Appeal 6006353

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit, outside [site address] , [name], [site address] , London, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/00789/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Appeal B Ref: APP/H5390/Z/26/3378202

The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for the removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit, outside [site address] , [name], [site address] , London, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, 2025/00790/ADV.

The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) and the additional conditions in the attached schedule. Appeal Decisions 6006353 & APP/H5390/Z/26/3378202

There are two appeals on this site. Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission for the proposed [name] 3 unit, while Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent for digital advertisements on the same [name]. To avoid duplication, I have dealt with the two appeal schemes together, but each has been considered on its individual merits.

With regards to Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the ‘Regulations’) state that control may only be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety. The development plan policies are not determinative to this appeal, but I have had regard to the policies as cited by the Council in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to the matters before me.

In respect of Appeal B, the Council has not raised an objection in relation to public safety and from the available evidence, I find no reason to reach an alternative view.

For Appeal A the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. For Appeal B the main issue is the effect of the proposal on visual amenity.

The appeal site comprises part of the adopted public highway that already contains a ‘[name]. It is located on a wide and busy main thoroughfare, where a similar street hub is situated a short distance away on the same stretch of pavement. Both existing structures incorporate sizeable digital advertising displays.

Whilst the buildings immediately surrounding the site are predominantly residential, the streetscene contains several nearby commercial premises, including shops, restaurants and a hotel that display associated signage. In addition to the existing street hubs, further advertising displays are present on nearby bus shelters. Consequently, whilst not overly prevalent, the streetscene already accommodates a range of advertising features, including illumination. The area is therefore already somewhat characterised by such visual influences.

The Council has proactively been seeking to reduce street clutter within the Borough. Still, as the proposal would replace an existing street hub in the same location, it would not introduce additional street furniture or materially increase clutter within the public realm.

The proposed structure would be modestly larger than the existing unit to be replaced and would incorporate larger digital displays. However, the increase in scale and bulk would be limited and would not appear excessive when viewed against both the existing structure and the wider streetscape. Whilst the precise materials and finish would differ from the current unit, the proposal would retain a contemporary and high-quality design. Given the width and busy nature of the street, the presence of similar street hubs, and the existing advertisements within Appeal Decisions 6006353 & APP/H5390/Z/26/3378202 the area, the proposal would not appear incongruous, visually intrusive, or unduly dominant.

Accordingly, the proposed development would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area and would not harm visual amenity. The appeal scheme therefore complies with Policies DC1, DC9 and DC10 of the Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan (adopted 2018), as well as London Plan Policy D8 (adopted 2021). Together these policies, amongst other matters, seek for development to be of a high-quality design that respects its surroundings, including requiring advertisements and telecommunications apparatus to be in scale and keeping with the character of their location.

Subject to a condition restricting illumination levels on the digital displays, I do not consider the proposal would have any harmful impacts upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

For Appeal A, in addition to the standard time-limit for commencement of development, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans/drawings for clarity.

For Appeal B, the consent is granted subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulations. I have also imposed further conditions regulating the displays. These relate to intensity of illumination; the use of static imagery; minimum display times; interval and method of change between advertisements including a mechanism in the event of malfunction; as well as prevention of display of imagery resembling road traffic signs. These conditions are each reasonable and necessary in the interests of visual amenity of the area, and to prevent undue distractions to drivers, in the interest of public safety.

I have not found a condition extending the express consent to a period of 10 years to be appropriately justified in this instance.

For the reasons outlined above, and having regard to all matters raised, the appeals are allowed subject to the conditions I have referred to.

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 numbers: - Site Location Plan, [name]. 24007248_PLN_LOC_1.1 - Proposed Site Plan, [name]. 24007248_PLN_SI_2.1 - Elevation Plan, [name]. 24007248_PLN_EL_3.1 Schedule of Conditions – Appeal B Ref: APP/H5390/Z/26/3378202

The intensity of the illumination of the two digital display screens shall not exceed [address] metre (cd/m2) between dusk (local sunset time) and dawn (local sunrise time), in line with the maximum recommended luminance as set out by 'The Institute of [name] '[name] 05/23: The

The digital display screens shall not display any moving, or apparently moving, images (including animation, flashing, scrolling three dimensional, intermittent or video elements).

The minimum display time for each piece of content on the digital display screens shall be 10 seconds

The interval between each piece of content on the digital display screens shall take place over a period no greater than one second; the complete screen shall change with no visual effects (including swiping or other animated transition methods) between displays and the display will include a mechanism to freeze the image in the event of a malfunction

No content on the digital display screens shall resemble traffic signs, as defined in section [address] Traffic Regulation Act 1984