Appeal 6007010

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 6007010 and 6007018

The main issues in both appeals are the effects of the proposals on the character and appearance/amenity of the area with particular regard to the Shepherd’s Bush Green Conservation Area and the setting of a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The appeal site is located on the footpath on the south side of Shepherd’s Bush Green (A402). 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, approximately 34 centimetres (cm) wider and have larger display screens than the existing. The footpath at present includes other street furniture such as cycle racks, bollards refuse bins and streetlights.

The site is within the Shepherd’s Bush 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 requires the decision maker to pay special attention 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 from the orientation around Shepherd’s Bush Green, which is an area of open green space within a busy and densely developed locale to which built form is orientated. Furthermore, the quality of built form within the CA, particularly to the northern side of the green along [address], which includes long terraces of 3 storeys with commercial properties at street level and brick facades above which feature fine detailing.

The appeal site is located adjacent [address] which is identified by the Council as a local building of merit. It is an art deco style building evidently dating to the 1930s. There are some detracting influences in proximity to the front of the building, such as the commercial frontages to either side of the entrance to the building, which is unfortunate, although I agree that the presence of the building of merit is a positive contributor to the character and appearance, and thereby significance, of the CA. Moreover, its visual links with the green and adjacent buildings directly contribute to its significance as a remaining building of that period and the specific architectural style which was so prevalent at the time. Its setting therefore makes a positive contribution to its significance.

I have had regard to paragraph 216 of the Framework which advises that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The principle of a hub in this location may well have been established, although it is clear that 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 and is of a silver colour which matches the existing bollards and cycle racks in the vicinity. When contrasted to the proposed Appeal Decisions 6007010 and 6007018 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. 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 proposals would therefore harm the character and appearance/amenity of the area, which would also harm the significance of the CA and NDHA through harm in its setting. 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 and NDHA 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 Appeal Decisions 6007010 and 6007018 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. I understand that structures of this type have a set design and while I would not expect bespoke versions to suit a location, this does not lessen the impact over that of the existing hub.

The benefits of upgrading the unit are noted and are worthy of some positive weight. However, the weight in favour 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. Furthermore, taking a balanced judgement against the loss of significance of the NDHA, and general harm to the character and appearance/amenity of the area, there would be further significant weight against the proposals. Set against this amount of weight against the proposals, the benefits are not sufficient to justify allowing the proposal to move forward through this appeal.

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