Land Adjoining 10 Staines Road, HOUNSLOW, TW3 3JS

Land Adjoining 10 Staines Road, HOUNSLOW, TW3 3JS — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 November 2024 by Rebecca McAndrew, BA Hons, MSc, PG Dip Urban Design, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th March 2025 Appeal Ref A: APP/F5540/W/24/3344291 Land adjoining 10 Staines Road, Hounslow TW3 3JS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Nathan Still, In Focus Network Limited, against the decision of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref is 01054/ADJ10/P1. • The development proposed is the installation of a multifunctional communication Hub including defibrillator brand advertisement display. Appeal B Ref: APP/F5540/Z/24/3344302 Land adjoining 10 Staines Road, Hounslow TW3 3JS • The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 against a refusal to grant express consent. • The appeal is made by Mr Nathan Still, In Focus Network Limited, against the decision of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref is 01054/ADJ10/AD1.

Land Adjoining 10 Staines Road, HOUNSLOW, TW3 3JS — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision • The development proposed is the installation of a multifunctional communication Hub including defibrillator and advertisement display.

Land Adjoining 10 Staines Road, HOUNSLOW, TW3 3JS — London Borough of Hounslow — ii. The effect on the amenity of the area. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land Adjoining 10 Staines Road, HOUNSLOW, TW3 3JS — London Borough of Hounslow — ii. The effect on the amenity of the area. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/F5540/W/24/3344291 & APP/F5540/Z/24/3344302 Reasons Public Safety 5. The proposed communication hub with advertisement display would be a standalone installation and would measure 2.6 metres in height, 1.3 metres in width and 0.3 metres in depth. It would be sited within the thoroughfare of Bell Square, which experiences high volumes of pedestrian and cyclist movement and, at times, hosts public events. 6. I recognise that the proposed Hub would be situated a suitable distance away from Parsonage Road to avoid distraction to passing motorists. However, it would be located close to the Toucan crossing which crosses that highway. Whilst the square is a sizeable area, where pedestrians and cyclists can pass freely, the proposed Hub would sit within a clear desire line for movement between the Toucan crossing and Bell Square. Given this position, and its size, the proposed Hub would form an obstruction which would unacceptably impede the flow of pedestrians and cyclists on a key route through the space. 7. In view of the above, the proposal would not safeguard public safety.

Land Adjoining 10 Staines Road, HOUNSLOW, TW3 3JS — London Borough of Hounslow — ii. The effect on the amenity of the area. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015 to 2030 (2015) (LP) Policies EC2 and CC5 which, taken together, require that proposals do not harm pedestrian safety. Amenity 8. Whilst advertisements are common features in commercial areas, the proposed communication hub, with advertisement display, would be a relatively large and bulky structure, in comparison to other street furniture, such as benches and bins, in the vicinity. I note that there is a box structure within the sqaure, which appears to relate to pubilc events which are held in the space. However, given that it sits on the edge of the square away from key pedestrian and cycle movement routes, it significantly differs in circumstances from the appeal Hub. By comparison, the proposed Hub would occupy an overly prominent position, obstructing a key route through Bell Square. As such, it would constitute visual clutter and would appear incongruous within the public realm. 9. I conclude that the proposed communication hub with advertisement display by reason of its position, size and design would adversely affect the visual amenity of the site and area.

Land Adjoining 10 Staines Road, HOUNSLOW, TW3 3JS — London Borough of Hounslow — ii. The effect on the amenity of the area. As such, the appeal proposal is contrary to LP Policies CC1, CC2 and CC5. Together these seek to promote high quality design which safeguards the character and appearance of an area. For the same reason, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework Other Matters 10. In considering this appeal I have attached moderate weight to the public benefit that this facility would bring. However, this would not outweigh the undue harm to amenity and public safety that I have found. Conclusion 11. I have found that the communication hub, with advertisement display, proposed in Appeals A and B would unacceptably affect public safety by reason of harm to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land Adjoining 10 Staines Road, HOUNSLOW, TW3 3JS — London Borough of Hounslow — ii. The effect on the amenity of the area. As such, the appeal proposal is contrary to LP Policies CC1, CC2 and CC5. Together these seek to promote high quality design which safeguards the character and appearance of an area. For the same reason, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework Other Matters 10. In considering this appeal I have attached moderate weight to the public benefit that this facility would bring. However, this would not outweigh the undue harm to amenity and public safety that I have found. Conclusion 11. I have found that the communication hub, with advertisement display, proposed in Appeals A and B would unacceptably affect public safety by reason of harm to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/F5540/W/24/3344291 & APP/F5540/Z/24/3344302 pedestrian and cyclist movement and safety. It would also cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the area. 12. For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that both Appeals A and B should be dismissed. INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3