Appeal 6006857

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 Decision 6006850 & 6006857

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 designated

The appeal site is located on the footpath on the south side of [site address] (A315). 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 cycle racks and streetlights.

The site is also within the Hammersmith Broadway Conservation Area (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.

I do not have a heritage assessment before me which is disappointing given the location within a conservation area and in the setting of listed buildings. Furthermore, paragraph 207 requires an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. From my own observations, the significance of the CA 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 such as ornate detailing and traditional sash windows upon former civic and governmental buildings, particularly on the upper floors of buildings. In the context of [site address] , these are more typically displayed on buildings on the north side of the road, with the buildings adjacent to the appeal site on the appeal site side of the road more modern and reserved in their design.

Furthermore, the appeal site is adjacent The Swan Public House1, a grade II listed building located on the corner of [site address] , [address] and opposite [address]. With respect to Appeal B, I have had regard to section 66(1) of the Act which states that in considering whether to 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 Swan evidently dates from the early 20th century and is constructed from red brick with stone detailing. I do not have an assessment of significance before me as per paragraph 207 of the Framework. From my own observations, the significance 1 [name]: 1192058 Appeal Decision 6006850 & 6006857 of the listed building is derived mostly from its historic and architectural interests. This includes its age, communal association with the development of the area and its intricate detailing such as the oriel bay and decorative pilasters. Given its prominent position within the area, the listed building is also a significantly positive contributor to the character and appearance of the CA.

To the west of the appeal site on the south side of [site address] lies the Hop Poles Public House2 which is also grade II listed. Older than The Swan, this public house is faced in brown brick and features similar decorative qualities such as pilasters, quoins and stucco detailing. Its significance lies in its age, fine detailing and similar communal value to the area as a surviving feature of a previous age.

With respect to both listed buildings, their settings are generally confined to the areas immediately around the streets which form the thoroughfares of the area. While there are remnants of the historic streetscapes along [site address] and around the [name] area at the upper levels of many of the buildings, at street level most have been lost to retail and commercial frontages. As such, the contribution of these parts of their settings to their respective significance is minimal.

Built form in the general area of the appeal site is 3-5 storeys high and, in this context, the impact of the additional width and height of the hub over that existing would be minimal. Compared to the silver colour of the existing hub, the black and more solid composition of the proposal would be somewhat jarring and make the structure appear more conspicuous in the street scene than the silver. However, to my mind overall the changes are relatively minor when considering the scale of built form in the area, and I do not consider the replacement hub to be harmful in its size or design in this case.

With regards to the advertisement screens, while they are significantly larger than the existing, I observed larger advertisement displays in the area, including around [address] and in the backdrop of the hub to the west, alongside more reserved and smaller displays 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 street hub and advertisement displays would harm the character and appearance/amenity of the area, the CA or within the settings of the listed buildings.

This would accord with sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act and policies DC1, DC8, DC9 and DC10 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (adopted February

(HFLP). 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.

On my site visit, I observed the local area to be very busy with pedestrian footfall along [site address] . Guidance in the Council’s Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (February 2018) advises that a width of 3.5 metres (m) 2 [name]: 1079826 Appeal Decision 6006850 & 6006857 should be retained in town centre locations in order to avoid impeding pedestrian mobility. The increased width of the unit over that existing would mean a retained clearance of 4.2m to the edge of the adjacent building, which is a café at street level. Therefore, at present the retained distance would satisfy the Council’s guidance in this respect.

However, I am informed that the café’s licence evidently includes operating into part of the footpath which extends a further 2m. On my site visit I observed that seating was in place and this would reduce the available width of the path significantly below the advised width. This would reduce pedestrian mobility, particularly with regards to wheelchair users and when the hub is in use. In this context, a 34 centimetre increase is not insignificant, and I see no reason to reduce this gap further as this would reduce pedestrian mobility to below minimum Council standards.

While the appellant advises that anybody using the hub would do so temporarily and would not be a permanent obstacle, they also predict use of hubs in general will increase in order to justify the benefits of the scheme. As such, in that scenario the need to retain a wider clearance of available footway is justified, despite other guidance giving a 2m clearance.

I am informed of other appeals for similar proposals which have been allowed. However, these are in other council areas and other than the decision notices I have very few details before me. Regardless, I have assessed the proposal on its own merits.

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 of the HFLP and T1, T2 and D5 of the London Plan (LP) (adopted March 2021), as well as guidance in the SPD. These generally seek to prioritise pedestrian movements relating to the built environment, among other things

The Council refers to locally listed buildings in its reasons for refusal but does not identify them or where they are located. A list of all locally listed buildings in the borough is provided but this is some 26 pages and includes hundreds of examples. [name] am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, I have not assessed this matter although this should not be taken as an agreement on any harm or otherwise.

I am aware of the benefits of street hubs generally speaking 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 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 Appeal Decision 6006850 & 6006857 points out. I understand that technology may benefit from 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 harm caused by reduced pedestrian mobility. 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, Appeal B would be contrary to the development plan. Appeal A would not, although regard is not required to be had to the development plan for express consent for advertisements. [name] do not find harm caused by the display of the advertisement, without the required hub to host the display screens it would not be prudent to allow Appeal A only. Given the harm I have identified in Appeal B and considering the benefits which would not outweigh these matters, I conclude that both appeals should be dismissed.