Appeal 6004996

Appeal A is allowed and express consent granted for the display of internally illuminated 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/2670. 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 Regulations and the following additional conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Appeal B is allowed and planning permission is granted for the removal of an existing telephone kiosk, and the installation of freestanding [name] 3 unit at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/AP/2669 and subject to the following conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Both appeals concern the same scheme for a free standing street structure, a [address] Hub, with digital advertisements, which would be sited on the footway within the [site address] . [address] Hub would also provide, amongst other things, environmental sensors, small cell mobile connectivity, free public wi-fi and an emergency services button. It is proposed to be sited outside the Morrisons supermarket and would replace the existing phone kiosk. In particular, Appeal A Appeal Decisions 6004995 and 6004996 seeks advertisement consent for the two digital advertisement screens, one on either side of the structure. Appeal B seeks planning permission for the structure itself with its other facilities.

In relation to the appeal for advertisement consent (Appeal A), Regulation 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) 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 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, namely because it is argued that the structure with advertisements would add unacceptable street clutter. I will consider both appeals together under this issue. In terms of the advertisement proposal, the Council has not raised issue with its effect on public safety and I have found no reason to disagree.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including whether or not it would add unacceptable clutter to the street scene within this part of the [site address] Conservation Area.

This part of [site address] (A215) is a busy urban centre with a range of shops, other commercial premises and some civic buildings. The buildings tend to have individually designed frontages and bound this quite long and straight road. This area falls within the [site address] Conservation Area (the CA) which includes the long run of low-rise development adjoining both sides of the road and some streets with some buildings in residential use that extend back from the main road. The significance of this part of the CA derives, so far as relevant to these appeals, from the age, character and form of the buildings which are representative of the historical development of the area from the late 18th century through to the mid- 20th century.

The [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal (March 2016) also explains, with particular relevance to the appeal site, that the buildings on the site of the former [address], Nos. 262-290 (evens) [site address] , have been replaced several times. However, the 19th century building line and plot are still discernible today. The Appraisal details that the most recent redevelopment was in the 1980s, when the Morrisons supermarket replaced eight 19th century houses at Nos. 264-274 (evens) [site address] .

As the site falls within the CA, I am mindful of the duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any land or buildings in a conservation area.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.

Along the length of [site address] there is a mix of many different types of street furniture within the footway. These include bus stops with advertisements, other 1 Section 72(1) of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). Appeal Decisions 6004995 and 6004996 structures similar to the [name] with digital advertisements, phone kiosks, waste bins, lighting columns, traffic lights and their control boxes, and trees. These are all evident along parts of the footways and while in places they may be quite apparent, such additions are a feature that is not generally out of place within this busy commercial street with its pedestrians, regular buses and general traffic, and the wide variety of shop fronts with all their trading activity.

Outside the modern Morrisons supermarket frontage there is a reasonably wide section of the footway which includes an area where there are three public bench seats, two trees, a dilapidated phone kiosk and a small section of railings attached to the building. The phone kiosk would be removed and replaced by the [name].

I have carefully considered the views of The Walworth Society and others objecting to the scheme. However, the proposed [name] structure would be sited within a section of the footway where it would be unobtrusive and in broad association with the trees and the other street furniture nearby. It would replace the dilapidated phone kiosk and its removal would be a visual benefit. Such additions as the [name] on part of the footway are fairly typical of this length of [site address] and given the immediate surroundings with the modern frontage to the Morrisons supermarket, the [name] would not appear as an unusual or unduly prominent feature in this part of the road.

The digital advertisements would be illuminated, including in the evenings. However, this part of [site address] is a busy commercial street with a night time economy and the advertisements would not look out of place with other illuminated features, shop fronts and the wider activity.

I agree with the views of the Council’s Design and Conservation Team who commented as part of the application process and explained that in this case with the location at a busy modern frontage of a supermarket, which is not an historic property and is considered a negative contributor to the CA, that the location of such an advertisement would therefore not give rise to harm to the significance of the CA.

In all the circumstances of this case, the [name] within this part of the footway and adjoining the supermarket, in association with the removal of the detracting visual appearance of the phone kiosk, would not result in a cluttered or harmful appearance. It would be appropriately located within this urban street scene and would not cause cumulative harm with the other street items in the vicinity. Even with the use of the LCD screens, I am satisfied that it would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The duty under s72 of the Act would be met, as well as the requirements of the Framework. In these circumstances I find no harm to the character and appearance of the area. I also consider that there would not be any conflict with the designation of the area as [name] first Heritage Action Zone.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and, in terms of Appeal B, it would comply with Policy D8 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy P13 of the Southwark Plan 2022 which seek, amongst other things, to set the approach to development within the public realm.

In terms of Appeal A, the advertisement proposal, I conclude that there would be no harm to the amenity of the area within this Area of Special Control of Appeal Decisions 6004995 and 6004996 Advertisements. I am satisfied that the advertisements would comply with the requirements of Policy P43 of the Southwark Plan 2022 which covers the criteria for outdoor advertisements and signage.

