Appeal 6005266

[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] unit. 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 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 on the Council’s decision notices. The application form refers to ‘[name], Green Lanes’, although the Council refer to ‘ [site address] ’, which is the address that has also been used for publicising the applications. The Appeal Decisions 6005266 and 6005265 appellant’s appeal form also refers to ‘ [site address] ’ suggesting there is no objection to this, and I have used that address in the banner heading for my decisions. 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 part of the pavement to the front of a predominantly two-storey building featuring a group of ground floor commercial premises, which has the flat roof section above set back from their frontages. The site is close to the [address] bus station, with its vehicular entrance and exit points at either end of the building. A similar group of commercial units are nearby, adjacent to the [address] underground station. To the opposite side of the road from the appeal site is a large area of public open space with mature trees that contributes to a verdant character. There is also residential development in nearby streets.

There is limited existing street furniture in the immediate area of the appeal site to the front of the commercial premises, with the most notable element comprising a bus shelter with what appeared to be integrated poster advertisements. Other features include a low-level refuse bin, street lighting, traffic lights and road signage columns. This contrasts with the higher level of street furniture within the public realm surrounding the underground station, including railings to the roadside, refuse bins, cycle stands, a telecommunications mast and cabinets. I observed other communication hub units and digital displays in the wider area, predominantly in the highly commercial setting on and around [address]. However, these and digital advertisements are not prevalent in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site.

The proposal would introduce a large and bulky structure into a relatively open section of public realm, adjacent to a building group lower in height compared to other commercial development in the wider area. Due to its free-standing design, siting, scale and appearance, the proposal would appear as a visually intrusive and discordant structure in the street scene. Its overall design and illuminated digital displays would be prominent and would draw attention, which would exacerbate the adverse visual impact of the proposal. Notwithstanding the existing bus shelter, the proposal would appear at odds with the more open part of the public realm, which is largely devoid of other structures. Despite the proximity to commercial uses, it would also appear out of character with the immediate area. Appeal Decisions 6005266 and 6005265

Whilst the proposal would be close to commercial premises, it would be materially different to the more modest form and appearance of the fascia and projecting signage to their frontages. Advertisements integrated with the bus shelter appeared to comprise static poster displays, and despite their size and visibility, they form part of a larger overall structure. These advertisements are also materially different in appearance to the proposed digital displays of the proposal. The presence of these advertisements would not mitigate the 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 proposal and the display of the advertisements.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have an unduly harmful impact on 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

(the DPD). Amongst other things, these policies aim for proposals to be of the highest standard of design that respects 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 site is within a busy environment given its proximity to the [address] bus and underground stations, the nearby bus stop and commercial uses. In addition to traffic on Green Lanes, buses emerge from an access close to the site onto Green Lanes, and vehicles leave and enter Green Lanes at [address]. Vehicles travelling southbound on Green Lanes past the appeal site use two lanes, which merge into a single lane for a section around the junction with [address]. I visited the site during late morning and observed continuous flows of traffic on Green Lanes, with buses frequently entering and leaving the bus station and using the bus stop. There were high levels of pedestrian flows passing close to the appeal site, which increased when passengers boarded and alighted from buses at the bus stop. The overall level of traffic and pedestrian activity will also likely fluctuate at different times of the day.

There are signalised pedestrian crossings to the northern end of the commercial premises close to the appeal site, over the exit from the bus station and across Green Lanes. There is a non-signalised crossing point with a refuge island over [address] at the point where buses enter the bus station. Road users and pedestrians are required to negotiate this busy environment where drivers will be approaching the signalised junction, may be changing lanes or merging, slowing down to turn into [address], as well as having regard to bus movements in and out of the station and the bus stop, and pedestrians crossing the roads.

The Planning Practice Guidance states that all advertisements are intended to attract attention but proposed advertisements at points where drivers need to take more care are more likely to affect public safety. This includes at junctions, pedestrian crossings or other places where local conditions present traffic hazards. Consequently, the above combination of factors contributes to an environment where drivers will likely need to take more care. A high level of concentration is therefore required from road users in the area of the proposal. Appeal Decisions 6005266 and 6005265

[address] Hub and its advertisements would be sited in a highly prominent position close to the road. It would be sited with one screen facing traffic that would be travelling southbound passing the appeal site, approaching the bus stop and junction with [address]. The other side would be visible to drivers travelling northbound on Green Lanes and joining this from [address] to a lesser degree. Notwithstanding the low general speed of the road, the proposed static nature of the displays and periods of change, road users would have to register changing displays within the immediate busy road environment.

In these circumstances, even momentary distraction to road users, such as those likely to arise from the changing images of advertisements and the proposed illumination, would increase the risk of accidents to the detriment of highway safety. Given the busy vehicular and pedestrian environment, the road layout, the proximity to the bus stop, and the junction and pedestrian crossing point on [address], the proposal would increase the potential for distraction to road users passing the appeal site travelling southbound in particular. This would increase the risk of accidents to the detriment of the safe operation of the highway. Having regard to the proposal and this site context, I am not satisfied that conditions controlling illumination or operational aspects would adequately mitigate this harm or make the scheme acceptable.

Given the width of the proposed [name], its proposed siting and the relatively wide pavement in the area of the appeal site, I am not persuaded that it would create a pinch point that would unduly impede pedestrian movements or reduce the effective width of the pavement to a harmful extent for all users. Whilst there is some street furniture in this area, and notwithstanding periods of high pedestrian activity, there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would be inappropriately located or that the extent of pavement would not allow for sufficient pedestrian permeability.

However, for the above reasons, the siting and scale of the [name] and its digital displays would likely result in a distraction for users of the highway in this location, which would lead to the potential for increased conflict between road users and pedestrians. Consequently, in the absence of compelling evidence to indicate otherwise, I am not satisfied that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its effect on highway safety.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway 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 can be used safely and do not cause a hazard to pedestrians or road users.

The appellant refers to benefits that would arise from the proposal. 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 of 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 Appeal Decisions 6005266 and 6005265 high quality digital infrastructure. Nevertheless, whilst I give them moderate weight, the above benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm in this instance.

I have had regard to the existing communication hub situated close to [address] and Westbury Avenue1. The evidence indicates this replaced a larger telephone kiosk, whereas the appeal proposal would be a new structure in its location. The installed hub is also located in a wider section of pavement in its surroundings, close to existing street furniture, including the large telecommunications mast, a greater concentration of commercial development, and in a less prominent position in relation to adjacent roads compared to the appeal proposal. Whilst it forms part of the street furniture in that area, the schemes are materially different, and its presence does not justify the harm that I have identified or alter my conclusions on the proposal.

The appellant also refers to decluttering through the removal of two telephone kiosks at [address] and [address]. The former has already been removed, whilst the kiosk on [address], which features an integrated advertisement, is within a much more commercial setting than the appeal proposal. Although there would be some benefit in this respect, they are not within the same site context as the appeal proposal. As they do not form part of the appeal site, it is also not clear how removal could be secured through this appeal, therefore I give this limited weight, which would not outweigh the harm.

The proposal draws some support from the development plan and the provision of digital connectivity infrastructure as set out in Policy SI 6 of The London Plan (March 2021). I have also had regard to evidence demonstrating support for infrastructure delivery, relevant best practice and guidance. I also acknowledge applications have been approved across London boroughs and in other parts of the country to install similar 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, 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.