Appeal 6005280

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

The two appeals relate to the refusal of planning permission for the proposed communications hub (Appeal A) and the refusal of advertisement consent for the integrated advertisements (Appeal B). I have considered each appeal on its own individual merits, however, given the integral nature of the advertisements to the communications hub and the similarity between the reasons for refusal, it is appropriate to consider both appeals in a single decision letter.

In relation to Appeal B, Regulation 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 identifies that the power to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provision of the development plan, so far as they are material, and any other relevant factors. Therefore, while I have taken account of the policies that the Council and appellant consider to be relevant, these have not been decisive in my determination of this appeal.

The main issue with respect to [name] and B is the effect of the proposals with particular regard to highway safety/public safety.

[address] is a mixed use urban area, characterised by a variety of shops and businesses displaying associated signage, canopies and, in some cases, pavement seating areas demarcated by screens and bollards.

The appeal site comprises part of the [address] pavement and would be located close to an existing bus shelter. An existing telephone kiosk is located further down the road. There are a number of items of street furniture nearby such as lamp posts and litter bins. Two pedestrian crossings sit either side of the bus shelter (one a zebra crossing, the other a pedestrian refuge). At my site visit, whilst representing only a snapshot in time, [address] and its associated pavement and pedestrian crossings were well utilised by vehicular and pedestrian traffic, including regular bus activity.

The proposed development would introduce a communications hub, replacing the nearby existing telephone kiosk. The communications hub would be wider, though less deep, than the existing kiosk. The proposals would include digital advertisements on both elevations of the communications hub facing along [address], capable of changing approximately every 10 seconds.

The concern of the Council is that the proximity of the proposed communications hub to the bus shelter would mask the bus shelter from view. The hub structure is substantial and solid. It would be located north-east of the bus stop. Traffic on this side of the road, including buses, would proceed from a north-easterly direction, meaning the proposed hub would be in the foreground of approaching drivers. Advertisements, by their very nature, are intended to catch the eye and the combined effect of the hub plus the advertisement would be to mask visibility of the bus shelter, which is set back from the road edge.

Policy DM29 states that development should promote measures that increase use of public transport. In relation to Appeal A, by making the bus stop less legible within the streetscene, it works against the interests of the public transport user. Therefore, Appeal A would run counter to the aims of this policy.

In addition, with respect to both Appeals, the combination of the following factors mean that both proposals would be detrimental to public safety. The siting would make it harder for people waiting in the bus shelter to see oncoming traffic and their bus. Hence, they would be more likely to stand closer to the road edge to achieve clear visibility. This would not only inconvenience them, especially during inclement weather, but could necessitate more pedestrian activity, that is potentially somewhat erratic, closer to moving traffic, and thereby raising the likelihood of conflict. This would fall short of the positive impact on highway safety for pedestrian and public transport users expected by policy DM29.

My findings are reinforced by the views of the Highway Authority. I appreciate that their verbal concerns have been relayed by the Council, but that does not render them negligible.

[name] note from the appellant’s statement the intention is for the proposed development to replace the existing kiosk, no mechanism by which to secure its removal as part of these proposals is specified. Moreover, the kiosk is in a different location and so does not have a similar configuration with the bus stop. As such, in terms of pedestrian and highway safety, it is not shown its removal and replacement with the proposal would be beneficial. Therefore, I attach limited weight to this as a public benefit.

The appellant has raised other matters as public benefits including, amongst other things, improved access to wifi, increased tourism and existing kiosks being in need of repair. I acknowledge these but, nevertheless, given the effect on highway safety and public safety, these benefits would be limited and I have not been presented with evidence that they could not be achieved elsewhere without the concerns I have identified. As a result, these matters are insufficient to outweigh the harm.

The appellant has drawn my attention to an appeal decision relating to a different local authority area. [name] have taken this into account, I am not provided with the full circumstances of this case. Based on what is before me, it does not present the same site circumstances as the proposal. Hence, it is not shown to be directly comparable which limits the weight attributed to it. Moreover, each proposal must be considered and determined on its individual merits and the example does not provide a compelling reason why an otherwise unacceptable development should be permitted.

Taken together, the proposals – including Appeal B, insofar as the provisions of the development plan are relevant – would have an unacceptable impact upon highway safety and public safety. The proposals would conflict with Policy DM29 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and Policy T4 of the London Plan (2021) which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure development does not have a detrimental impact on highway safety for pedestrians and public transport users nor increase road danger.

Appeal A would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, Appeal A is dismissed.

For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all matters raised, I conclude that Appeal B would be harmful to public safety, therefore Appeal B is dismissed.