[address] Hub would be slimmer than the phone box but would extend a little further towards the front of the supermarket when compared with the telephone kiosk. [address] Hub would be positioned broadly in line with the existing street furniture and, even taking into account the railings, would maintain a footway width of approximately 2.5m, which the Council has confirmed would meet the minimum standard set out in the [name]. In these circumstances, and having regard to my observations at my site visit of the position in relation to other street furniture within this straight section of footway, the introduction of the [name] would not cause any undue harm to pedestrian movement or safety.

I have noted the highway objections from consultees, although these did not form a reason for refusal. I am satisfied that within this busy and straight street, and with the structure with advertisements set back from the carriageway edge, that there would be acceptable effect on highway safety for vehicles using this section of [site address] .

I have also taken into account the further concerns of The Walworth Society regarding danger and anti-social behaviour that could result from the [name]. While the [name] would provide a solid structure it would have space around it and be in an open position within the footway such that it should not present a feature that would pose a danger after dark with people hidden from view. In many respects it would be similar to other digital advertisements and bus shelters that are a feature of the area.

The appellant has indicated the removal not only of the phone kiosk that stands on the appeal site, but also another kiosk in [address]. However, this other kiosk is away from the appeal site, does not fall within the red or blue lines of the application plans, and, therefore, I have not been able to take this into account as part of my considerations. In any case, the scheme is acceptable on its merits.

In terms of Appeal A concerning the advertisements, I do not consider that there is a justification for a longer period for the consent than the standard 5 years. The consent is subject to the standard 5 conditions set out in the Regulations and these do not need to be repeated in this decision. The Council and the appellant have suggested other conditions in the event that I was minded to allow the appeal. Both sets of conditions are broadly similar and generally cover important matters that should be included in the consent. I have combined and/or refined the wording in the interests of clarity and coverage.

It is necessary for a condition to limit the level of illumination in the interests of the character of the area after dark. As the maximum illumination level is specified between dusk and dawn, I am not satisfied it is then necessary for the [name] to include, as a requirement of the consent, a light sensor designed to adjust brightness in relation to ambient light levels. Appeal Decisions 6004995 and 6004996

It is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, and highway safety, for a condition to control how the advertisements are displayed so as not to cause an undue distraction. Equally it is necessary to ensure that no advertisement content resembles a traffic sign in the interests of highway safety.

It is not necessary, with the advertisement consent, to attach conditions on how the [name] is constructed, particularly in relation to trenches and the nearby trees, and the finish of any surfaces around the [name], as they relate to the structure itself and not the advertisements.

With regard to the planning proposal under Appeal B, there is a need for the standard time limit and list of plans in the interests of certainty. Most of the necessary requirements that should be controlled by condition concern the advertisements and would be covered by conditions attached to the advertisement consent. They do not need to be repeated on the planning approval.

However, the two trees nearby are important visual features and it is necessary to ensure that no trenching work, pipe runs or services are dug or excavated within 1m of the base of the trees. This is necessary to protect the trees and thereby maintain the character of the street scene. Equally ensuring that the finished surface treatment around the [name] matches the adjacent footway surface is necessary in the interests of visual amenity.

The council has suggested a condition which seeks to maintain the public footway, cycleway and carriageway clear at all times during the works and in relation to maintenance activities, as well as seeking to control where related work vehicles park. The works on the footway would be expected to require a licence from the Highway Authority and therefore these suggested requirements would be controlled more appropriately under these regulations rather than as part of the planning approval. It would also not be reasonable to seek to control the location for the parking of associated vehicles which would also be controlled under separate legislation, especially when having regard to the small scale nature of the works.

There is no need for a condition that specifies the external materials as these are identified on the plans and in the submissions.

In relation to Appeal A, the advertisements would have an acceptable impact on amenity and public safety. In terms of Appeal B, the provision of the [name] would comply with the requirements of the development plan when considered as a whole and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made otherwise. Consequently, both appeals should succeed.

The intensity of the illumination of the two digital display screens shall not exceed [address] metre (cd/m2) between dusk and dawn, in line with the maximum permitted recommended luminance as set out by 'The Institute of [name] '[name] 05/23: The Brightness of [name] including [name].

The minimum display time for each piece of content on the digital display screens shall be 10 seconds. The digital display screens shall not display any moving, or apparently moving, images (including animation, flashing, scrolling, three dimensional, intermittent or video elements). 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 and the display shall include a mechanism to freeze the image in the event of a malfunction.

No content on the digital display screens shall resemble traffic signs, as defined in section [address] Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Site Location Plan 25003596_PLN_LOC_1.1, Proposed Site Plan 25003596_PLN_SI_2.1, Elevation Plan 25003596_PLN_EL_3.[address] [name].

No trenches, pipe runs or services or foundations shall be dug or excavated within 1 metre of the base of any tree on the site or of any tree on land adjoining the site, measured from the point at which the tree touches the existing ground level. All works shall adhere to BS5837: Trees in relation to demolition, design and construction (2012) and National Joint Utility Group, Guidance 10 - Volume 4 Guidelines for the Planning, Installation And Maintenance Of Utility [name] (Issue 2).

Following completion of works, the pavement surrounding the [name] shall be made good to the same condition as the adjacent land. End of Schedules