Appeal 6006386

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

There are 2 appeals concerning refused applications for planning permission and advertisement consent for a smart hub with integrated advertisement screens. Although the appeals are determined under separate legislation, they are intrinsically linked. Therefore, for the sake of expediency, and to avoid duplication, I have dealt with both appeals in the same decision letter.

In respect of Appeal A, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) require that advertisement appeal decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) confirm this approach. The development plan policies referred to by the Council in the decision notice for Appeal A are therefore not determinative with regards to the advertisement, but I have taken them into account as a material consideration where they are relevant. Appeal Decisions 6006384 & 6006386

The main issues are as follows: • For both Appeals – the effects of the proposals on the character and appearance/amenity of the area. • For Appeal B only – the effect of the street hub on pedestrian convenience and mobility.

The appeal site is located to the front of the footpath lining the south side of [site address] . The local area is of mixed commercial and residential character, with the appeal site adjacent a row of commercial buildings. An existing street hub is currently erected in the same position, with the proposal seeking its removal and replacement with an updated version. The proposed hub would be 2.98 metres (m) high, 1.2m wide and 0.35m deep and orientation in the same way as the existing unit.

The principle of a hub in this location has been established, although to my mind the proposed unit would be notably wider than the existing. Moreover, the existing model is tapered towards its base giving it some sense of subservience in the street scene compared to the monolithic profile of the proposed replacement, which would be compounded by its black colour making it appear significantly larger and more solid by comparison. While this would not increase clutter per se insofar as one unit would replace another, this would introduce a larger and more dominant element into the street scene, particular set against the two and 3 storey buildings adjacent.

This harm would be exacerbated by the display screens, and the 77% increase in size over the existing situation is significant. I observed that while the area includes commercial enterprises, advertisements generally consisted of shop signage, very few of which appeared to be illuminated. In this context, the size and prominence of the proposed advertisement screens would make them an intrusive element in the street scene, far more so than is the case with the existing unit. While the luminance of the displays may meet industry best practice guidelines, and conditions may control this further, to my mind the large screens to both sides would be intrusive in an environment that features few illuminations, regardless of whether images would move or flash.

I am informed of other similar hubs that have been allowed on appeal. I have the decision letters of 4 of these, although I note that they are not in the same London borough as the proposals and would no doubt have had their own site specific circumstances which led to the respective decisions. These have not therefore been determinative in my decision, which I have assessed on its own merits.

To conclude, the proposals would harm the character and appearance/amenity of the area. This would conflict with policies DC1, DC9 and DC10 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (adopted February 2018) (HFLP) and D8 of the London Plan (adopted March 2021) (LP). Among other things, these seek to ensure that the siting and design of telecommunications apparatus should minimise impacts upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area Appeal Decisions 6006384 & 6006386 while advertisements which are excessive or obtrusive and adversely affect the character and appearances of the neighbourhood will be resisted.

The siting of the street hub would leave a distance of 3 metres (m) between the edge of the unit and the adjacent building. I am referred to the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) (February 2018) which advises that new street furniture should leave a minimum of 3.5m of clear and unobstructed footway given the Town Centre location. The existing unit evidently already falls short of this clearance, and with the increased width of the proposal this would be eroded further, falling 0.5m short of the required clearance. The proposal would require the removal of the existing and installation of a new unit which would mean it is new development and therefore the SPD guidance is applicable.

I am directed to other guidance1 from the appellant which advises that under normal circumstances a width of 2000mm is the minimum that should be provided, as this allows enough space for two wheelchair users to pass, even if they are using larger electric mobility scooters.

Both documents are material considerations but ultimately guidance only, and the decision on this matter still requires an element of judgement. Furthermore, the latter advises that footways and footpaths should be made as wide as is practicable. At present, there is enough room for pedestrians including wheelchair users to pass comfortably. I see no reason to reduce this gap further, and while it may meet minimum standards of one set of guidelines, the town centre location dictates that the area includes heavy footfall, and minimum standards are not always practicable. This would be particularly the case when wheelchair users are using the hub, which would reduce the available width of the path significantly.

Therefore, I conclude that the increased width of the hub over the existing situation would reduce the usable distance of the footway in this location to the detriment of pedestrian convenience and mobility. This would conflict with policies T1 and T3 of the HFLP and T1, T2 and D5 of the LP, as well as guidance in the SPD. These generally seek to prioritise pedestrian movements relating to the built environment, among other things.

The decision notice refers to policy D10 with regards to this reason for refusal. I have not been provided with a copy of it and as such I am unaware of its relevance to the appeal.

I am informed of the benefits of the street hubs and advertising’s role in funding these benefits. This includes free public wi-fi, free UK calls, USB charging, wayfinding assistance and an emergency services button are continued within the immediate area. The Framework includes a full section on supporting high quality communications networks, and that decisions should support the expansion of these networks.

The appellant has drawn my attention many times to the fact that a hub is existing in the location and any impacts of the replacement unit must be considered against the existing scenario. This would mean assessing the slightly larger size of 1 [name]: A Guide to [name] on Access to Pedestrian and [name] – December 2021. Appeal Decisions 6006384 & 6006386 the unit and larger screens rather than a completely new feature in the area. I agree with this approach, and I have assessed its impacts on this basis. In the same way, the benefits must be treated against the baseline situation. The existing unit appeared to be functional on my site visit and evidently hosts a number of phone calls and wi-fi connections as the appellant points out. I understand that technology may require an upgrade, but there is nothing before me to indicate that it is incapable of these functions anymore. Moreover, there was another street hub to the west near the junction with [address].

[name] acknowledge that there would be some benefits to upgrading the unit, and that advertisement revenue is crucial to ensure these services are free, to my mind the benefits over the existing would therefore be marginal based on the evidence before me and these would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance/amenity of the area and pedestrian mobility that I have identified. Regardless of the Council’s record of refusing applications of this type, I have assessed the proposals on their own merits.

For the reasons given above, both appeals would be contrary to the development plan, albeit in the case of Appeal A this would not be determinative. However, given the harms I have identified, and taking into account the benefits which would not outweigh these matters, I conclude that both appeals should be dismissed.