# Outside 100 Avenue Road / Swiss Cottage Station, Camden (BT Street Hub 3)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Claire Coles
- **Authority:** Camden (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007200
- **Application reference:** 2025/5809/P
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Replacement of an InLink unit with a larger BT Street Hub 3 with digital advert panels (Appeal B 6007199 advert consent 2026/0074/A also dismissed)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** P5, CO1, HC4
- **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan C5, C6, D1, D4, T1, A1, G1
- **Main issues:** community safety, character, pedestrian safety, maintenance
- **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, bt-street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, crime-evidence, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Replacing an existing InLink unit at Swiss Cottage with a larger Street Hub 3. The planning and advert appeals were both dismissed, on community safety alone. Character, pedestrian flow and maintenance were all found acceptable. CO1 and HC4 substantial weight were acknowledged, but the benefits largely duplicated the existing unit. They did not outweigh a site-specific police objection about concealment and phone theft next to a cycle lane (DL ¶38).

## What made the difference
Site-specific police evidence tied to the unit's wider solid form and the adjacent cycle lane, and the fact that benefits already provided by the existing unit add little. The same inspector's reasoning contrasts with hub appeals where crime objections were generic (for example PINS-6002960).

## Policy findings
- **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight given, with HC4 substantial weight to community facilities, but similar benefits already provided by the existing InLink unit (DL 16, 38)
- **P5: fail (significant weight).** Met Police objection "given substantial weight": wider solid unit gives concealment, phone users exposed to theft by cyclists using the adjacent cycle lane; no site-specific measures (DL 11-17, 39); decided under Camden C5; code mapped by harvester
- **DP3(1): pass.** replacement in the same position adds no clutter; no character harm (DL 18-25); code mapped by harvester

## Key facts
- Theft from the person and ASB among top crimes in Primrose Hill ward (DL 12)
- Maintenance can be secured by condition; no s106 needed (DL 31-34)
- Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 6)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007200
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c697f229-2fbb-46a2-a250-8127f3ef8049

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007200.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.