- Decision
- dismissed, 1 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Moore
- Authority
- Nottingham (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6002400
- Application reference
- 25/01493/PFUL3
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Communications kiosk with integrated digital advertising display and defibrillator
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), HE7(2), CO1
- Development plan policies
- Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies 2014 Policy 10, Policy 11, Nottingham Land and Planning Policies DPD 2020 DE1, DE5, HE1 (local), ENV7
- Main issues
- conservation area; setting of a Grade II* listed building; non-designated heritage asset; visual amenity
Summary
A communications kiosk with a digital advertising screen on Station Street, Nottingham, was dismissed (with the linked advertisement appeal). It would interrupt the long vista in which the Grade II* Midland Railway Station complex and the locally listed Trent House are appreciated, harming the conservation area and both settings. The telecommunications benefits, limited because no alternative siting had been considered, did not outweigh harm given considerable importance and weight.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties have been provided with an opportunity to comment on this matter, and I have taken account of comments made" (DL ¶3).
- Effect. "the kiosk would appear in lines of sight along the street, interrupting views of the listed station complex (including Forward House); and Trent House, and detracting from the long vista within the CA" (DL ¶15).
- HE6(1)/(3): harm. "The harm I have identified to the significance of the CA and the Grade II* listed station complex is not substantial. Nevertheless, it is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶22).
- CO1 benefit, limited. "In the absence of any compelling evidence to demonstrate any consideration of alternative sitings, I cannot be certain that the siting of the proposal is the least harmful one in heritage terms, which significantly limits the overall weight I attach to such benefits" (DL ¶26).
- HE6(4): FAIL. "Collectively, I attach moderate weight to the benefits of the proposed development, which are not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified to the significance of the heritage assets" (DL ¶29).
- Advertisement appeal. "My balancing exercise under such policies therefore only relates to the proposed development (Appeal A), and not to the proposed advertisement (Appeal B)" (DL ¶24).
Planning balance
The HE6(4) and HE7(2) balances are run first (DL ¶21–30). S4 is then applied, but the letter puts the test the wrong way round: "the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects that I have identified. The proposed development does not therefore benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development" (DL ¶33). S4(1) asks whether the benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. The heritage balance had already gone against the scheme, and the conclusion is plan-led (DL ¶34).
What made the difference
The Grade II* station and the unbroken vista along Station Street, where existing street furniture is small and dispersed. The appellant produced no evidence of alternative sitings, which cut the CO1 weight that might otherwise have been substantial.
Transferable points
- CO1 substantial weight for telecommunications is cut where the applicant has not shown that alternative, less harmful sitings were considered (DL ¶26).
- HE6(1) gives greater weight to conserving a Grade II* asset, and harm that is "not substantial" still carries considerable importance and weight (DL ¶21–22).
- The Framework's heritage balance applies to the planning appeal only; the advertisement appeal is decided on amenity and public safety (DL ¶4, ¶24).
- An offer to plant a street tree elsewhere, with no location or agreement, carries very little weight (DL ¶28).
- Caution: the S4 conclusion (DL ¶33) inverts the test and should not be quoted as a statement of S4(1).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | harm, not substantial, to the Station Conservation Area and to the setting of the Grade II* Midland Railway Station; HE6(1) quoted in full, with greater weight for the more important asset (DL 20-22) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | considerable importance and weight, especially given the Grade II* station complex (DL 22) |
| HE6(4) | fail | benefits, moderate collectively, not sufficient to outweigh the harm (DL 22, 29-30) | |
| HE4(2) | fail | clear and convincing justification stated as the test (DL 21); alternative sitings not shown to have been considered (DL 26) | |
| HE7(2) | harm | harm, not substantial, to the setting of locally listed Trent House (NDHA); balanced judgement stated (DL 20, 23, 30) | |
| CO1 | benefit | substantial weight in principle, but "significantly" limited because CO1 also requires siting that minimises visual impact and no alternative sitings were evidenced (DL 26); benefits moderate collectively (DL 29) | |
| E2 | benefit | limited | substantial weight for business growth under E2 limited by the scale of the development (DL 27) |
| S4(1) | fail | presumption held not to apply; the letter states the test in inverted form: "the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL 33) |
Key facts
- Kiosk about 2.45 m high, 1.1 m wide and 0.8 m deep, with a display about 1.6 m by 0.9 m facing oncoming traffic (DL 14)
- About 80 m from the listed Forward House (former parcels office), closer to Trent House (DL 14)
- The long vista along Station Street is the setting in which the station complex and Trent House are appreciated; existing street furniture does not intrude on it (DL 12-13)
- Offer of a street tree given very little weight - no location, no agreement, condition would not meet the tests (DL 28)
- Footnote 63 - the heritage policies apply to Appeal A (planning), not to the advertisement appeal (DL 24)
- Joint letter with advertisement Appeal B, APP/Q3060/Z/25/3376390, also dismissed (DL 1, 32, 34)
- Parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.