Appeal 6005760

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of 3no. associated BT payphones at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03853/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 001 [name] (SITE LOCATION MAPS) 002 [name] (PROPOSED SITE PLAN) 003 [name] (EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS) 003-[name] ([name])

The development hereby permitted shall be installed and maintained at all times thereafter in accordance with the details specified within the documents titled: [name] V2.2 November [address] Hub Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan Version 3 April 2021 Declaration of Conformity with Public RF Exposure Guidelines of the International Commission on [name] (“ICNIRP”) Date: 28/11/2025

Prior to the installation of the approved [name] to which this decision relates, the kiosk opposite the [name], [address], London [postcode] shall be removed.

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of the two digital 75-inch LCD display screens, one on each side of the [name] unit at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03854/ADV, dated 10 December 2025. The consent is for 10 years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations and the following additional conditions:

The intensity of the illumination of the advertisement permitted by this consent shall be no greater than 600 cd/sqm during the hours of darkness at any time, or exceed the relevant levels set out in the Institute of [name] 05 (PLG 05) Brightness of [name] (or its equivalent in a replacement Guide), whichever is the lower. The levels of luminance on the digital sign should be controlled by a light sensor to measure the ambient brightness and dimmers to control the lighting output to within agreed limits.

The advertisement permitted must not have any intermittent light source, flashing or moving features, animation, special effects (including noise, smell or smoke) or exposed cold cathode tubing.

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.

In respect of both appeals, two site location plan documents1 have been submitted with identical reference numbers and dates. However, one includes a ‘Detailed Site Location’ plan drawing with the red line of the application site encompassing the pavement site of the proposed [name] and that of an existing payphone kiosk to the north. For the avoidance of doubt, this is the site location plan considered through this appeal and referenced in the formal decision above. The other plan shows a small red box in the middle of [address] and has been discounted as not applicable to the appeal scheme.

In respect of Appeal B, the Council has drawn my attention to the policies it considers to be relevant to this appeal, and I have taken them into account as material considerations. However, powers under the Regulations to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. In my determination of this appeal the Council’s policies have not therefore, by themselves, been decisive. 1 001 [name] (SITE LOCATION MAPS) Date 24/11/2025

The main issues in both appeals are the effects of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance / visual amenity of the area, including the setting of the adjacent Conservation Areas (CAs) and Listed Buildings (LBs), and (ii) highway / public safety.

The appeal site is located along [address], on a section of pavement in front of the residential buildings of the [name]. The site is close to, albeit outside of, the boundaries of the Stockwell Park CA opposite the site, and the [address] CA further to the southwest along [address]. Furthermore, several [name] stand opposite the site at 159 and [address], 163 and [address], and 167 and [address].

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting. Section 72(1) of the Act requires special attention be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The area surrounding the site is urban in character. South and east of the site, within the CA boundaries, the buildings are predominantly 3 and 4 storeys and of traditional design and scale. To the north and west are the large residential blocks of the [name], which are taller and more contemporary in design, though these are set back from the footpath behind a triangular green space. This contributes to a sense of openness on this part of the road, while the trees in this area and lining the rest of the street give it a somewhat verdant appearance.

In so far as it relates to this appeal, the significance of the CAs and LBs is derived from their traditional architecture and composition. The Stockwell Park CA has a general air of ordered spaciousness, with elegant high-quality houses set in pleasant gardens and complemented by mature greenery. [address], the [address] CA shares similar characteristics. The LBs opposite the site are likewise listed for their traditional design features and finish, while the openness of the area and mature landscaping positively contribute to their setting.

There are several commercial units in the vicinity of the site with associated fascia signage, albeit much of the rest of the street features residential properties. The footway around the appeal site is relatively wide and mostly free of street furniture and clutter, with the notable exception of the streetlights, a traffic sign, traffic lights and a utility cabinet. A phone box and a post box sit further down the street albeit these are set back into the adjacent green space.

The proposed [name] unit would sit towards the edge of the pavement, similar to the existing lighting columns and mature trees. This would provide order to the layout of the footway and a degree of screening in long distance views. While it would introduce an additional element of street furniture and digital adverts into the street scene, such installations are not uncommon in a busy urban setting, with examples elsewhere further along this route. Given the openness of this area and limited street furniture nearby, it would not appear cluttered or otherwise detract from the prevailing open and verdant character of this part of the road.

I have found that the proposal would not detract from the prevailing characteristics of the street scene. It would not unduly interrupt views of the CAs or the listed buildings, nor would it have a harmful effect on how these are experienced. Consequently, the proposal would have a neutral effect on the setting of the adjacent CAs and LBs.

