Appeal 6006510

Appeal A is allowed and express consent is granted for ‘two digital 75-inch LCD display screens, one on each side of the [name] unit’ at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of application ref: 2025/00704/ADV. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the following additional conditions:

The intensity of the illumination of the advertisement screens permitted by this consent shall be within that recommended by the Institute of [name] in its [name] 05/23 ‘The

The digital display screens shall not display any 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 Appeal Decision 6006509 and 6006510 other animated transition methods) between displays, and the display will include a mechanism to freeze the image in the event of a malfunction.

Appeal B is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘the proposed removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit’ at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application ref: 2025/00703/FUL, subject to the following

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 the following plans and drawings: Site Location Plan, [name]. 24007253_PLN_LOC_1.1; Elevation Plan, [name]. 24007253_PLN_EL_3.1; Proposed Site Plan, [name]. 24007253_PLN_SI_2.1; [address] [name].

The development hereby permitted shall at all times be operated in full accordance with guidance in the following documents: [name] Management Plan Version 3; Street Hub Noise Management Plan Version 2.

Prior to the installation of the street hub hereby approved, the existing hub at the appeal site shall be removed in its entirety and disposed of responsibly. The street surface should then be made good to match the adjoining footway surface materials.

Should the street hub hereby permitted no longer be required or become defunct, it shall be removed as soon as practicable thereafter and the land reinstated to its former condition

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 Decision 6006509 and 6006510

The main issues are as follows: • The effects of the proposals in both appeals on the character and appearance/amenity of the area with particular regard to the settings of designated heritage assets. • The effects of the proposals in Appeal A on public safety.

The appeal site is located on the footpath on the south side of [site address] (A402). It currently includes an existing street hub which would be removed to make way for the proposed hub and advertisement screens. The proposed unit would be marginally taller with a larger footprint but most significantly would be approximately 34 centimetres (cm) wider and have 77% larger display screens than the existing. The footpath at present includes other street furniture such as cycle racks, refuse bins, bus stops and streetlights.

The site is adjacent the boundary of the Shepherd’s Bush Conservation Area (CA). While the setting of a conservation area does not have statutory protection, I have had due regard to paragraph 208 of the Framework which states that a decision maker should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal including by development affecting its setting.

The appellant has not, as a minimum, established the significance of the CA as required by paragraph 207 of the Framework. From all that I have seen and read, the character and appearance, and thereby significance of the CA, is derived from the orientation around [site address] , which is an area of open green space within a busy and densely developed locale. Furthermore, the quality of built form within the CA, particularly to the northern side of the green along [address], is a striking feature formed of long terraces of 3 storeys with commercial properties at street level and brick facades above which feature fine detailing.

I am mindful of the definition of setting given in the Framework, which advises that this includes the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. It goes on to state that its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Moreover, elements may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of a heritage asset.

Given the proximity of the appeal site to the CA, I don’t dispute that it would be within its setting. However, built form to the south of the green is decidedly more modern, formed of glass and metal commercial buildings with high rise flats behind. This part of its setting therefore makes a neutral contribution to the significance of the CA.

Furthermore, the appeal site is adjacent a war memorial1, which is a grade II listed building located to the east side of [site address] . With respect to Appeal B, I have had regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which states that in considering whether to 1 [name]: 1392026 Appeal Decision 6006509 and 6006510 grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The memorial evidently dates from 1920 and includes a depiction of a saint mounted on a plinth as well as plaques commemorating those lost in both world wars. The special interest of the listed building is derived from its historic and architectural interests. Historic interest is mostly drawn from its association with the two world wars, while its architectural interest is derived from the craftsmanship and traditional form as seen in many similar monuments around the country.

The immediate setting of the listed building is largely formed of the curtilage surrounding the memorial which is demarked by railings. It includes benches and is a space within which to contemplate the significance of the memorial and its purpose in commemorating those lost in the wars. The wider setting includes the remainder of the green to the west which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the listed building due to its community use and verdant character within what is otherwise a busy, loud and somewhat hectic urban area. [name] don’t dispute that the appeal site could be considered within the setting of the listed memorial, as with the conservation area the general vicinity of the south side of the road makes a neutral contribution to its significance.

