Appeal 6005216

[name] and B are dismissed.

The two appeals are for related proposals on the same site. Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission for the proposed [name]. Appeal B relates to the refusal of an associated advertisement consent relating to two digital display screens on either side, which would be an integral part of the proposed [name] sought under Appeal A. I have considered both on their individual merits, but as they raise similar issues, I have combined these cases into a single decision letter to avoid duplication.

In respect of both appeals, the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

In respect of Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 stipulate that control may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Whilst the development plan policies referred to by the Council are not determinative, I have taken them into account only insofar as they are relevant to amenity and public safety, in respect of Appeal B. Appeal Decisions 6005218 and 6005216

Having regard to the above, the main issues in relation to Appeal A are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area, including the [address] Conservation Area (the CA); and • highway and pedestrian safety.

The main issues in relation to Appeal B are the effect of the proposed advertisements on: • visual amenity; and • public safety.

The appeal site comprises a section of pavement within a predominantly commercial setting within the CA. The proposal would be sited in a highly prominent position to the front of modern two-storey buildings with commercial shopfronts, which are excluded from the CA. Street furniture in the immediate area of the site includes low-level cycle stands, bollards, refuse bins and sections of railings to the roadside. A modest area with tables and chairs was also located to the front of one of the commercial premises. Traffic lights, street lighting and equipment cabinets are also nearby.

The CA is part of the wider [address] [name] that represents a valuable part of the borough’s heritage and makes a central contribution to local character. [address] Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (the CAAMP) highlights the length of [address] within the CA is notable as an example of an essentially late-Victorian commercial townscape. The significance of the CA therefore derives from this townscape, which contributes to its architectural and historic interest. The CA is on the Heritage at [name], and the Council indicates that measures have been taken to improve the area, including consolidating street furniture and removing clutter.

A group of locally listed buildings at [name], described in the CAAMP as one of the architectural highlights of the CA and making a major contribution to the townscape, are close to the site and to the same side of [address]. Late 19th century locally listed buildings are also located to the opposite side of [address] from the appeal site at Nos [address]. Together, these buildings form the principal interest of the townscape in this sub-area, and are of architectural interest that make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

The buildings immediately adjacent to the site excluded from the CA detract from the architectural and historic continuity of the [address]. Notwithstanding these and other negatively contributing buildings opposite, the appeal site contributes to the significance of the CA, forming part of the public realm and a main pedestrian route in this part of the CA. Whilst the appeal site is seen against the backdrop of buildings excluded from the CA, it is also seen in views along [address], including Appeal Decisions 6005218 and 6005216 the view south to the enclosed character of the street, and in the context of and within the setting of the above locally listed buildings.

The proposal would appear as a tall, bulky and modern structure in a prominent location, in an area with relatively limited and predominantly lower-level street furniture. Given its overall scale in relation to the width of pavement in this area, alongside the fixed canopy of the adjacent buildings, it would introduce a notable feature and some further enclosure to this part of the public realm. The illuminated digital displays would exacerbate its prominence, which would be visible in views along both sides of [address]. Consequently, the proposal would result in a visually intrusive and discordant feature within the street scene. Given the linear views along [address] and its proximity, the proposal would also adversely impact on the setting of the nearby locally listed buildings. The visual impact would be increased given the apparent absence of similar structures and illuminated digital displays within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site.

The CAAMP highlights that the character of the CA is being eroded by new infill development of poor-quality design, compounded by signage and advertising hoardings that detract from the appearance of the [address]. Despite the lower quality of the immediately adjacent buildings, for the above reasons, the proposal would further detract from the appearance of the street scene and the setting of the nearby locally listed buildings. It would also undermine aims to improve [address]’s streetscape and the quality of the CA. The proposal would therefore have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, and the contribution it makes to the significance of the CA would be diminished, resulting in harm its significance. Conditions to control luminance levels and operation of the [name] would not be sufficient to overcome the harm caused by the proposal and the display of the advertisements.

Whilst it would be close to existing commercial premises, the proposal would be materially different to the modest form and appearance of the fascia and projecting signage to shop fronts in this area. Given its size and appearance, the proposal would not be satisfactorily absorbed into the street scene in terms of visual amenity. In addition, advertisements integrated with bus shelters in the wider surrounding area are part of a larger overall structure and are not seen within the same site context as the appeal proposal.

The appellant references an existing [name] unit, which is situated much further south on [address] from the appeal site and within the same CA. The full details and planning circumstances of that scheme are not before me, although I note some similarities with the proposal in terms of its position adjacent to buildings excluded from the CA. However, this is in a wider area of pavement and sited further from the roadside and adjacent buildings compared to the appeal site. It is also in an area with a large digital advertisement display and close to a bus shelter with integrated advertisements. These factors are materially different from the appeal site context. The presence of this and other advertisements in the surrounding area would not mitigate the adverse effects of the proposal or justify the harm in this location.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area, and it would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. It would therefore conflict with Policy HC1 of The London Plan (March 2021) (the LP), Policies SP11 Appeal Decisions 6005218 and 6005216 and SP12 of Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013 – 2026 and Policies DM1, DM3 and DM9 of the Development Management DPD (July 2017) (the DPD). Amongst other things, these policies aim for proposals to be of the highest standard of design that respects local context, character and historic significance, make a positive contribution to a place, improving the character and quality of an area, be of a high quality and sensitive to the surrounding street scene, and avoid harm to and ensure the conservation of heritage assets.

