# Pavement outside Hillyard House, Brixton Road

- **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Major
- **Authority:** Lambeth (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007793
- **Application reference:** 25/03883/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** BT Street Hub replacing payphone kiosks, with two 75-inch digital advert screens (planning appeal A; advert appeal B 6007795)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE9, S4(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 T9, Q5, Q6, Q17, Q20, Q22, London Plan 2021 T4, D3, D8
- **Main issues:** conservation area and listed building setting, highway and pedestrian safety
- **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, telecoms, bt-street-hub, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A BT Street Hub with digital screens in the Brixton Road Conservation Area was refused both planning permission and advertisement consent. The CA harm got considerable weight under HE6. CO1's substantial weight for telecoms benefits did not outweigh it, because there was "limited evidence ... that these telecommunication benefits could not be provided at a less sensitive location, or through a more sensitively designed proposal that does not include digital advertisements" (DL ¶28). Under S4, the benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶45). Pedestrian and highway safety were acceptable.

## What made the difference
The digital advertising in a residential, verdant part of the CA. The inspector read CO1's "do not question need" instruction as leaving room to ask whether a less harmful design or site was available. Advertisement-free hub designs may fare better.

## Policy findings
- **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** alien, obtrusive digital hub in the verdant residential part of Brixton Road CA; CO1 telecoms benefits do not outweigh; no evidence a less sensitive site or design was unavailable (DL 13-18, 24-29)
- **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to network benefits (5G small cell, wifi), but no evidence they could not be provided less harmfully (DL 27-28)
- **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by HE6, HE9 and DP3 conflict (DL 44-45)

## Key facts
- 5.5m clear footway retained; no highway, pedestrian or TR6 harm (DL 33-43)
- Removal of a distant kiosk at St Matthews Road given little weight as visually unrelated (DL 15)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007793
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/069151d0-76d4-4364-8126-f885dc8843f1

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007793.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.