Appeal 6006883

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 6006882 & 6006883

The main issues are as follows: • The effects of the proposals on the character and appearance/amenity of the area with particular regard to the [address] Conservation Area. • The effects of the proposal in Appeal B on pedestrian mobility

The appeal site is located on the footpath on the south side of [address] (A402) close to the junction with [address] and the entrance to the [address] 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 an older style telephone box, refuse bin and streetlights.

The site is also within the [address] 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.

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 significance of the CA is derived in part from its beginnings as a residential area laid out along the eponymous road, which is a leafy and broad streetscape formed mainly of three-storey Victorian terraces in a spacious and traditional manner which belies its central location. The appeal site lies at the northern extent of the CA and in a much more commercial area. While the retail frontages of street level units are somewhat of a detractor from the CA itself, the upper floors generally display the same Victorian architectural styles and materials.

The principle of a hub in this location may well have been established. However, the proposed unit would be notably wider than the existing and I do not consider this marginal or insignificant, particularly in a conservation area. Moreover, the existing model is tapered towards its base giving it some sense of subservience in the street scene and is of a silver colour which gives the structure a somewhat less imposing form. When contrasted to the proposed hub, the monolithic profile and black colour would introduce a significantly larger and more solid structure than the existing. 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.

This harm would be exacerbated by the display screens, and the 77% increase in size over the existing situation is significant. The appellant refers to numerous other examples of illuminated signage in the area, although from my observations on my site visit these appeared relatively restrained and were limited to smaller retail signage. The displays in the bus stops are some 30m from the appeal site and appeared to be static and non-illuminated from my observations. Either way, I Appeal Decision 6006882 & 6006883 would not consider there to be a ‘plethora’ of advertisements in the area and given the location within a CA this is perhaps not surprising. 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. The prevalence of hubs in the country generally speaking does not mean that they are not harmful. These have not therefore been determinative in my assessment of the proposals before me, which I have assessed on their own merits.

The increased size of the unit and prominence of the displays would therefore harm the character and appearance/amenity of the area, which would also harm the significance of the CA given its largely spacious characteristics. This would conflict with policies DC1, DC8, 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. Moreover, that the council will conserve the significance of the borough’s historic environment by protecting, restoring and enhancing its heritage assets.

The harm I have identified to the CA would be less than substantial. As per paragraph 215 of the Framework, in this scenario this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

I have had due regard to the benefits of the scheme as presented to me. 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.

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 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 benefit from an upgrade, but there is nothing before me to indicate that people in emergency situations could not carry out this function on the existing unit.

[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 Appeal Decision 6006882 & 6006883 the benefits over the existing would be marginal based on the evidence before me and these would not outweigh the harm to the significance of the CA. Regardless of the Council’s record of refusing applications of this type, I have assessed the proposals on their own merits.

These benefits of upgrading the unit are noted and are worthy of some positive weight. However, this would be limited. Conversely, as per paragraph 212 of the Framework, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Set against this amount of weight against the proposals, the benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to a designated heritage asset.

On my site visit I observed the local area to be reasonably busy with pedestrian footfall, particularly given the town centre location and adjacent the entrance to a tube station.

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, the appellant’s site plan shows that this distance would be retained. I have no reason to doubt its accuracy.

[name] note the proximity of the tube station entrance, the hub would be positioned close to the road, and I see no reason to conclude that it would impede the convenient flow of pedestrians as a result of its installation given it would leave enough clearance. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, this would accord with policies T1, T3 and DC10 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.

I have concluded that the proposals would harm the character and appearance/amenity of the area and the significance of the CA. The benefits as presented to me would not outweigh this harm. [name] have concluded that there would be no harm to pedestrian flow, this would be neutral in the planning balance. Based on the above, taking into account all matters and assessed against the development plan and all other material considerations, the appeals are dismissed