Appeal 6005234

[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 for 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 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.

The address used on the application form for both appeals differs from that used in the Council’s decision notices. The application form refers to ‘ [site address] , [site address] ’ and the Council refers to ‘O/[name]. [address]’. Comments on the correct address and postcode for the appeal site were sought Appeal Decisions 6005234 and 6005233 from the parties. Based on the appellant’s response and the evidence before me, I have used the address in the banner heading for my decision. The location of the appeal site is also clear from the application and appeal submissions. I am satisfied that no parties have been prejudiced, therefore I have determined the appeals accordingly.

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; and • highway and pedestrian safety.

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

The appeal site comprises a section of pavement to the front of a group of single-storey, flat roof commercial premises with modern shop fronts. There is limited street furniture in the immediate area of the appeal site fronting this group, with a small cycle stand within the pavement. A small moveable advertisement was also in this area, with tables and chairs immediately to the front of two premises. A modest refuse bin, bench and taller street lighting to the same side of the road are further away from the group’s frontage. Commercial shop frontages to the ground floor of the three-storey buildings are directly opposite the site, and there are other commercial premises in the wider area. Poster billboard displays were evident to the side gable end of a three-storey building and under a nearby railway bridge facing the road, as well as advertisements to a bus shelter beyond the bridge.

[address] Hub would be sited towards the edge of the pavement in a prominent position adjacent to the roadside. Given the limited amount of street furniture, it would introduce a large and bulky structure into a more open part of the public realm in this area. Due to its free-standing design, siting, scale and appearance, the proposal would appear as a visually intrusive and incongruous structure in this section of pavement and in the street scene. Its scale and design would be prominent, and the illuminated digital displays would draw attention, increasing the adverse visual effects. Despite the three-storey buildings opposite, the proposal would primarily be seen within the context of the adjacent single-storey premises. The scale and position of the proposal would therefore be at odds with the height of this group, the extent of pavement and the low-level street furniture, which would exacerbate its prominence and visual impact in this location.

Although it would be in close proximity to commercial premises, the proposal would be materially different to the more modest form and appearance of the existing fascia and projecting signage to the shop fronts. In addition, advertisements integrated with the bus shelter referred to by the appellant appeared to comprise static poster displays. Despite their size and visibility, these Appeal Decisions 6005234 and 6005233 are part of a larger overall structure. They are also materially different in appearance to the proposed digital displays of the proposal, which are not prevalent in the area. The presence of these, the billboards and other shopfront advertisements would not mitigate the resultant adverse effects of the proposal or justify the harm in this location. In addition, conditions to control luminance levels and operation of the displays would not be sufficient to overcome the harm caused by the proposed structure and the display of the advertisements in this position.

I conclude that the proposal would be materially harmful to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy SP11 of Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013 – 2026 and Policies DM1 and DM3 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 its local context and character, make a positive contribution to a place, improving the character and quality of an area, and be of a high quality and sensitive to the surrounding street scene.

The predominantly commercial character of the area of the appeal site contribute to a relatively busy environment in comparison to residential areas further away. I observed moderate levels of traffic and pedestrian movements passing by the appeal site during my visit in the early afternoon, with a notably higher pedestrian flow for a period, including groups of people, using the pavement close to the appeal site. These movements will likely fluctuate at different times of the day, including in relation to events at the stadium further to the east.

[address] Hub would be sited close to the outer edge of the pavement and near to an informal pedestrian crossing point over the road. A loading area is delineated by different surface materials to the pavement to the front of one of the nearby commercial premises, which would limit the available width when in use. Despite the extent of pavement indicated on the submitted plans, the Council’s Transport comments highlight that a strip of land fronting the commercial properties is private land and not adopted highway, which has not been disputed by the appellant. This strip is distinguished from the adjoining pavement where the proposal would be sited by the surface material. Consequently, this would appear to reduce the width of the available public footway below that indicated on the submitted plans.

The proposal would introduce a larger element of street furniture to this area in comparison to other elements, including the adjacent cycle stand, and would create a new obstacle and pinch point in the pavement. Even if bicycles were attached to the existing stand, the proposal would result in a large obstacle in close proximity. [name] acknowledge the appellant’s reference to Department for Transport and Transport for London guidance, from the evidence before me and my observations on site, I am not satisfied that the proposal would provide sufficient pavement width in the immediate area, or allow for unimpeded permeability through this part of the public realm for all users, particularly at times of higher activity. Therefore, the proposal would not provide a safe and accessible route and would likely result in inconvenience for pedestrians with an adverse impact on such movements in this area.

The advertisements would be in a prominent location that would be visible on the sections of road approaching the site from either direction. Even with the adjacent Appeal Decisions 6005234 and 6005233 pedestrian crossing, this comprises a relatively straightforward arrangement with a generally low travel speed that does not present significant difficulties for drivers. Pedestrians choosing to cross in the area around the appeal site would likely do so when the roads are clear, which would limit the potential for the advertisements to distract drivers and other highway users, or restrict visibility and increase the risk of conflicts. There is limited evidence that the [name] and advertisements in this commercial setting would unacceptably distract motorists at this point with resultant harmful conflicts with pedestrians or other road users. In this context, conditions to control illumination levels and changing images would be appropriate and would also mitigate potential adverse effects of driver distraction.

The site is reasonably close to the junction with [address], which had lower levels of traffic than the road passing the appeal site at my visit. Given the bend in the road as vehicles travel eastbound towards the appeal site and this junction, I have no compelling evidence to sufficiently demonstrate that the siting of the proposal would unacceptably restrict visibility for drivers 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.

[name] am not satisfied there would be harm with regard to driver distraction and visibility, for the reasons stated, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway, pedestrian and public safety. It would therefore conflict with Policies DM2 and DM3 of the DPD. Amongst other things, these policies aim to ensure that proposals protect safe and accessible pedestrian routes, should not impede pedestrian permeability and do not cause a hazard to pedestrians.

The appellant states that the proposal would deliver a number of benefits. These include the provision of 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 acknowledge the sustainable design credentials of the proposal. These would contribute to the economic, social and environmental objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (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. However, whilst I give them moderate weight, these benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified of the proposal in this location.

The appellant also refers to decluttering through the removal of two telephone kiosks that are a considerable distance from the appeal site. Whilst there would be some benefit in this respect, they are not within the same site context as the appeal site. Furthermore, as they do not form part of the appeal site, it is not clear how their removal could be secured through this appeal. I therefore give this limited weight, which would not outweigh the harm.

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 London Plan (March 2021). I have also had regard to information provided by the appellant demonstrating support for infrastructure delivery, relevant best practice and guidance. In addition, I acknowledge that applications have been approved Appeal Decisions 6005234 and 6005233 across London boroughs and in other parts of the country to install [name] units. However, each site and scheme 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 matters do not alter my conclusions.

The proposed development, insofar as it relates to Appeal A, would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. The material considerations, including the Framework, 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.