Appeal 6004992

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a [name] 3 unit at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/AP/2665, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of two digital 75-inch LCD display screens, one on each side of the [name] unit at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/AP/2666. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations and the conditions in the attached schedule.

Appeal A seeks planning permission for a free-standing street hub that includes free public wi-fi, smart cell mobile connectivity, 5g connectivity and an emergency services button. Appeal B seeks advertisement consent for the digital advertisement screens on each side.

I have made a minor change to the description of development for Appeal A, to refer to the “installation of ..”, in order to provide a clearer and more precise description. In the case of appeal B, I have simplified the description of development by removing unnecessary dimensional detail.

In relation to the appeal for advertisement consent, Regulation 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 Appeal Decision 6004993 and 6004992 states that a local planning authority shall exercise its powers under these Regulations in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan, in so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors.

The sole reason for refusal for both appeals is essentially the same and concerns the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. I will consider both appeals together under this issue.

The main issue is the effect of the street hub and advertisements on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies on a section of pavement outside a parade of local shops, with residential accommodation above. London South Bank University is located on the opposite side of the road.

Advertisements and street furniture are already prevalent along [site address] and in the wider area. This includes illuminated and non-illuminated shopfront signage, bus shelters with integrated advertisements, street lighting, traffic signs and other highway furniture. Advertising therefore forms part of the established street scene, and in this context the proposed street hub would not appear incongruous or out of character.

The proposed street hub would sit close to existing street lighting columns, cycle stands and trees. Even so, there would remain adequate space either side, and there is good separation from the shop frontages. Other advertising structures, including kiosks and bus shelters, are reasonably well spaced along the street. The street hub would be aligned with the existing corridor of street furniture, which would maximise usable pavement space and avoid a cluttered appearance. In the busy context of [site address] , the proposal would not result in visual harm.

There is currently no structure on the site, which represents the baseline against which the appeal must be assessed. However, I understand that the site previously accommodated an InLink digital screen and, before that, a traditional telephone box. A street hub or similar structure has therefore been present on the site for a considerable period. The historic presence of a street hub carries some limited weight.

The proposal refers to the intended removal of two existing kiosks elsewhere on the same street. Their removal could provide some benefit to pavement space and the character of the street. However, they lie outside the red line boundary, and there is no mechanism to secure their removal. As such, while the appellant’s intentions are noted, this benefit attracts very limited weight.

Taking all matters together, I conclude that the proposed street hub and advertisements would integrate acceptably within its surroundings in the context of the surrounding built form and existing street furniture. It would not appear visually intrusive or contribute to street clutter, and it would preserve the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6004993 and 6004992

Accordingly, the proposals accord with the requirements of policy D8 of the London Plan (2021) and policy P13 of the Southwark Plan (2022), insofar as they are relevant. Their requirements include that proposals are visually uncluttered, maintain or enhance visual amenity and are appropriate in scale, design, illumination and siting.

Transport for London (Tfl) object to the proposals on the basis of a shortfall in remaining pavement width when measured against their guidance, an alleged failure to contribute positively to the pedestrian environment, and the potential for driver distraction. However, the proposed kiosk would not project any further into the footway than existing bicycle stands and other street furniture already present at the site. As such, the practical effect on available pavement width would be negligible. [name] also refer to the function of the footway for window shopping, the area immediately opposite the appeal site serves as the entrance to [address] rather than a retail frontage. In these specific circumstances, despite a technical shortfall against TfL guidance, I am not persuaded that pedestrian movement or public safety would be materially harmed, a conclusion also reached by the Council.

With regard to potential driver distraction, the street hub would be positioned away from junctions on a straight section of road with good forward visibility. Its orientation would align with the normal line of sight for drivers, avoiding any need to divert attention from the carriageway. In addition, conditions would control illumination levels, prohibit moving images or rapid sequencing, and require minimum display times. Taken together, these factors would ensure that the proposal would not result in driver distraction or give rise to highway safety concerns.

The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions in event of my allowing the appeal. I have considered these against paragraph 57 of the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. Where necessary, I have edited and merged conditions to improve precision, clarity and enforceability.

For Appeal A, in addition to the statutory time condition, a condition listing the approved drawings is required to ensure clarity on what has been permitted. The same applies to Appeal B.

A condition controlling the location of underground works is necessary for Appeal A to protect the roots of adjacent trees and safeguard amenity. However, such a condition is not directly relevant to the display of advertisements under Appeal B.

A separate materials compliance condition is unnecessary, as the approved plans provide sufficient detail and materials are adequately controlled through the plans

An additional condition has been suggested to restrict construction activity on the highway (including the footpath). However, its wording lacks precision and largely seeks to duplicate existing regulations and controls. There is no evidence that the current regulatory framework is inadequate, and the condition therefore fails the test of necessity. Appeal Decision 6004993 and 6004992

Turning to appeal B, all advertisements granted express consent are subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations. Beyond these, I have imposed additional conditions to ensure that highway and public safety is not compromised. Specifically, it is necessary to control the level of illumination and the frequency of change of display of the proposed advertisements, and to restrict other visual effects that could cause distraction to drivers. Despite a lower level of illumination being proposed by Tfl and Southwark’s transport team, I can see no site specific reasons as to why it would not be appropriate to follow the recommendations set out in the Institute of [name] guidelines.

For the reasons given above, both [name] and B are allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 25003589_PLN_LOC_1.1 (site location plan), 25003589_PLN_SI_2.1 (proposed site plan) and 25003589_PLN_EL_3.1 (elevation plan).

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

No trenches, pipe runs or services or foundations shall be dug or excavated within 1 metre of the base of any tree on land adjoining the site, measured from the point at which the tree touches the existing ground level.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 25003589_PLN_LOC_1.1 (site location plan), 25003589_PLN_SI_2.1 (proposed site plan), and 25003589_PLN_EL_3.1 (elevation plan).

The intensity of the illumination of the advertisements permitted by this consent shall be no greater than 600 cd/m2 between dusk and dawn. The screens shall also be fitted with a light sensor designed to adjust brightness to changes in ambient light levels.

The minimum time between successive displayed images of the advertisements permitted by this consent shall be 10 seconds and any sequential change between advertisements will take place over a period no greater than 1 second.

There shall be no moving images, animation, video or full motion images or any images that resemble road signs, traffic lights or traffic signs of any kind before, during or after the display of any advertisement.

The interval between each piece of content on the digital display screens shall take place over a period no greater than one second; the complete screen shall change with no visual effects (including swiping or other animated transition methods) between displays.

The advertising display panel shall have a default mechanism to freeze to a black screen in the event of any malfunction to avoid any flashing error messages or pixilation. ** End of schedule**