In respect of Appeal A, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the adjacent CAs and LBs. It would be in accordance with Policies Q5, Q6, Q17, Q20, Q22 and T9 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 [name] 2021 (the Local Plan). These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure that the public realm is attractive, uncluttered and coordinated, local distinctiveness is sustained and reinforced, street furniture is appropriately sited, and the setting of listed buildings and conservation areas is protected. They also seek to ensure that advertisements do not harm amenity but are well integrated into their context, contribute positively to the local scene and do not add unacceptable street/visual clutter.

It would also comply with paragraphs 117, 119, 135 and 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), in respect of their aims of creating attractive places, avoiding unnecessary street clutter, supporting high quality communications and ensuring advertisements are well sited and designed.

In respect of Appeal B, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would not unduly harm the visual amenity of the area. I have taken into account the policies of the development plan and the Framework so far as they are material, and the scheme would comply with the policies referred to above in this respect.

[address] is a major arterial route forming part of the [address] Network, including a designated cycle and bus route, heading towards central London. The appeal site sits toward the edge of the footpath, adjacent to the shared cycle and bus lane, however it is situated some distance from the pedestrian crossings and junction at the intersection of [address], Stockwell Park Road and [address].

The proposed [name] would introduce new illuminated displays into the street scene. However, due to their size and distance, the displays would not feature prominently in the view of approaching northbound motorists or cyclists until they had passed the junction and pedestrian crossings.

Transport for London (TfL) objected to the proposals due to the potential distraction to road users, the associated risk of accidents, and the loss of footway space.

[name] recognise that adverts are generally designed to attract attention, the [name] would be situated along a straight part of the road with good visibility and where road users would not be required to undertake complex or demanding manoeuvres that may require greater concentration. Moreover, the advertisements would be statically displayed, and the level of illumination can be controlled through the use of planning conditions.

[address] Hub would sit towards the edge of the footway and would be of modest width compared to the overall width of the pavement in this location. It would therefore not create a significant obstruction to the movement of pedestrians. Notably, the Council’s Highways section did not object to the proposals.

While concerns have also been raised regarding conflict arising from the 24-hour use of the adjacent bus lane and the practicalities of the unit’s installation and ongoing maintenance, this is ultimately a matter between the appellant and the Local Highway Authority that is responsible for the footway and carriageway.

In respect of Appeal A, the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on highway safety. It would be in accordance with Policies T2, T4 and D8 of the London Plan and Policy T9 of the Local Plan. These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure the public realm is well-designed and safe and proposals do not cause an obstruction or increase road danger. It would not conflict with Paragraph 116 of the Framework, which indicates that development that has an unacceptable impact on highway safety should be refused.

In respect of Appeal B, the proposed advertisement would not have a harmful effect on public safety. I have taken into account the policies of the development plan and the Framework so far as they are material, and the scheme would comply with the policies referred to above in this respect.

Interested parties have raised concerns regarding the potential for the development to encourage vandalism, antisocial behaviour and crime. While comments regarding existing issues in this area are noted, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the proposals would result in an increase in such activity. The appeals are supported by an Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan which recognises the potential for misuse of the installation and sets out measures to prevent this, including anti-social call restrictions, a reporting procedure for incidents that do occur, and collaboration with local stakeholders to resolve issues and implement any necessary technical changes. Notably, the [name] out [name] stated that they saw no policing reason to object to the applications.

The parties have suggested conditions should the appeals be successful. I have considered these and amended where appropriate in view of the provisions of the Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance and the Regulations.

In respect of Appeal A, in addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans and documents to provide certainty. A condition is also required to secure removal of the existing payphone kiosk prior to installation of the [name], as per the terms of the application.

TfL has suggested an additional condition to ensure that the footway and carriageway are not blocked during installation works and that vehicles should only park/stop at permitted locations and in accordance with existing on-street restrictions, however this can be adequately controlled by other means.

In respect of Appeal B, the 5 standard conditions set out in the Regulations apply to all advertisements consented in England. It is not necessary for me to repeat these conditions on this decision. However, the appellant should ensure they are familiar with the 5 standard conditions set out in the Regulations.

Additional conditions are required to limit the level of illumination of the proposed advertisements during the hours of darkness and to ensure the display remains static with no intermittent lighting, special effects or exposed cold cathode tubing, which may increase the level of distraction for passing cyclists and motorists. This is to safeguard the amenity of the area and public safety.

For the reasons given I conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B are allowed.