Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 17 February 2026 by K Dryden BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 March 2026 Appeal A Ref: APP/N5090/W/25/3375141 Opposite 32 Cricklewood Lane, London NW2 1HD • 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 Simon Warner of BT Telecommunications PLC against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application reference is 25/2760/FUL. • The development proposed is the deployment of a Street Hub 3 unit. Appeal B Ref: APP/N5090/Z/25/3374990 Opposite 32 Cricklewood Lane, London NW2 1HD • The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) against a refusal to grant express consent. • The appeal is made by Mr Simon Warner of BT Telecommunications PLC against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application reference is 25/2761/ADV. • The advertisement proposed is described on the application form as the deployment of a Street Hub 3 unit. Decisions 1. Appeal A is dismissed. 2.

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions Appeal B is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 3. As set out above, there are two appeals on the site. Appeal A relates to an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. Appeal B relates to an appeal under section 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Advertisement Regulations) against a refusal to grant express consent. I have considered each on its individual merits, but I have combined these cases into a single decision letter as they are intrinsically linked and raise the same issues. 4. On 16 December 2025 the Government published a consultation 'Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system', together with an accompanying Written Ministerial Statement. The proposed reforms are draft and therefore may be subject to change.

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions Whilst the draft Framework is a material consideration, insofar as it is relevant to the appeals, there is little change to the direction or thrust of the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) and there is no proposed change to the consent process for advertisements. As such, it has not been necessary to consult the parties on the proposed reforms. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions Whilst the draft Framework is a material consideration, insofar as it is relevant to the appeals, there is little change to the direction or thrust of the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) and there is no proposed change to the consent process for advertisements. As such, it has not been necessary to consult the parties on the proposed reforms. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/N5090/W/25/3375141, APP/N5090/Z/25/3374990 5. The description of the proposal in the banner heading for Appeal B is taken from the application form. However, the Council has described the proposal as ‘installation of two digital internally illuminated, intermittent, double sided display screens to BT street hub’. As this is a more accurate description, that specifies the advertisements proposed, I have determined the appeal on this basis. 6. In respect of Appeal B, the Advertisement Regulations require that decisions are made only in the interest of amenity and public safety. Therefore, whilst I have taken account of the policies the Council refers insofar as they may be relevant, these have not been decisive in my determination of this appeal. Main Issue 7. The Council has raised no objection in respect of public safety or noise (aural amenity) and based on my observations at the site visit and the evidence provided, I have no reason to take a different view. The main issue in dispute in both appeals is the effect of the proposal on the amenity and the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 8.

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions The appeal site comprises a section of public footway on Cricklewood Lane, opposite its junction with Elm Grove. The wider area is predominantly commercial at ground floor with mixed commercial and residential over upper storeys. Whilst the appeal site is not located within a designated conservation area, the locality displays a coherent pattern of development, with consistent building lines and attractive period properties. Established tree planting further reinforces the area’s prevailing character. 9. Two street trees are located within the appeal site, in addition to food stalls which are positioned to the front of a substantial landscaped area, with a large retail unit set further behind. From observations at my site visit, I find that street furniture and advertisement signage is plentiful in the wider locality. In addition to fascia boards and projecting signs, illuminated integrated advertisements are present within multiple bus shelters, as well as several large free-standing integrated advertisement units along Cricklewood Lane. 10.

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions Whilst the street hub would be sited on a wide area of public footway, the substantial size and height of the proposed advertisements within their associated structure would appear excessive and visually intrusive in this location, positioned between two established street trees. Furthermore, with regard to materials, the use of a black, powder coated aluminium exterior finish would appear visually oppressive and discordant within the street scene. 11. The proposal would be sited near the highway edge of the footway and consequently would appear unduly prominent within the street scene. Given the substantial size and scale of the street hub structure, combined with its proposed double-sided illuminated display screens, the proposal would be clearly visible in long vistas along both sides of Cricklewood Lane. It would also appear highly prominent when approaching the site from the junction with Elm Grove. I therefore find that the proposal would result in a conspicuous and incongruous feature that would undermine the established character of the area. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/N5090/W/25/3375141, APP/N5090/Z/25/3374990 12. Whilst I acknowledge the proposed use of non-glare glass and planning conditions could be used to control the level of brightness, frequency of image change, and hours of illumination, such measures would not overcome the harm I have found to the siting of the proposal in this prominent and sensitive location on the amenity of the locality. The large, illuminated displays would appear as a conspicuous and discordant feature that would undermine the established character of the area. 13. In reaching this view, I have had regard to the Barnet Design Guidance Note 1, Advertising and Signs (1993) which reinforces local policy with guidance requesting advertisements to be well related to their surroundings in terms of size, scale and siting and located to avoid visual clutter. The proposal would conflict with this guidance, which is a material consideration and thus reinforces my findings. 14. For the above reasons, with regard to Appeal A, I conclude that the development would be harmful to the amenity of the area, which includes its character and appearance.