As the proposed change would be localised in terms of the CA as a whole, the harm to the significance of the CA would be less than substantial, and the harm would be at the lower end of the scale in that respect. Regardless of the level of harm, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) at paragraph 212 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires the less than substantial harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I consider this heritage balance later in my decision.

The predominantly commercial character of the area surrounding the appeal site and [address]’s function as a main vehicular and pedestrian route contribute to a busy environment. A signalised pedestrian crossing point is situated nearby, and there are two lanes on the southbound carriageway with a bus lane beyond the appeal site, and one lane for northbound traffic. There were high levels of vehicular traffic and pedestrian movements passing the appeal site at the time of my visit, which will likely vary at different times of the day.

Whilst the pavement is not particularly wide at this point, the [name] would be sited to its outer part, and as established above, there is a limited amount of other bulky street furniture in the immediate vicinity. Notwithstanding the busy pedestrian environment, I am not persuaded that the siting and scale of the proposal would create a pinch point that would unduly impede pedestrian permeability or reduce the effective width of the pavement between the [name] and the adjacent buildings for all users to a harmful extent.

The advertisements would be in a prominent location, visible on the straight sections of road approaching the site from either direction. This comprises a relatively straightforward arrangement with a generally low travel speed that does not present significant difficulties for drivers. Despite the nearby pedestrian crossing and bus lane, there is limited evidence that the proposal in this commercial setting would unacceptably distract motorists with resultant harmful conflicts, including for pedestrians and cyclists. In this context, conditions to ensure images are static and to control illumination levels would be appropriate and would mitigate potential adverse effects of driver distraction.

The appeal site is also close to the junction with [address], which had lower levels of traffic than [address]. I have no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that the siting and scale of the proposal would unacceptably restrict visibility for drivers of vehicles exiting [address]. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that the siting and scale of the proposal would interfere with the legibility of traffic signage in the vicinity. Appeal Decisions 6005218 and 6005216

I am mindful of the Council’s Transport comments raising concerns on the proposal. There is also some evidence of accident reports in the surrounding area, although there is no further detail before me in this respect, including the nature of those incidents.

However, for the above reasons, and in the absence of compelling evidence to indicate otherwise, I am not satisfied that the proposal would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on highway, pedestrian and public safety. It would therefore accord with Policies DM2 and DM3 of the DPD. Amongst other things, these policies aim to ensure that proposals protect safe and accessible pedestrian routes, and do not cause a hazard to pedestrians or road users.

I acknowledge that applications have been approved across London boroughs and in other locations for similar [name] units. I also note the officer report1 and appeal decisions2 provided for other similar proposals in different locations. Whilst there may be some similarities regarding matters of character, appearance and amenity, they relate to the replacement of existing InLink units at the sites and so are materially different to the proposal. The full details of those schemes are also not before me, therefore I am unable to determine if they are directly comparable to the proposal. In any event, other schemes will have different circumstances and site-specific characteristics, and my assessment has been made having regard to the effects of the proposal in this location. These do not alter my conclusions.

The proposal also draws some support from the development plan, including provision of digital connectivity infrastructure as set out in Policy SI 6 of the LP. I have also had regard to information provided by the appellant demonstrating support for infrastructure delivery, relevant best practice and guidance. However, these matters do not alter my conclusion on the first main issue.

The appellant contends that the proposal would deliver a number of benefits. These include the replacement and upgrading of existing telephone kiosk services to provide free public Wi-Fi, free UK calls, USB charging, wayfinding assistance, an emergency services button, public service messaging and other digital services. Other features include environmental sensors, insight counting and small cell mobile connectivity, and I note the sustainable design credentials of the proposal.

It would be reasonable to treat the above aims as being public benefits inasmuch that they would contribute to economic, social and environmental objectives set out in the Framework. There is also support within the Framework for advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure and the delivery and upgrade of high quality digital infrastructure. I therefore give these moderate weight.

The evidence indicates that two telephone kiosks have previously been in place at the appeal site. Whilst these were a feature of the area, the removal of the kiosks has resulted in less street furniture in the immediate area of the site, and an apparent improvement in the appearance of the public realm in that respect. Due 1 Planning application ref: 144114/FO/2025 (Manchester City Council) 2 Appeal Decision refs: 3371814, 3371816, 3372034 and 3372037 Appeal Decisions 6005218 and 6005216 to its digital advertisements, the proposal would also be materially different in appearance to these. As the kiosks do not appear to have been in place now for some time, and having regard to the aims set out above to improve the CA, I give limited weight to the suggestion that the proposal would be visually preferable to any legacy unit.

The appellant also refers to decluttering through the removal of two telephone kiosks, including one a considerable distance away from the site and outside of the CA, and the technological evolution of the appellant’s street furniture estate. Given their distance from the appeal site, and as they would not be seen within the same context, removal in those areas would have little effect on the site and its location within the CA. Furthermore, as they do not form part of the appeal site, it is not clear how their removal could be secured through this appeal. Therefore, whilst there would be some benefit in this regard, I give this limited weight.

Having regard to all of the above, the public benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the great weight that I must give to the conservation of the designated

Notwithstanding my findings in respect of highway, pedestrian and public safety, the proposed development, insofar as it relates to Appeal A, would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and would not meet the requirements of the Framework. The material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.