Appeal 6007544

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

I have taken the address of the site from the Council’s decision notices, which better reflect the location than that used in the application form. The appellant has used the same address in the appeal form and so I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result.

Appeal B relates to planning permission for an electric vehicle charging point, together with a feed pillar. LCD screens on either side of the charging point would be used for advertising. Appeal A seeks [name] for the screens. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits but, to avoid duplication, I have dealt with them together, except where otherwise indicated.

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 sets out the relevant considerations for Appeal A, in this case amenity. The reason for refusal refers to Development Plan policies. However, as an advertisement application, the policies are only relevant as material Appeal Decisions 6007544 and 6007545 considerations, rather than carrying the degree of weight applicable in respect of Appeal B.

The main issue in respect of [name] and B is the effect of the proposal on amenity and the character and appearance of the area, which lies within the Barnsbury Conservation Area (CA).

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA is extensive and contains many examples of late Georgian and early Victorian properties. It is primarily residential but [address] provides a local shopping frontage. It has commercial properties with colourful shopfronts, giving the area an historic, vibrant character. Relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA is the age and attractive character of its built form, spaces and street scenes.

The appeal site consists of part of the pavement, adjacent to the carriageway. It is located outside of number [address], a building of pleasing, solid design, which is now a café with an external seating area. The pavement here has bollards and paving of traditional appearance, with street trees nearby. As such, the site and its immediate surroundings are attractive and make a positive contribution to the significance of the CA.

The charging point unit would be positioned within the pavement. Close to the appeal site there is a significant amount of street furniture. As well as the café seating area and bollards, there are also bins, sign poles, cycle stands, and cabinets. There is bus shelter advertising not too far away.

The proposed unit would be slim. It would have a position perpendicular to [address], and to one side of the pavement. Even so, the unit would be a large, wide and modern feature. As a freestanding structure, it would not particularly reflect existing shopfronts or facia advertising, or the bus shelter advertisement. Instead, the size, form and design of the unit would appear out of place with the more traditional appearance of its surroundings.

Moreover, the proposed unit would add markedly to the amount of street clutter here, being taller and bulkier than most other forms of furniture in the immediate area. The impact of the proposal would be heightened by its illuminated digital screens, with their rotation of static images, which would draw the eye. Consequently, it would appear visually harmful and intrusive, conflicting with the traditional, historic appearance of its surroundings, for a long period of time.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would detract from the attractive character of the built form, spaces and street scenes hereabouts. It would therefore harm amenity (Appeal A) and the character and appearance of the area (Appeal B), including the CA as a whole. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the Act and with policies D3, D4, HC1 and T2 of the London Plan (LP), March 2021, and policies PLAN1, DH1, DH2, DH6, T3 and T4 of the Council’s Strategic and Development Management Policies (SDMP), adopted 2023. Appeal Decisions 6007544 and 6007545

These policies require proposals including advertisements to respect and conserve heritage assets, exhibit good design, improve street amenity and make a positive response to local distinctiveness. SDMP policy T3 and its supporting text requires that charging points are provided within parking spaces themselves, to minimise street clutter. It makes an exception where adverse impacts on the public realm can be fully prevented. However, given my findings above, the proposal would conflict with SDMP policy T3.

In accordance with paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I give great weight to the harm to the designated heritage asset and its significance. In the language of Framework paragraph 215, this harm would be less than substantial, and so should be weighed against public benefits. I shall undertake this balance below.

There is no dispute that transport is a major source of nitrogen dioxide emissions, and that Islington is one of the Boroughs most affected by pollution, with the associated effects on health. The proposal would help to ensure a faster uptake of zero-emission vehicles, and so a reduction in emissions overall, particularly as many residential properties in the area do not have off-street parking of their own. It would offer a free daily 7kWh charge, contributing to the Mayor’s ambition for a zero-emission transport system.

The unit would have economic benefits, for example from users spending in local shops, while they wait for their vehicle to charge. It would also offer allocated screen time for public and emergency messaging, and potentially for nearby small businesses. It would be future-ready for technological improvements for example in respect of air-quality monitoring.

However, I am mindful that the proposal only involves one unit, and so its benefits would be limited. LP policy T6 provides some support for electric vehicle charging points, but encourages their location to be off the footway. I therefore give greater weight to the conflict with the other Development Plan policies referred to above. As a matter of planning judgement, I conclude that the public benefits of the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA. It follows that the test of Framework paragraph 215 is not met.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the Development Plan when read as a whole, as well as the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. The material considerations do not outweigh the identified harm and conflict. As such, I conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.