals before me. Appeal Decisions 6004787 and 6004786

Policy P13 of the Southwark Plan 2022 is a design related policy which at paragraph 3 of its reasons explains, amongst other things, that ‘good public realm design is essential.... to improve the streetscape, and create a sense of place with vibrant, pleasant environments that people take pride in and enjoy’. Given the proposed development would affect how people relate to and experience their environment, I consider that this policy would be relevant to these appeal decisions.

The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site sits next to the road known as [site address] , part of the A3, and the proposed development would be sited on the pavement close to the road. On this side of the pavement, and near to the appeal site, existing digital style displays are already sited outside 57-61 [site address] ([address]) and to the frontage of 69-71 and 73-75 [site address] . In addition, a bus stop outside 77-85 [site address] ([name]) features traditional paper advertising. Cycle racks, bollards, a post box, and lamp posts are also sited close to the appeal site. The immediate area is defined by three and four storey buildings and many of the buildings have signage attached to them.

The proposal would install a freestanding [name] with two digital display screens which would display advertisements and information. Installations of this type are common in busy parts of [name]. They can reflect the city’s character. However, each proposal must be carefully considered in its specific location.

In this case, the appeal site is already closely surrounded by street furniture, digital displays, and traditional displays as set out above. The installation of a further digital hub with two screens and of the height proposed would further increase the number of structures and displays along this short space of pavement. The cumulative effect of the proposal in combination with the existing features would exacerbate an already congested street scene. Taken together, the proposal and existing installations would appear poorly sited creating an overwhelming and muddled presence of structures and displays. This would cause unacceptable visual clutter within the immediate street scene.

I acknowledge that removal of traditional phone kiosks at [address] and Borough High Street would reduce some of the clutter in those locations and increase pedestrian space on the highway. However, the positive weight I attach to this benefit would be limited as these other sites fall outside the red line of the appeal site and there is no mechanism before me to secure their removal. Even if there was, these sites are both a considerable distance from the appeal site in different roads. Any benefit would not be felt at the appeal site wherein the street scene is already congested.

I have also considered the evidence that a traditional payphone kiosk once existed at this site1. This is new evidence that does not appear to have been before the Council at the time of its decision. It therefore has limited bearing upon my overall 1 Paragraph 10 of the appellant’s statement. Appeal Decisions 6004787 and 6004786 decision. However, even if it was before the Council and therefore under consideration by me, I cannot be certain that the current and historic street scenes are both identical. For example, the number and spread of street furniture and displays are likely to have changed.

I say this as Figure Three2 of the appellant’s statement shows no display installations outside of Nos 69-71 and 73-75. Yet during my site visit and as shown in [name] of the appellant’s statement, a new digital installation has been erected since [name] was taken. This indicates a changing street scene over time and for these reasons, the removal of a kiosk historically has not been robustly shown to be a direct benefit of this current appeal.

Concluding on this main issue overall, the proposed [name] would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, and I give this harm substantial weight. In relation to Appeal A, and as far as it is a material consideration for Appeal B, it would therefore conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy P13 of the Southwark Plan and Policy D8 of the London Plan 2021. These, amongst other things, look to ensure that development responds to the local urban context and integrates sympathetically with the public realm.

The proposed development would deliver several features and capabilities including environmental sensors, insight counting, free calls, an emergency services capability, USB charging, wayfinding assistance, and free screen time for public messaging. It would also provide free public Wi-Fi, small cell mobile connectivity and would be powered by 100% renewable carbon-free energy.

Advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure positively contribute toward environmental benefits, economic growth, and social well-being. I acknowledge that planning decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology and wider digital infrastructure. While these important benefits are noted, it has not been clearly shown that they can only be located at this appeal site. Even so, and taking all these considerations together, I ascribe significant positive weight to these benefits.

The proposed development accords with the recommended footway widths as set out in the [name] (2024) and the Department for Transport’s guidance document, ‘[name] (2021). There is very limited evidence to suggest that the free movement of pedestrians or other highway users would be impeded. This absence of harm, however, would be a neutral matter which neither weighs for or against the proposed development.

I have found harm to the character and appearance of the area as set out above. While the benefits of the proposal are noted and carry significant positive weight, the identified harm carries substantial weight. Overall, the benefits associated with the proposal would not demonstrably outweigh the harm. 2 Described as - [name], image taken Jan 2022. Appeal Decisions 6004787 and 6004786

For these reasons, and having considered all other matters raised, both appeals are dismissed.