Appeal 6008151

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development above differs from that used in the original application form and is the description used by the Council. I consider that the description more accurately describes the scheme proposed and have used this accordingly.

The application is related to a full planning application that is subject to another decision that will be issued separately.

The main issues: a) whether the proposed advertisements would have an acceptable effect upon the visual amenity of the area including whether they would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the [address] and [address] Conservation Area (CA) and: b) Whether the proposed scheme would have an acceptable effect upon highway and pedestrian safety.

The appeal site is located along a principal high street where there are a plethora of shops, bus stops and other facilities serving the community. [site address] in this location is attractively tree lined with a wide pavement and a notable absence of illuminated screen signage. The site of the proposed structure is at the location of a late twentieth century telephone box which would be replaced by a digital [name] unit which would offer free Wifi and USB charging facilities. [address] Hub would be around 2.9m high by 1.2m wide and would have a depth of around 35cm Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6008151 which would make it marginally larger and noticeably higher than the existing telephone box structure.

The device would be dark coloured and contain two 75inch LCD digital display screens to both sides that would offer space for advertising aswell as having provision for public service and local information.

The site of the proposed [name] would replace an existing telephone box that has been sited in this location since around 2017. A second telephone box has since been removed. The proposal would therefore essentially change this telephone box which contains paper advertisements to the stand alone hub whose primary aesthetic would be defined by the presence of two 75inch LCD screens.

Immediately opposite this site lies the boundary of the [address] and [address] Conservation Area (CA) whose boundary extends to around the centre of the road here. In considering whether to grant consent therefore I am required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to give ‘Special Attention’ to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The statutory duties within the Act are reflected in The Framework, which states that ‘[name] should be given to a heritage assets’ conservation and also illustrates the positive contribution that heritage assets can make to the creation of sustainable and economically viable communities. This approach is reflected in the Policy HC1 of The London Plan aswell as Policies DH1 and DH2 of the Islington Local Plan which echo the above Act and The Framework in its requirements in this regard.

The experience of the CA to the opposite side of [site address] is a positive one where there is a terrace of residential houses and some architecturally ornate buildings that I consider are sound examples of the largely Victorian character and appearance of the Conservation Area as a whole. From the appeal side of the road the buildings of the CA are clearly visible, and I consider that the street as a whole is fundamentally related to the setting and the character of the CA in this regard. The absence of detracting advertising features is a major positive when considering the experience of the CA from this part of [site address] and the Conservation Area Design Guidelines1 reflects the sensitivity of the area to such interventions.

The proposed Hub and associated screens would be highly visible when approaching the site along the footway upon which it would sit and it would introduce a feature that would be larger, more visually impermeable and more monolithic than that of the existing telephone box. In these respects the [name] would introduce a harmful addition into the streetscene. The luminescence and LCD screens would also mark a significant alteration to the character of the street here which would in my mind interfere with the overall character of the area, especially that experience of the CA opposite.

Although the Appellant states that there are several examples of illuminated signage within the area, within the immediate vicinity I saw the opposite. Although signage is present upon the shop fronts, much of this is modest or even traditional [address]/[address] Conservation Area Design Guidelines 2007 paragraph 24.37 and 24.38. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6008151 and non illuminated in its aesthetic, often using individual letters rather than large digital or illuminated displays.

[name] note the digital displays to the bus shelters nearby these are outward facing into the carriageway and as such are not overly visible from the footway from either side of [site address] . Neither do these displays obscure views along the length of the footway.

This proposal therefore would introduce what would essentially be two large LCD screens into a very obvious location into the public realm here. They would not only represent a departure from the overriding character of the area’s signage, but they would also detract attention from what is actually an attractive streetscene which at present is defined by street trees, wide pavements and the panoramic vista of the buildings that make up the Conservation Area opposite. The proposal would therefore cause harm to the visual amenities the area that includes the experience of and setting of the CA.

[name] acknowledge the potential benefits of better connectivity and the ability for the Local Authority to display their own public service and other information on these screens this in itself is not compensatory enough for the harm that would occur here. As such I find a conflict with Policies D3, D4, HC1 and T2 of the London Plan (2021) and policies PLAN1, DH1, DH2, DH6, T4 and ST3 of Islington Local Plan (2023) aswell as the guidance contained within the Council’s Urban Design Guide (2017). Whether the proposed scheme would have an acceptable effect upon highway and pedestrian safety

The siting of the proposed [name] would be set within what is quite a wide pavement. However, I saw on my site visit that this stretch of pavement does vary along its length in light of mature street trees that are placed near the centre of the pavement. I also saw that the grocery shop to the corner of [address] had placed a small wooden ramp, presumably to allow disabled access into the shop which encroaches into the pavement and illustrates some of the space needed for level access into such premises.

Nevertheless, even when taking into account the extent of the informal ramp into the grocery shop and the street trees, there would appear to be adequate space between the proposed [name] to allow adequate pedestrian movement in accordance with [name] Guidance2 that requires an ideal of 2m of free flowing pedestrian space in such instances. According to the proposed plans, the space would exceed this.

Although the alignment of the street trees is located closer to the shops and this may force pedestrians to walk either side of them, the situation would be little different to that which currently exists. As such I cannot reasonably see how the replacement of the telephone box with this street hub would cause such let or hindrance to pedestrian movement that would be in conflict with the Development Plan. 2 Transport for London Streetscape Guidance Fourth Edition 2022 Revision 2. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6008151

The location of the proposed screen is near to a corner with [address] which is a two way residential street whose initial length is block paved, which I consider would naturally calm the approach of traffic. This junction gives access onto this part of [site address] where there is an inbound bus lane and two carriageway lanes, one in either direction. On exiting [address] I would anticipate most drivers to be more concerned with traffic advancing from the right and this would be in the opposite direction to this proposed [name]. As such I would not anticipate that this proposed [name] would cause distraction to any great degree in this regard.

However, pedestrian movement could occur from either direction and, with the street allegedly experiencing large numbers of pedestrian movements at certain times, there would be a potential risk of added distraction through the LCD screen in such a prominent location that would be very visible and potentially distracting to the emerging driver or cyclist. As such I consider that the proposed illuminated advertisements could reasonably cause distraction or danger to other, more vulnerable users of this junction when vehicles are existing onto [site address] which would bring this scheme into conflict with Policy ST3 of the Local Plan.

The proposed [name] would introduce a visually impermeable structure that would create a barrier from which to potentially hide behind and this could result in the increase of crime or the fear of crime. Although the [name] consultee has indicated that this location is an area of concern with regards anti social behaviour, I otherwise have no evidence as to the precise nature of such activity nor why the proposed [name] would make such incidences more frequent. Moreover, I am unable to determine which methods could be included that could potentially mitigate such a risk. As a result, although I give this matter some weight I am not able to confidently determine whether detriment would occur through this scheme.

For the reasons given above, whilst taking into account all other matters raised, I dismiss this appeal.