Appeal 6006790

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 6006788 & 6006790

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 Hammersmith Broadway Conservation Area (CA). • The effects of the proposals on public safety and pedestrian mobility.

The appeal site is located on the footpath outside the entrance to the adjacent shopping centre and tube station. It currently includes an existing street hub which would be removed to make way for the proposed unit with integrated advertising screens. The proposed unit would be marginally taller with a larger footprint but most significantly would be wider and have larger display screens than the existing. The footpath at present includes other street furniture such as advertising totems, refuse bins, cycle racks and streetlights.

The site is also within the CA. I have therefore had regard to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which states that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

There is nothing before me to establish the significance of the CA as required by paragraph 207 of the Framework. From all that I have seen and read, this is derived in part from the high quality of its imposing buildings of varying architectural styles and materials which is also telling of the development of the area over the years. Today, the area is commercial in character, but it has retained much of its architectural integrity above street level, such as ornate detailing and traditional sash windows upon former civic and governmental buildings.

In the context of the area, the additional width of the hub over that existing would be relatively minor in its impact given the large scale of buildings, size of the footpath upon which it would sit and other street furniture adjacent. Its black colour would be somewhat stark giving it a more solid appearance overall, as the silver colour of the existing unit matches with other elements in the street scene and has a tapered bottom. On balance however, I do not consider the replacement hub to be harmful in its size or design set against the baseline situation.

With regards to the advertisement screens, while they are significantly larger than the existing, I observed larger advertisement displays in the area, including above the entrance to the shopping centre/tube station, and in shop and café windows. In many views of the screens from various locations in the area, these would be seen against the backdrop of existing displays without appearing overwhelming or harmful.

Taken together, in the context of the location I do not find that the proposed street hub and advertisement displays would harm the character and appearance/amenity of the area, nor harm the significance of the CA. Appeal Decisions 6006788 & 6006790

This would accord with section 72(1) of the Act and policies DC1, DC9 and DC10 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (adopted February 2018) (HFLP). 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 while advertisements which are excessive or obtrusive and adversely affect the character and appearances of the neighbourhood will be resisted.

On my site visit, I observed the local area to be extremely busy with pedestrian footfall and vehicular traffic. The environment was chaotic even in the mid-afternoon hour, outside of traditional rush-hour periods.

With regards to pedestrian mobility, guidance in the Council’s Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (February 2018) advises that a width of 3.5 metres (m) should be retained in town centre locations in order to avoid impeding pedestrian mobility. Even with the addition of around 0.3m width over the existing unit, a distance of 5.4m would be retained. This would be well in excess of the advised, while I observed that the majority of street furniture was concentrated towards the road. The appeal site is in close proximity and as such, I see no reason why the proposal would impede the convenient flow of pedestrians as a result of its installation given it would leave ample clearance.

However, I also observed that due to the orientation of the street hub at present, the advertisement screen would be positioned directly behind traffic lights for motorists approaching the pedestrian controlled crossing from the south. This road was extremely busy at the time I was in the area and at 3 lanes wide, near the confluence of several other roads, and adjacent the entrance to a busy underground station, I saw several near misses between motorists and pedestrians as well as other motorists.

While the images displayed would not move, and luminance is in line with industry standards which could be controlled by conditions, I share the concerns of the Council that this would serve as a dangerous distraction for drivers approaching the crossing in a hectic environment which requires absolute attention on safety. Regardless of the prevalence of hubs and adverts across the country, the position of the display screens in this case could confuse drivers when backdropped against the traffic lights and as such, it would be a danger to public safety. Regardless of the Council’s assessment of another application which it approved1, I am not beholden to this, and I have assessed the scheme before me on its own merits.

Insofar as they are relevant to matters of public safety, this would conflict with policies T1, T3 and DC9 of the HFLP and T1, T2 and D5 of the London Plan (March 2021) (TLP). These seek, among other things, to ensure safe environments for cyclist and pedestrians.

The Council references two listed buildings in its assessment of character and appearance/amenity. These are The George Public House2 and The Swan Public 1 2021/03489/FUL 2 [name]: 1358573 Appeal Decisions 6006788 & 6006790 House3, both of which are grade II listed. The Council did not find harm to the setting of either listed building and, given my conclusion that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance/ amenity of the area, I see no reason to disagree.

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, device 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. I don’t doubt the support in principle for development of this type.

I agree that any impacts of the replacement unit must be considered against the existing scenario. This would mean assessing the slightly larger size of the unit and larger screens rather than a completely new feature in the area. I have assessed the proposal on this basis. On that basis, the benefits must be treated with the same approach. 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 were other street hubs in the area that I also observed.

[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 considerable weight I attach to the potential risk and harm to public safety 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 harm I have identified, and taking into account the benefits which would not outweigh these matters, I conclude that both appeals should be dismissed.