Appeal 6005771

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.

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.

The main issues in both appeals are the effects of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance / visual amenity of the area and (ii) highway / public safety. Appeal Decisions 6005771 and 6005773

The appeal site comprises part of the pavement along Kennington Park Road. The surrounding area is urban in nature, with the street mostly flanked by 4 and 5 storey buildings. There is a row of commercial units on the ground floor of [address] to the west of the appeal site with associated fascia signage, with much of the rest of the street featuring residential properties. The footway here is wider due to the alignment of the adjacent cycle path and the provision of additional paving along the frontage of [address].

The immediate area features various elements of street furniture including a row of cycle stands immediately to the northeast of the site, numerous street and traffic lighting columns, directional signs, utility cabinets, cycle and e-scooter hire bays, an electric vehicle charger, bus shelters (including advertisements), litter bins and an existing [name] kiosk just 70m to the southwest along the same pavement.

The proliferation and clustering of existing street furniture and other structures interferes with views along the road, providing it with a somewhat cluttered appearance and detracting from the otherwise pleasant tree lined street scene. The proposed [name] unit would sit in a prominent position close to the edge of the footpath and at a chicane in the cycle path. Viewed cumulatively with the other street furniture and structures along this stretch of the road it would further contribute to the sense of clutter and detract from the street scene.

In respect of Appeal A, the proposal would therefore have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, it is contrary to Policy D8 of The London Plan March 2021 (The London Plan) and Policies Q5, Q6, Q17 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 well-designed, attractive, uncluttered and coordinated, local distinctiveness is sustained and reinforced, street furniture is appropriate for its site and immediate locality, and 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.

The proposal would also conflict with Paragraphs 139 and 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These paragraphs, among other provisions, indicate that development that is not well designed should be refused, and highlights that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed.

In respect of Appeal B, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would harm the visual amenity of the area. I have considered the policies of the development plan and the Framework so far as they are material and where identified the scheme would conflict with the policies referred to above in this respect.

The appeal site sits adjacent to a protected cycle path which separates from Kennington Park Road just before the junction with [address]. Kennington Park Road is a major arterial route forming part of the [address] Network, Appeal Decisions 6005771 and 6005773 including a designated cycle and bus route, heading towards the centre of Elephant & Castle and central London.

The proposed street hub would sit next to a chicane in the cycle path, with cyclists approaching it almost head on. There is a pedestrian crossing over the cycle path and Kennington Park Road just before the appeal site, which leads to [name] station opposite. The cycle path thereafter rejoins the carriageway once it has passed the appeal site, where it then crosses between a line of parking spaces and the road, before merging with a bus lane.

Given the complexity of the layout and the levels of traffic, it is important that drivers, pedestrians and cyclists are not distracted when navigating this part of the road network. The appeal proposal would introduce 2 large, illuminated displays facing each way along the road, situated close to the edge of the cycle path.

Though the proposals may comply with parts of Transport for London’s Guidance for [name] and [name] 4 March 2013, the guidance clarifies that cases should be considered on a site-by-site basis and locations with tight geometry or major junctions, merges, diverges or pedestrian crossings and located in the urban environment require detailed analysis.

While the adverts would be statically displayed and brightness controlled, the size, proximity, illumination and nature of the displays would invariably draw the attention of passing drivers, pedestrians and cyclists in a location where greater awareness is required. The proposed advertisements would thus increase the likelihood of conflict between road users and therefore pose a risk to public safety.

In respect of Appeal A, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It would be contrary to Policies T2, T4 and D8 of The London Plan. These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure proposals do not increase road danger and the public realm is well-designed and safe. It would also 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, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would have a harmful effect on public safety. I have considered the development plan policies and the Framework so far as they are material and where identified the scheme would conflict with those policies referred to above in this respect.

I recognise that the proposals are associated with the removal of existing BT payphones elsewhere. However, this alone does not overcome the identified harm to the visual amenity and character and appearance of the area surrounding the appeal site, or the harm to highway and public safety. In any event, there is no formal mechanism before me, such as an executed legal agreement, to secure it.

My attention has been drawn to other appeal decisions1 in Lewisham for a similar [name] unit. The full details of that case have not been provided, though it was clearly in a different part of London where the site context and local policy differs. Notably, the Inspector in that case found that [name] would not be intrusive in the streetscape and would be on a part of the road network where users would not 1 Appeal Refs: APP/C5690/W/25/3369838 and APP/C5690/H/25/3369839 Appeal Decisions 6005771 and 6005773 require greater attention. The same cannot be said of the scheme before me, and this does not lead me to a different conclusion on the main issues.

The appeal proposals would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance / visual amenity of the area and highway / public safety. While they may be compliant with other provisions of the development plan, the absence of harm or development plan conflict with respect to other relevant matters weighs neither for nor against the scheme. The proposals would thus be contrary to the development plan taken as a whole, as well as the Framework and the Regulations to control advertisements, for the reasons set out above.

Set against this, the proposals would provide various benefits, including enhanced electronic communication and telephone services, which are supported in principle by the Framework. In addition, the [name] would offer device charging, digital advertising for businesses and other organisations, wayfinding capabilities, public information messaging and location services. It could also provide a platform for other technologies that record and show environmental conditions, including air quality monitoring. Notably, however, there is already a similar installation a short distance along the street.

Ultimately, in the circumstances of this appeal, I consider that these benefits do not outweigh the identified harm or development plan conflict. Accordingly, the material considerations in this case do not indicate that the proposals should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeals should be dismissed.