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions The proposal in Appeal A would be contrary to Policy CDH09 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (BLP) which requires that advertisements do not cause unacceptable harm to the area and are sensitively designed and located within the street scene and wider townscape, along with an appropriate size and siting. 15. Additionally, I find conflict with Policies CDH01 and CDH03 of the BLP which together seek to promote high quality design which responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and requires proposals to contribute positively to the public realm by relating to the local and historic context and incorporate high quality design and street furniture. Furthermore, the proposal would be contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan (LP) (2021) which requires new development to enhance local context by positively responding to local distinctiveness through layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape. 16. With regard to Appeal B, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed advertisements would have an unacceptable effect on the amenity of the area. The policies of the development plan have been considered as far as they are relevant. Other Considerations and Matters 17.

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions The appellant has referenced a number of other considerations in support of Appeal A, which in summary include the provision of improved and cost-free digital connectivity for the local community including wi-fi and UK calls, together with wayfinding assistance and an emergency services button. Additional digital services are also cited as supporting economic growth and productivity. The appellant further states that a proportion of screen time would be reserved for the display of public messages issued by the Council. Safeguarding benefits have also been raised where charity phone lines could be accessed from the installation. I do not dispute that meaningful public benefits would be provided through the proposal. However, I have been provided with insufficient information to demonstrate that the benefits of the proposal could not be provided in a less harmful way and/ or in a less sensitive location. Moreover, their existence does not overcome the harm that I have identified. 18.

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions The appellant further claims that two redundant kiosks1 would be removed within the wider area as part of the proposal, and that one of these units was withdrawn in 1 Outside 11 Cricklewood Lane, London (Planning, Design and Access Statement, Dalcour Maclaren). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions The appellant further claims that two redundant kiosks1 would be removed within the wider area as part of the proposal, and that one of these units was withdrawn in 1 Outside 11 Cricklewood Lane, London (Planning, Design and Access Statement, Dalcour Maclaren). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/N5090/W/25/3375141, APP/N5090/Z/25/3374990 2024. The removal of existing and redundant kiosks may improve pedestrian movement and the appearance of the wider locality to some degree. However, the benefit associated with removing any additional units within the wider area does not relate to the appeal site itself and does not overcome the harm that I have identified arising from the siting of the street hub, with its large double-sided illuminated displays, in this prominent location. Therefore, whilst the benefits of removing redundant kiosks have been taken into account, this does not alter my findings or justify the harm that I have identified. 19. The appellant has referred to inconsistency in decision making and draws my attention to free standing advertising units that have been granted planning permission and advertisement consent in the locality, in addition to examples of integrated illuminated advertisement panels within bus shelters along Cricklewood Lane. The examples provided include a free-standing double-sided illuminated digital advertising unit opposite 46 Cricklewood Lane 2. 20.

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions Although I do not have full details of all the examples provided, each proposal must be assessed on its own merits and in accordance with current planning policy. From observations at my site visit, the area contains several large free standing and integrated illuminated advertisement units, alongside other illuminated and non-illuminated advertisements and street furniture. I find that the introduction of a further unit in such a prominent and sensitive location would contribute to a proliferation of visual clutter, where the cumulative effect would be detrimental to visual amenity. Their existence does not alter my findings. 21. The appellant has stated that the proposal should not be assessed on the basis of commercial affiliations or subjective preferences. I find that any such suggestions are not relevant to the planning merits of the proposal before me, where I have dealt with the appeals having had regard to the relevant matters set out in the main issues. 22. The appellant has set out that there have been planning permissions granted across a number of council areas in London and other cities where existing InLink Units are removed and, in their place, street hub units are installed within the public highway.

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions However, any proposal must be assessed on its own individual merits in accordance with the specific case and site circumstances and no two sites for such proposals are identical. 23. The additional policies referenced in the BLP and LP, alongside the London Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2050 (2014), and any support offered by it to the installation of the street hub have been taken into account, but do not lead me to a different finding overall, where I have given greater weight to the harm and conflicts identified. 24. The appellant has cited the Council’s delegated report3 as referencing compliance with Policy CDH01 of the BLP, however, reference to noise and disturbance relates to aural amenity and not visual amenity, the basis of the dispute in these appeals. 2 20/4505/ADV 3 25/2760/FUL https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/N5090/W/25/3375141, APP/N5090/Z/25/3374990 Conclusion 25. In Appeal A the proposal would conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole. In Appeal B I have found unacceptable harm to amenity. Material considerations, including the Framework do not indicate that a decision(s) should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Having considered all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.

Opposite No. 32 Cricklewood Lane, London, NW2 1HD — London Borough of Barnet — K Dryden INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5