Appeal 6005332

[name] and B are dismissed.

Both proposals are described as the installation of 1 no. [address] Hub unit and removal of associated BT payphones. Appeal A relates to the installation of the communication hub unit while Appeal B relates to the installation of advertisement panels on the unit. I have dealt with the appeals on this basis.

With respect to Appeal B, whilst the Council has referred to relevant development plan policies in its decision notice, Paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts. I have taken account of the development plan policies where relevant to the main issue in this case, but they have not been determinative in my assessment of Appeal B. Appeal Decisions 6005331, 6005332

The main issues for Appeal A are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and public safety.

The main issues for Appeal B are the effect of the proposal on visual amenity and public safety.

The appeal site is located on a wide pavement outside of a large building, with the character of the immediate environment being predominately commercial. The pavement close to the site hosts trees and streetlights. However, the existing BT payphone which is to be replaced by the [name] had already been removed at the time of my site visit and thus was not part of the street scene at that time. The large building is set back from the street which, together with the width of the pavement and the removal of the previous payphone, creates a degree of openness in an otherwise densely built-up area.

Section 4.2 of the Croydon Public Realm Design Guide states that street furniture should make a positive contribution to the area, should not impede access or add to visual clutter, and should reflect and enhance distinctive local character.

Although the style of the [name] would be plain and simple, the addition of the mass of the proposed approximately 2.98m high unit would result in an increasingly cluttered appearance to the pavement and wider street scene and, furthermore, would consequently reduce the spaciousness around the appeal site. As such, the proposed [name] would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

My attention has been drawn to a proposed [address] hub and associated advertising screens which were allowed on appeal in Birmingham1. However, these appeals involved the replacement of an in-situ telephone kiosk, which is not the case in the appeal before me. I am therefore not persuaded that the appeals in Birmingham are directly comparable to the current proposal, which has been determined on its own merits.

The proposed communication unit would therefore conflict with policy SP4 of the Croydon Local 2018 (CLP) and policy D8 of the London Plan (March 2021) (LP), insofar as they require development to respect and enhance local character, and to contribute positively to the public realm and townscape.

There is a considerable width of pavement around the appeal site, and during the time of my site visit the pavement was moderately busy with pedestrians. Given the substantial amount of pavement around the site, the proposed [name] would not cause any significant obstruction to pedestrians and therefore would not cause any harm to highway safety.

The proposal therefore accords with CLP policy DM29 and LP policy T4, insofar as they require development to not have a detrimental impact on highway safety. 1 Appeal refs. APP/P4605/W/22/3311745 & APP/P4605/W/22/3311745 respectively Appeal Decisions 6005331, 6005332

The proposed [name] would provide benefits including free Wi-Fi and 5 G capability, free telephone calls, public messaging and other digital services. However, these benefits would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area.

The busy character of [address] and the number of fascia signs, projecting signs and advertisements in the vicinity contribute to the varied and vibrant appearance of the area. The existing advertisements and signs in the immediate area are modest in scale. The Council accepts that the proposed advertisement would not result in harmful levels of light pollution and based on the evidence before me I have no reason to disagree.

However, the proposed advertisement would be larger than the existing advertisements and signs nearby and, furthermore, would be situated where there are no other digital advertisements in the immediate vicinity. As such the proposed advertisement would be at odds with the nature of the existing advertising in the immediate area and would be a garish addition to the street scene. The proposed digital unit would therefore cause harm to the visual amenity of the area.

The proposed advertisement would form part of the [name] unit proposed in Appeal A above and would not be a separate structure. Therefore, for the reasons described in Appeal A, the proposed advertisement would not cause a significant obstruction to users of the footpath and consequently would not cause any harm to highway safety.

For these reasons, while the proposal would not cause harm to highway safety, I conclude that the advertisement would cause harm to the visual amenity of the area.

As detailed above both of the appeals would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the proposal in Appeal A conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that both [name] and B should be dismissed.