# Pavement outside 100 High Street, Crawley (BT Street Hub)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Catcheside
- **Authority:** Crawley (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6004062
- **Application reference:** CR/2025/0512/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital displays, removal of payphones (Appeal A planning; Appeal B 6004064 advert consent CR/2025/0511/ADV)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4, CO1, DP3
- **Development plan policies:** Crawley Borough Local Plan 2023-2040 CL1, CL2, DD1, DD6
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, amenity and public safety (advert)
- **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, co1-substantial-weight, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
BT Street Hub with digital advertising screens on a wide town-centre footway in Crawley. Both the planning and advert appeals were dismissed. The solid, dark hub would block long views along a spacious street and clash with the light-coloured street furniture. The screens' proposed night brightness was above the ILP guidance maximum. Parties were invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶5).

## What made the difference
The S4 balance was run expressly: CO1 connectivity benefits got "substantial weight", but CO1's own requirement to site infrastructure "to minimise the visual impact" and DP3 integration were failed, so "the benefits ... would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶¶22–26). The hub's colour, which did not match the existing light street furniture, set this case apart from earlier allowed hub appeals (DL ¶12). A 600 cd/m2 night luminance, compared with the ILP 300 cd/m2 maximum, was enough to find public safety harm (DL ¶¶19–21).

## Policy findings
- **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** digital connectivity benefits substantial weight, but CO1 siting/design limb failed as hub not sited to minimise visual impact (DL 23, 25)
- **DP3: fail.** would not integrate with and enhance surroundings; dark solid hub clutters open spacious street (DL 11-12, 25)
- **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 22, 26)

## Key facts
- 600 cd/m2 night luminance proposed vs ILP PLG Table 10.4 maximum 300 cd/m2; public safety harm found (DL 19-21)
- Kiosk removals give only localised benefit; one removal site far away on Buckmans Road (DL 15-17)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004062
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/972d2f11-5e33-492c-9b48-e87b8182f1e8

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004062.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.