# Pavement outside 33 Havelock Road, Hastings (BT Street Hub)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden
- **Authority:** Hastings (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6004449
- **Application reference:** HS/FA/25/00624
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** BT Street Hub and removal of associated payphones (Appeal A, planning); linked Appeal B 6004450 advertisement consent (HS/AA/25/00625), also dismissed
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TC2, S4(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Hastings Planning Strategy 2014 FA2, FA3, Hastings DM Plan 2015 LP1
- **Main issues:** town centre vitality and amenity
- **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, transitional-no-consultation, s4-substantially-outweighed

## Summary
A BT Street Hub on a Hastings town-centre pavement was refused, along with its advertisement consent (linked Appeal B, 6004450). Both appeals were dismissed. The hub would sit on the site of a rain garden in the Council's advanced public-realm scheme, in conflict with TC2 (town-centre vitality). Under S4 the CO1 benefits were limited and "substantially outweighed". There was no heritage harm to the conservation area or the nearby listed buildings.

## What made the difference
The Council's public-realm drawings, submitted at appeal, showed the pavement as part of a planned rain garden. The appellant gave no technical evidence that the two could coexist (DL ¶¶9-10). The appellant offered to move the hub, but that was rejected because the appeal is decided on the plans submitted (DL ¶13). The hub's claimed benefits were discounted for lack of evidence that the facilities were needed locally (DL ¶20).

## Policy findings
- **TC2: fail (considerable weight).** siting would conflict with the rain-garden layout of the advanced Hastings Town Centre Public Realm Improvement Project, undermining town-centre vitality (DL 9-10, 23)
- **CO1: benefit (limited weight).** substantial weight in principle, but small scale and no evidence of deficiency in the facilities offered, so limited benefit (DL 20)
- **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 19, 23)

## Key facts
- The Council's town-centre public realm scheme (Town Deal) shows a rain garden on the appeal pavement; given significant weight as a material consideration (DL 9)
- Removal of two kiosks elsewhere not secured, so given no weight (DL 22)
- Decided without consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework (DL 5)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004449
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6d0990d6-8490-4999-8840-7ab3c0dc556b

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004449.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.