# Pavement outside Waitrose, 21 Liverpool Road, Islington (BT Street Hub)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Teasdale
- **Authority:** Islington (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007715
- **Application reference:** P2025/3517/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Replacement of two phone kiosks with BT Street Hub 3 with two 75-inch digital adverts (Appeal A planning; Appeal B 6007714 advert consent P2025/3518/ADV)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE4, HE6, S4
- **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, HC1, T2, T4, Islington Local Plan SDMP 2023 PLAN1, DH1, DH2, DH6, ST3, T1, T2, T4, Islington Urban Design Guide SPD 2017
- **Main issues:** character and appearance and CA setting, pedestrian flow, advert amenity and public safety
- **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, co1-substantial-weight, conservation-area, he6-harm-graded, heritage-harm-decisive, s4-substantially-outweighed, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
BT Street Hub with digital screens replacing two kiosks on cluttered Liverpool Road, Angel, just outside a conservation area. Both appeals were dismissed. The monolithic, illuminated unit would add clutter and stand out in views to and from the CA. The inspector graded the setting harm "at the higher end of the spectrum" and found it outweighed CO1 benefits even at substantial weight. Pedestrian flow was fine.

## What made the difference
The heritage balance under HE4/HE6 was decisive. "The proposed development would result in a high level of harm to the significance of the CA. In accordance with the Framework, this harm is afforded substantial weight. Whilst the benefits ... also attract substantial weight, the magnitude of those benefits ... is not sufficient to outweigh the identified heritage harm" (DL ¶25). The immediate area had very few illuminated freestanding displays, so the townscape "lacks the capacity to absorb" one (DL ¶19). The inspector used "higher end of the spectrum" grading and HE5 degree-of-harm language, not the old "less than substantial" label (DL ¶¶8, 21).

## Policy findings
- **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** harm to setting of Chapel Market/Penton Street CA "at the higher end of the spectrum"; CO1 benefits (substantial) insufficient (DL 17, 21-25)
- **HE4: fail.** harm not justified (DL 22, 25)
- **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** connectivity, emergency button, small-cell capability (DL 23-24)
- **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 35)

## Key facts
- Pedestrian flow acceptable; 2 m clear footway retained per TfL Streetscape Guidance (DL 30-32)
- Hub opposite Angel Centre previously dismissed on other grounds; context distinguished (DL 18)
- Framework not put to parties as "changes relevant to this appeal are not substantive or determinative" (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007715
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e34d3916-70da-4820-a979-ff611fc7ed4e

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007715.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.