Appeal 6005022

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

The two appeals relate to a single proposed [name] (the Hub) on the same site. Appeal A relates to an application for planning permission and Appeal B to advertisement consent. Each appeal has been considered on its individual merits, but to avoid duplication, they are addressed in a single decision, except where otherwise indicated.

With respect to Appeal B, Section 3(1) of the Regulations limits my considerations to matters relating to amenity and public safety. Policies cited by the Council in relation to Appeal B, are only relevant insofar as they relate to amenity and public safety and have not been determinative in this decision.

For appeal A, the main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and on highway safety.

For appeal B, the main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity and public safety.

[site address] is a well-trafficked route running through [name]. It is lined with trees and characterised by a varied mix of street-fronting buildings, predominantly three-storeys in height, with shopfronts and other commercial premises at ground floor level, reflecting its role and function as a local high street.

The footways on each side of the route are relatively narrow and contain a range of street furniture, including cycle stands, street signs, a bus stop and traffic lights. These elements contribute to the character of a modern shopping environment. However, by reason of their modest scale and functional appearance, they do not have a defining influence on the overall character and appearance of the area.

The Hub would be sited on the footway, adjacent to a modern shopfront and close to a street tree. The Hub would be a freestanding structure with display screens on both sides, primarily for commercial advertising but also capable of community and emergency messaging. Although the Hub would be located close to existing street furniture, it would be noticeably more substantial in size than most of these items, with a more imposing and visually dominant presence. Its prominent position close to the road, combined with the presence of the digital displays, would inevitably draw the eye and be visually conspicuous within the street scene.

While there are existing advertisements in the vicinity, including those on shopfronts, these are not unexpected on a local high street. The Hub, by contrast, would introduce additional visual clutter and reduce the perception of spaciousness within this section of the public realm. It would also partially obscure views of the tree line.

The appellant’s photographic evidence of a former telephone kiosk at the appeal site is noted. However, limited information has been provided regarding its planning status. In any event, that kiosk has since been removed and was of a different size and appearance to the Hub. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that a realistic fall-back position whereby a kiosk could be reinstated at this location so as to support or justify the appeal proposal.

With regard to Appeal A, I conclude that the proposed development would result in a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, it would conflict with Policy D8 of The London Plan (2021) (TLP) and Policy P13 of The Southwark Plan 2019 - 2036 (2022) (TSP) which require development proposals to ensure the public realm is well-designed and responds positively to the existing townscape, character and context.

With regard to Appeal B, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would result in harm to the amenity of the area. This is contrary to the provisions of paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which recognises that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed. Although not determinative, there would also be conflict with Policy D8 of the TLP and P13 of the TSP insofar as they relate to matters of amenity.

Drivers and pedestrians would have a clear view of the Hub, which would display internally illuminated, static advertisements on rotation. In the context of the commercial environment in which the appeal site is situated, any change in the display perceived by drivers would be unlikely to result in significant distraction or an increased risk of accidents. Drivers would reasonably be expected to simultaneously process the presence of the Hub while continuing to monitor the highway.

Furthermore, given that [address] is a one-way street, the Hub would not impede visibility for drivers exiting the street, as such movements do not occur. While the Local Highways Authority indicates that the direction of traffic flow could change in the future, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that such a change is likely. Moreover, there is no dispute between the main parties that the frequency of image changes or luminance levels would accord with the relevant recommendations set out in the Institute of [name] Guidance1.

The siting of the Hub would maintain an adequate width of footway between the adjacent shopfront and the Hub. I observed on my site visit that the Hub would be aligned with existing street furniture and would not therefore present an undue obstruction to pedestrians.

I am mindful of the Planning Practice Guidance2, which identifies junctions and pedestrian crossings as locations for adverts that are more likely to affect public safety. However, based on the evidence before me and my observations during the site visit, including the relative positioning of the Hub, it would be unlikely to be materially more distracting than existing signage and activity along the high street. Overall, it has not been demonstrated that the Hub would give rise to an increased risk to public safety for drivers and/or pedestrians.

With regard to Appeal A, I conclude that the proposed development would not result in an adverse effect on highway safety. Accordingly, it would not conflict with Policy T4 of the TLP and Policies P50 and P51 of the TSP which require development to not increase road danger, to ensure safe and efficient operation of the local road network and to ensure routes meet the needs of all pedestrians. There would also be no conflict with Paragraph 116 of the Framework relating to highway safety.

With regard to Appeal B, I similarly conclude that the proposed advertisement would not result in an adverse effect on public safety. Although not determinative, there would also be conflict with Policy D8 of the TLP and P13 of the TSP insofar as they relate to matters of public safety.

The evidence indicates that the proposal would result in the removal of two older telephone kiosks3. However, these kiosks are not located on the appeal site, and it is unclear how their removal could be secured in the event that the appeal were to be allowed. In any event, I am not satisfied, on the basis of the evidence before me, that such removal would overcome the harm I have identified in respect of the first main issue. Accordingly, the potential removal of kiosks elsewhere carries limited weight in my overall assessment.

The Hub would provide a modern telecommunications unit including 5G capability, free public wi-fi, calling facilities, device charging, wayfinding assistance and a 1 [name] 05/23, The brightness of illuminated advertisements including digital displays by the Institution of [name] (2023). 2 Paragraph: 067 [name]: 18b-067-20140306. 3 Outside [site address] , London [postcode] and [address], Londin [postcode] . community notice board, including for Council use. These features could offer some benefits to the local community. The Hub would also incorporate environmental sensors, insight counting, small cell mobile connectivity and would be powered by renewable energy. It could assist in emergency contact and support services, which could be particularly helpful to more vulnerable users. Measures to ensure durability, to deter vandalism and anti-social behaviour would be proposed, and the Hub would be subject to regular cleaning and remote monitoring. Some limited economic benefits could also arise through advertising revenue and business rates.

Many of these benefits would align with the aims of paragraph 119 of the Framework, insofar as it supports the expansion of electronic communications networks and the appellant also asserts compliance with a range of other documents4 in this regard. Nevertheless, the identified benefits relating to a single Hub would be modest in scale and therefore attract only limited weight. Consequently, they would not overcome the harm I have identified in respect of the first main issue.

Overall, I find that the benefits of the Hub identified above would not outweigh the harm that would result to the character and appearance of the area. For Appeal A, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The display of advertisements under Appeal B would result in harm to amenity.

Appeal A and B: For the reasons given above the appeals should be dismissed.