Built form in the general area of the appeal site is 3 storeys high and, in this context, the additional width and height of the hub over that existing would be of minimal impact. Compared to the silver colour of the existing hub, the black and more solid composition of the proposal would be somewhat stark, although it would resemble the bus stops in this regard. However, to my mind overall the changes are relatively minor within the context of the area, and I do not consider the replacement hub to be harmful in its size or design as a result.

With regards to the advertisement screens, while they are significantly increased over the existing, I observed larger advertisement displays in the area, including said bus stops. [name] understand the concerns of the Council regarding proliferation, the proposal would not increase the number of advertisement displays as such. The larger screens would be well contained within the street scene and when travelling along the footpath or driving on the road opposite, it would not appear overwhelming or harmful in this location.

Taken together, in the context of the location I do not find that the street hub and advertisement displays would harm the character and appearance/amenity of the area, or the settings of either the CA or listed building.

This would accord with section 66(1) of the Act and advice in the Framework, and policies DC1, DC9 and DC10 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (adopted February 2018) (HFLP) or D8 of the London Plan (TLP) (adopted March 2021). Among other things, these seek to ensure that the significance of the borough’s historic environment is preserved by protecting, restoring and enhancing its heritage assets. These assets include listed buildings and conservation areas. Appeal Decision 6006509 and 6006510

The A402 road runs west past the appeal site and is a one way route. The existing hub at the appeal site is aligned with bus stops and other street furniture towards the front of the footway. The bus stops include advertising screens, while there is another hub to the east with the same size screens as that currently occupying the appeal site.

I have had regard to the concerns of the Council, and I note that the local highways consultee has objected to the scheme due to concerns that the display of adverts could distract drivers. Indeed, I observed the road to be heavily trafficked even in the mid-afternoon hour of my visit. Moreover, buses would be pulling up to stops to allow passengers to on or off.

However, the road is one way and straight with a low speed limit. The advertisement screen at present is not behind traffic lights, nor is it any larger than the existing screens on the bus stops. While the proposal would increase the screen size it would not appear dominant in the location. As such, I do not find they would be a distraction to drivers in this context and would therefore not harm public safety.

Insofar as they are relevant to this matter, this would accord with policies T1 and T3 of the HFLP and T1, T2 and D5 of TLP. These generally seek to ensure highway and pedestrian safety in the transport network of London.

The Council has not suggested conditions, although the appellant has and I have had due regard to these. With regards to Appeal A, I will draw the attention of the main parties to the 5 standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulations which apply to all advertisements granted express consent. These include prohibiting the interpretation of traffic signs; ensuring the advertisement shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site; ensuring any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public; and when removed, that the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity. As such, additional conditions suggested which would cover these matters are unnecessary.

Additional conditions to control illumination levels, prohibit moving images, the time each advertisement is displayed, and fast changeover of displays are necessary in the interests of the amenity of the area and public safety. Express consent is automatically granted for 5 years as per the Regulations, although this is at the discretion of the decision maker if specified. A further condition requesting the advertisement be displayed for 10 years is requested, although there is no justification for this and as such, I see no reason to impose this as it would not be reasonable. Consent it therefore granted for the standard 5 years.

With respect to Appeal B, the standard time limit and approved plans conditions are necessary to provide clarity for all parties. Additionally, conditions to control matters including maintenance, anti-social behaviour and noise as outlined in the supporting documentation is specifically attached to ensure the character and appearance of the area is not harmed. Further conditions to specify that the hub shall be removed as soon as practicable following cessation of its use and the Appeal Decision 6006509 and 6006510 pavement surrounding the hub shall be made good to the same condition as the adjacent land is necessary to ensure the character and appearance of the area is maintained following its removal.

For the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B should be allowed, subject to the conditions in my formal decisions.