Appeal 6007363

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 6007363 & 6007365

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 west side of Shepherd’s Bush Green (A4020). 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.

I do not have an assessment before me of the significance of the CA as required by paragraph 207 of the Framework. From all that I have seen and read this is largely derived from the orientation around Shepherd’s Bush Green, 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 with respect to architectural detailing and the variety of built form is notable. This is particularly apparent in the quality of buildings on this side of the green adjacent the appeal site.

I am also directed to 2 grade II listed buildings1, known as ‘[name] and ‘[name], located to the south of the appeal site on the same side of the road. 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 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 former cinema building is closest to the appeal site of the 2 listed buildings and is now a hotel. It dates from the 1920s and is formed of red brick with stone detailing and a barrel shaped roof set back from its main frontage over the entrance. The special interest and significance of the listed building is largely derived from its historic and architectural interests, including its age, historic links 1 [name]: 1286354 & 1358593 Appeal Decisions 6007363 & 6007365 to the golden age of cinema, stone detailing including parapet and window surrounds, and its striking roof form.

The former BBC building dates from 1903 and was designed by [name] in the arts and crafts style. The frontage includes a large tower on the left with terracotta framed windows while the right side has a smaller roughcast gable. The special interest and significance of the listed building is therefore largely derived from its historic and architectural interests, including its age, former use, detailing and its imposing form.

The settings of both buildings include the areas to the front and notably from within the green, from which the respective architectural features, such as the barrel roof of the former cinema, can be appreciated above the trees lining its west side. However, the location of the appeal site is at an acute angle to the north with intervening street furniture. The 2 listed buildings and appeal site individually are not readily visible within the same frame of reference. While visibility is not the only consideration of impact from development on the setting of a listed building, to my mind given the location of the appeal site and distance between the two buildings I do not consider it to be within the setting of either listed building and would therefore not affect their respective special interests or significance.

I understand that a similar hub and older versions previously have been in situ in the location for some time. However, 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 its frame is of a silver colour which matches the existing bollards and cycle racks in the vicinity. When contrasted to the proposed hub, the monolithic profile and black colour would introduce a significantly larger and more solid structure. 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 compounded by the display screens, and the 77% increase in size over the existing situation is significant. This would draw the eye to the incongruity of the proposed hub. The appellant refers to numerous other examples of illuminated signage in the area, although from my observations on my site visit these were limited in the area, with the nearest notable examples the bus stop outside the listed building. The size and prominence of the proposed advertisement screens over the existing would make them an intrusive element in the street scene. 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. This would conflict with Appeal Decisions 6007363 & 6007365 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, there is a clear aim to 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 require an upgrade, but there is nothing before me to indicate that it is incapable of these functions anymore.

Regardless, I acknowledge that there would be some benefits to upgrading the unit, and that advertisement revenue is crucial to ensure these services are free. The Framework offers general support to having a high quality communications network, although to my mind the benefits over the existing would be marginal based on the evidence before me and these would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance/amenity of the area and pedestrian mobility 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.

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.

The proposal would replace an existing hub and have the same orientation meaning it would be placed with its screens facing north and south. I observed on the site visit that its positioning at present is less than ideal and it is located between a refuse bin close to the road and cycle racks closer to the building which are aligned with other street furniture such as the streetlights, trees and a bench. It is a stark outlier in this respect, and its current poor positioning is a hindrance to pedestrian flow. This would also mean that it is positioned directly in the line of Appeal Decisions 6007363 & 6007365 sight of drivers emerging from the undercroft of [address] who would have to look to their right in order to access the A4020 into oncoming traffic.

I observed on my site visit that the hub already partially blocks this view for emerging drivers. [name] can’t change the position of the existing hub, allowing its replacement with a wider version would not be suitable, and I do not consider the increase in width to be marginal in this context. Moreover, the displays of the advertisements on larger screens would distract drivers who would otherwise require attention on safely access the highway. This would therefore harm public safety.

I am also aware of concerns of the Council regarding pedestrian mobility. The Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) (February 2018) advises that new street furniture should leave a minimum of 3.5m of clear and unobstructed footway given the Town Centre location. The appellant’s site plan shows a retained distance of 5.9m from the increased width of the hub to the edge of the nearest building which would far exceed the guidance. It would therefore meet this requirement, albeit it is a hindrance to the other side in its current position.

Notwithstanding this, the proposals would be harmful to public safety insofar as the hub would obstruct views of emerging drivers while the larger display screens would be a distraction in the same manner. 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

I have concluded that the proposals would harm the significance of the CA and the benefits as presented to me would not outweigh this harm. Furthermore, I have also identified harm more generally to the character and appearance/amenity of the area as well as to public safety through causing reduced visibility for emerging drivers. These are worthy of further negative weight against the proposals.

Based on the above, taking into account all matters and assessed against the development plan and all other material considerations, the appeals are dismissed.