Appeal 6005096

[name] and B are dismissed.

Appeal A relates to the refusal of planning permission for the proposed hub. Appeal B is in respect of the refusal of advertisement consent for the digital signage which would be an integral part of the hub proposed under Appeal A. I have combined the appeals into a single decision letter as they are intrinsically linked and raise similar issues though I have considered each on its individual merits.

I have amended the description of Appeal A to remove reference to the advertisement. The description of Appeal B is as completed on the application form.

In respect of Appeal B, Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) make it clear that advertisements are subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. While not decisive, I have taken the relevant development plan policies into account as a material consideration.

For appeal A, the main issues are the effect of the proposal on:  the character and appearance of the area, and;  the living conditions of nearby residents with particular regard to noise.

For appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the advertisement on the visual amenity of the area.

The appeal site is located on a wide area of pavement outside a building known as [address] on [address] in Epsom town centre. Given the town centre location, the area is largely commercial in character.

The building outside which the unit would be located is a large, contemporary building with commercial units at ground floor and residential flats on the upper floors overlooking the street. The pavement alongside the building is wide compared to others in the area. It contains several street trees to the mid-point of the pavement, along with other small-scale street furniture including benches, bike stands, bins and a line of regularly spaced bollards alongside the kerb. I agree with the assessment of a previous Inspector (APP/P3610/W/24/3345295) when it was noted that street furniture in the vicinity was understated.

The ‘street hub’ would be a freestanding structure with digital display screens on either side; the display would change at 10 second intervals.

The hub would be located slightly set back from the kerb, between two existing bollards. It would be set some distance away from the adjacent building and consequently would appear as a stand-alone feature in the street scene. Due to its scale and location it would appear as a dominant and incongruous feature and would introduce visual clutter to an otherwise restrained and uncluttered street scene.

Due to its location and scale, I conclude that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Policy CS5 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Core Strategy 2007 (CS) and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Epsom and Ewell Development Management Policies Document 2015 (DMD). Together, these policies seek high quality design which respects local context and visual amenity of the area.

The Council also refer to DMD policies DM14 and DM15 in their reason for refusal. I do not consider they are directly relevant to character and appearance considerations for this appeal given they concern shopfronts and advertisements.

The proposed hub would be located close to the windows of the upper floor flats of [address].

A noise management plan was submitted with the application, stating that average volume settings The average volume settings are 65 decibels at [address] Hub. Volume settings are controlled by the users, although between 9pm and 7am, the volume cannot be increased to greater than 60% of the maximum volume. There is no detail before me regarding a representative day or night-time background noise level at the residential windows closest to the appeal site.

[name] note that the night-time settings would be at lower decibel levels, I cannot be satisfied on the basis of the evidence submitted that the hub would not cause undue disturbance to residents, particularly during the evening and overnight when background noise levels may be relatively low.

I conclude therefore that there is insufficient evidence that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents. As a consequence, the proposal would conflict with CS Policy CS6 and DMD Policy DM10 insofar as they require proposals to have regard to the amenities of neighbours and minimise noise pollution.

Reference was made in the reason for refusal to Policy CS5, which primarily relates to matters of character and appearance. It is not directly relevant.

Whilst the area is largely commercial, this part of [address] does not contain significant internally illuminated fascia or other signage.

The proposed advertisement display would form part of the hub, which I have already found would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Due to its scale, prominent location, and illumination, the electronic display would unacceptably increase visual clutter which would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area.

The advertisement displays would be static, and I appreciate that the rate of image change and illumination of the advertisement displays could reasonably be controlled by appropriate conditions. However, this would not overcome the harm I have identified above.

My attention has been drawn to advertisement displays within bus shelters on [address] and [address], along with a substantial advertisement hoarding on [address]. The nearby hoarding is not readily appreciable from the appeal site and does not significantly influence the character of the immediate area. Similarly, whilst there are several bus shelters along [address], I saw on my site visit that there were none in the immediate surroundings of the appeal site. The presence of these advertisements on nearby streets does not lead me to conclude that the proposal should be allowed.

For the reasons set out above, the proposed advertisement would harm the visual amenity of the area. Insofar as they are a material consideration, the proposal would conflict with Policy CS5 of the CS and Policies DM9, DM10 and DM15 of the DMD. Taken together and amongst other things, they seek to protect character and appearance and require advertisements not to cause demonstrable harm to the surrounding townscape.

Given the width of the footway around the appeal site, there would not be an unacceptable degree of obstruction arising from the location of the hub.

The Council is also satisfied that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of public safety. I have no substantive evidence before me which would lead me to a different conclusion. This matter is a neutral consideration in my determination of both Appeal A and Appeal B.

The appellant has provided a certificate to confirm that the proposal has been designed to comply with the guidelines published by the International Commission on [name] (ICNIRP). In these circumstances, the Framework advises that health safeguards are not something which a decision-maker should determine. No sufficiently authoritative evidence has been provided to indicate that the ICNIRP guidelines would not be complied with or that a departure from national policy would be justified.

I have been referred to 3 appeal decisions (references APP/N5090/Z/22/3296138, APP/N5090/Z/21/3287033 and APP/C2741/W/22/3311620) where the appellant considers that similar hubs have been allowed due to the surrounding visual context even when there are no other digital advertisements in the townscape. However, the acceptability of such structures is highly dependent on the specifics of each site. In this case, the existence of allowed appeals in other local authority areas does not indicate to me that the appeal before me should be allowed; I have necessarily assessed the appeal on its own merits and on the evidence before me.

In respect of Appeal A, paragraph 119 of the Framework states that an advanced, high quality and reliable communication infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social wellbeing. The Framework also seeks to support the expansion of electronic communication networks. The hub would therefore support the Government’s aim of improving digital infrastructure.

The installation is said to fund the removal of up to 2 existing BT payphone kiosks. In this case, the kiosks proposed to be removed are located some distance from the appeal site and in locations of different character and appearance to the appeal site. Due to the location of the other kiosks, their removal would not mitigate the harm I have identified to the appeal site and immediate surroundings. Consequently, in the planning balance, I attach limited weight to the proposed kiosk removal.

The installation would improve communication provision including through Council or other public service messages, free Council advertising, community notice board, discounted advertising for local business groups and their members, with business rates paid providing an economic benefit to the area. It would provide a platform for emergency messaging, contributing to community safety. The Wi-Fi connection provided by the hub would be of high quality, and the touch screens would provide users with links to local services but not with open web browsing. Free phone calls would be available from the hub. I attach moderate weight to these benefits.

It would be energy efficient, with its power drawn from renewable energy sources. It would also provide environmental sensors to measure air quality, noise and traffic, although there is no substantive evidence before me that such monitoring would be required in this location.

The illumination from the street hub is said to provide indirect street lighting which would improve pedestrian safety. There is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that this location requires additional street lighting, given the two lamp columns to either side of the proposed hub. This is a neutral consideration.

The regular cleaning and maintenance of the unit is stated as a benefit of the proposal; I do not regard this as contributing to the benefits of the scheme.

Notwithstanding the benefits described above, I have identified significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and there is insufficient evidence to show that the hub would not harm the living conditions of nearby residents. When taken together, I do not find that the identified benefits would amount to material considerations that would indicate that the proposal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the above reasons, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed.

For the reasons given above the proposed advertisement would be harmful to the interests of visual amenity. Therefore, I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.