# Pavement outside the Odeon, James Street West, Bath (BT Street Hub)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J J Evans
- **Authority:** Bath and North East Somerset (South West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6006948
- **Application reference:** 25/04771/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** BT Street Hub with 2 digital 75-inch screens, removal of payphones (Appeal B 6006951 advert consent 25/04772/AR also dismissed)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE8, P5
- **Development plan policies:** BaNES Placemaking Plan 2017 D1, D2, D4, D9, D10, LCR7A, HE1, Local Plan Partial Update 2023 D8, Core Strategy 2014 CP6, B4
- **Main issues:** heritage and character, public safety
- **Tags:** transitional, old-framework-applied-silently, telecoms, bt-street-hub, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, conservation-area, world-heritage-site, crime-evidence

## Summary
A BT Street Hub with illuminated screens on a straight, open footway in the Bath World Heritage Site and Conservation Area, in views of listed landmarks. Dismissed on heritage grounds and on public safety. The heritage harm was "less than substantial ... at the lower end" and was not outweighed by modest benefits. Site-specific police crime data (230+ incidents within 100m) defeated the ASB management plan. Although dated 17 August 2026, the letter uses the 2024 "great weight" and "less than substantial" framing.

## Issues and findings
- **Heritage.** The hub "would draw the eye away from these focal buildings ... This distracting prominence would also erode the character and appearance of the conservation area and that of the WHS" (DL ¶13).
- **Harm grading.** "less than substantial harm, albeit at the lower end of the scale, due to the size of the street hub compared to that of the size of the WHS" (DL ¶16). The same harm is later called "considerable" and "significant" (DL ¶17, 19).
- **Public safety.** "within 100m of the site over 230 incidents have occurred in a twelve month period ... This is a high level of occurrences" (DL ¶20). "no bespoke assessment of the lighting impact of the scheme upon the cameras has been provided" (DL ¶23).

## Planning balance
Heritage balance (2024 para 215, now HE6(4)): modest benefits against harm given great weight. There is no telecoms substantial-weight test, and CO1 is not cited.

## What made the difference
Long, open views to listed landmarks with no street clutter, combined with site-specific crime evidence. In other hub appeals (for example PINS-6002960) the crime objections failed because they were generic.

## Transferable points
- Specific police data on crime near a site can defeat a generic ASB management plan (DL ¶20-22).
- Removing payphones that could be removed anyway carries little weight (DL ¶17).
- Harm graded "lower end" because the asset is large (a WHS) can still be decisive (DL ¶16-17).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(4): harm (great weight).** "less than substantial harm, albeit at the lower end of the scale" to Bath CA, settings of Grade II Green Park Station, 17-21 Charles Street and Old Labour Exchange, and OUV of the WHS; "great weight" (2024 wording); later called "considerable harm"/"significant harm"; s66/s72 cited (DL 12-17, 19)
- **CO1: benefit (limited weight).** upgraded infrastructure, environmental monitoring; "modest" — payphone removal could happen anyway; no CO1 substantial-weight wording (DL 15, 17, 19)
- **P5: fail.** over 230 incidents within 100m in 12 months, police evidence of drug dealing at nearby payphone; ASB management plan not sufficient; CCTV line-of-sight unassessed (DL 20-24); code mapped by harvester

## Key facts
- Straight road with long views to landmark listed buildings; little other street furniture (DL 8, 12)
- Site-specific crime data from the police distinguished this case from Croydon hub appeal (DL 20-21)
- Dated 17 August 2026, applies 2024 Framework wording without mentioning the new Framework

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006948
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e8cd2740-e4d4-4e3f-9b2f-fd85161fe2c7

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006948.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.