# Opposite 67 Sandgate Road, Folkestone (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden - **Authority:** Folkestone and Hythe (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004363 - **Application reference:** 25/1919/FH - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with 2 digital 75-inch advert screens and removal of BT kiosk (Appeal B 6004364 advert consent 25/1962/FH, also dismissed) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S4(2)(c), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Folkestone & Hythe Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 HB1, RL9, RL2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, conservation area setting, public benefits - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, bt-street-hub, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, conservation-area, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, plan-policy-consistent-full-weight ## Summary A BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital screens on a pedestrianised Folkestone town-centre pavement, in the setting of the Leas and Bayle Conservation Area. The planning appeal and the joint advert appeal (6004364) were both dismissed. The hub would be prominent and intrusive, causing modest harm to the CA through its setting; connectivity and kiosk-removal benefits were small or limited. The letter runs DP3(3) through S4(2)(c) with an explicit clear-justification finding. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I sought the views of the parties on the implications of the new Framework on the appeal" (DL ¶7). - **Character and CA setting: HARM.** "Modest harm to the significance of the CA through its setting would therefore arise" (DL ¶15). - **CO1: small benefit.** "In these circumstances and due to the limited scale of the development this amounts to a small benefit" (DL ¶17). - **HE4(2) / HE6(4): FAIL.** "the public benefits are insufficient to provide such justification and outweigh the identified harm to the significance of the CA through its setting" (DL ¶19). - **Plan weight (Transitional(2)).** HB1 and RL9 "are consistent with section 14 of the Framework in seeking to achieve well-design places, in particular Policy DP3. On this basis the identified conflict with these policies carries significant weight" (DL ¶26). - **DP3(3) via S4(2)(c): FAIL.** "Based on my findings, there are no clear justifications for the harm. The benefits of approving the development are therefore substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance Plan-led (s38(6)) with S4 applied: conflict with HB1/RL9 at significant weight; DP3(3) conflict without clear justification engages S4(2)(c), so benefits substantially outweighed (DL ¶27–29). HE6(4) run separately first (DL ¶16–19). ## What made the difference The hub's height, solid form and large double-sided screens at a crossroads, visible in long views into the CA, against benefits that were not shown to meet any local deficiency. The small-scale CO1 benefit was reduced because no coverage gap was evidenced (DL ¶17). An evidenced coverage deficiency, or a less prominent position, might have shifted the HE6(4) balance. ## Transferable points - CO1's substantial weight can shrink to "a small benefit" where there is no evidence of local deficiency in the services offered (DL ¶17). - Kiosk removal and the Universal Service Obligation carry limited weight where not shown to require this specific location (DL ¶18). - Clear DP3(3) sequence: DP3(1) conflict, "no clear justifications for the harm", therefore S4(2) — benefits substantially outweighed (DL ¶27–28). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation of Folkestone Leas and Bayle CA (DL 9); "Modest harm" to CA significance through setting (DL 15) - **HE6(4): fail.** public benefits (small / limited weight) do not outweigh the modest setting harm (DL 16-19) - **HE4(2): fail.** public benefits "insufficient to provide such justification" (DL 19) - **CO1: benefit.** CO1 substantial weight to coverage noted but, small scale and no evidence of local deficiency, "a small benefit" (DL 17) - **DP3(3): fail.** conflicts with DP3(1) (context, heritage integration) and "no clear justifications for the harm" (DL 28) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3(3) routed through S4(2); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 27-28) - **Transitional(2): neutral (significant weight).** HB1 and RL9 consistent with section 14 / DP3, so conflict carries significant weight (DL 25-26) ## Key facts - Pedestrianised town-centre pavement at a crossroads, outside but within the setting of the Folkestone Leas and Bayle CA (DL 9, 11) - Earlier kiosk already removed at the site visit; site now makes a neutral contribution (DL 5, 11) - Kiosk removal and BT Universal Service Obligation given limited weight as not shown to need this location (DL 18) - No harm to public safety (Appeal B) (DL 23) - Parties' views sought on the 2026 Framework (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004363 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e75cbfd7-de9a-41cf-b749-c9a25af85da5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004363.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.