PAVEMENT ADJACENT RAILWAY BRIDGE AND 351 CALEDONIAN ROAD, LONDON N1
Installation of a free standing
internet/wifi/ telephone structure
known as a 'link unit', with internally illuminated advertisement
screens to two sides.
(Planning application number: P2017/1383/FUL)
The Chair informed the meeting that as Items B1-B11 were similar applications, matters common to all the applications would be considered under the first item.
In the discussion the following points were
Meeting was advised that of the 63 applications submitted for
Advertisement Consent for the internet/wifi/telephones structures called ‘link
units’ only 11 had been recommended for approval and 52 had
been withdrawn on grounds of those site locations being within a
conservation area or within the setting of a listed building or
other important heritage asset.
Planning Officer informed Members that although the link unit
structure itself would not require planning permission as outlined
in Part 16 of Schedule 2 Class A.1(7) of the General Permitted
Development Order (2016),the conditions set out a requirement for
prior approval of the local authority to be obtained, specifically
with respect of siting and appearance and which had not yet been
The Planning Officer advised that applications for Advertisement
Consent are assessed in terms of
amenity and highways safety and that having taken into
consideration the setting of the internally illuminated
advertisement screens, its relationship to surrounding properties,
proposed luminance levels and distance from existing heritage
assets and impact on highway safety, the proposal was considered
Councillor Klute enquired whether the use of the revenue generated
by the advertising to fund the provision and operation of the units
was material consideration in determining the applications. The
legal officer advised that this was not a material
Councillor Klute enquired whether the applicant’s proposal to
allow the Local Authority to have the use of 5% of the advertising
time given over to free advertising of Local Authority services and
activities was a material consideration in determining the
applications. The legal officer advised that this was not a
The Planning Officer advised that concerns regarding the intensity
of the illumination from the advertisement would be secured by a
condition to vary the levels of lighting between dusk and dawn and
during the day in line with TFL guidance. Also as the siting of the
units would be some distance away from residential flats, it would
not impact on residential amenity.
The Islington Society in their objections had raised concerns
regarding the need for more telephone booths in the borough as a
recent audit had revealed that telephone booths were in a bad state
of disrepair and had been subjected to acts of vandalism and
anti-social behaviour. The Society queried the functionality of
these new telephone units as the applicant had not provided any
evidence and that the booths would solely be used for advertisement
only. The Society was concerned that granting an advertisement
consent for these units would lead to an increase in street clutter
and was unnecessary and of no communal benefit.
The Agent representing the applicant advised Committee that the
proposal would provide a greater range of services to the public
than the phone box it intends to replace. The Agent acknowledged
that the advertisement would provide the initial cost of
installation of the units and offering the services for free
however the communal benefits would outweigh what is in place at
the moment especially as most of the existing phone boxes are in a
dilapidated state of disrepair.
In response to a question on the robustness of the unit, the agent
of the applicant advised that tests had demonstrated that the units
would withstand any antisocial behaviour or arson. The agent
informed the Committee that over 750 of these units had been
installed in New York and some of these
link units had recently been installed in the neighbouring borough
Members considered that a site visit to Camden to view the units
would be more informative than drawings and plans.
Planning Officers advised Members that a decision on a prior
approval application was required within 56 days of the application
being received or prior approval is otherwise secured by default.
In order to achieve a decision within this timeframe, such a
decision would be taken under authority to either the Service
Director, Head of Development Management or the Deputy
Members were concerned that prior approval should be determined
before the advertisement is considered as the concerns related to
procedural order being a crucial issue.
Councillor Khan proposed a motion to defer the
1) A site visit to view the units installed on Camden High Street; and
For Officers to determine prior approval applications before the
advertisement consent applications are presented back to the
This was seconded by Councillor Klute.
That consideration of the application be deferred in their entirety for the reasons outlined above.
- EB Pavement outside 351 Caledonian Road FINAL, item 7. PDF 1004 KB
- Map P2017-0903-ADV Pavement Adjacent Railway Bridge and 351 Caledonian Road, London, N1, item 7. PDF 134 KB