Appeal 6005657

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

There are two appeals on this site, one against the refusal of planning permission and the other against the refusal of advertisement consent. They are intrinsically linked and raise similar issues. To avoid repetition, while considering each on its merits, I have dealt with both in a single decision letter.

The description of the development and advertisement set out in the banner heading above are taken from the application forms. However, for Appeal A the Council’s decision notice describes the proposal as “installation of 1 no. [address] Hub unit” and for Appeal B the Council’s decision notice describes the advertisement as ‘2no. digital 75” display screens, one on each side of the [name] unit’. As these are more accurate descriptions of the proposals, I have determined the appeals on this basis.

In respect of Appeal B, powers under the Regulations to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety.

The main issue in respect of Appeal A is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of non-designated heritage assets.

The main issue in respect of Appeal B is the effect of the proposed advertisement on visual amenity.

The appeal site is on a footway adjacent to [address]. There is a parade of commercial premises on this side of the road which along with the appeal site lie within a designated local centre, main retail frontage and primary shopping area. There is some modest street furniture close to the carriageway, including lampposts, cycle racks and street signs. The opposite side of the street has a more residential character, comprising houses and a primary school.

The proposed slender street hub would be around 2.9m high and 1.2m wide, positioned close to the kerb, providing electronic communications services and with digital LCD advertising screens on each side. It would provide an income and enable the delivery of new technology in line with the appellant’s [name] and [name] (USO).

The proposal would introduce a new substantial sized structure in a prominent location adjacent to a busy road, over 4m away from the commercial buildings on a wide section of pavement which currently accommodates relatively modestly scaled street furniture. Due to its size and freestanding position, the proposed structure would create harmful visual clutter, discordant in the street scene.

The proposed advertisements would be a series of static images with no moving elements or dynamic displays, with the illumination method and speed of change between each advert in accordance with the [name] 2015. As is common in suburban retail parades, nearby business premises have fascia and projecting signs, some of which are illuminated. However, the freestanding nature of the proposed illuminated advertisements immediately adjacent to the road some distance from the shop frontages would appear as a visible and intrusive feature in the streetscene, particularly at night.

The size, position and illuminated nature of the proposed scheme would conflict with the Framework where it seeks high quality places and recognises that the character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited.

There are several locally listed buildings on the opposite side of the road which are non-designated heritage assets in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The significance of the terraced cottages at [address], the detached dwelling at [address] and [name] derives from their traditional architectural form and materials. They positively contribute to the historic character of this part of the street.

The Framework defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is experienced. The locally listed buildings are experienced in the context of the residential, village-like character on this side of the carriageway, set back from the street behind gardens and front parking areas. The appeal site lies on the other side of the road with the commercial parade behind, separated from the heritage assets by the carriageway and on-street parking, and as such does not contribute to the setting and significance of the locally listed buildings.

The proposed street hub would be visible on the east side of the road to drivers of vehicles and pedestrians travelling in both directions. Nonetheless, due to its position perpendicular to the carriageway on the opposite side of the road to the locally listed buildings, the proposed scheme would not interrupt views of these heritage assets, and as such would not harm their setting and significance.

Street hubs are intended to replace existing BT kiosks which no longer meet the USO requirements, but there are no telephone kiosks nearby. Whilst it is indicated that two kiosks from the wider area would be removed, there is no information on the location of these, which limits the weight I can attribute to this matter.

There is reference to a similar street hub allowed on appeal at [address], Croydon in 20231, but that was in an area with a large billboard advertisement, a totem sign and where existing phone boxes were to be replaced. As such, it is not comparable to the scheme currently before me.

Overall, in terms of Appeal A, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area but would not harm the significance in terms of the setting of non-designated heritage assets. As such, whilst it would accord with Policy DM18 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP) which seeks to preserve the setting of heritage assets, it would conflict with Policy SP4 of the CLP and Policy D8 of the London Plan 2021 (LP). Together, Policy SP4 of the CLP and Policy D8 of the LP require development to respect local character and seek to improve and achieve an attractive public realm, amongst other things.

In relation to Appeal B, I conclude that the proposed advertisements would harm visual amenity. I have had regard to policies in the CLP and LP so far as they are material and, in this respect, the proposal would comply with Policy DM18 of the CLP but conflict with Policy SP4 of the CLP and Policy D8 of the LP.

National policies recognise the social and economic benefits of digital connectivity, support high quality telecommunications infrastructure and seek to create inclusive and accessible places. The proposed street hub would provide several benefits to the local community, including free ultrafast public wi-fi, 5G coverage, emergency communication facilities, wayfinding information, mobile phone charging points, free phone calls, public messaging capability and the potential for environmental sensors. Nevertheless, these benefits would not outweigh the harm caused to character, appearance and visual amenity.

The Council did not find harm in relation to highway or public safety. From the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that both Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR 1 Planning appeal refs: APP/L5240/W/21/3285401 and APP/L5240/H/21/3285402