# Pavement outside 167 Stroud Green Road, London N4 (BT Street Hub 3)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Teasdale
- **Authority:** Islington (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008436
- **Application reference:** P2025/3559/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Removal of telephone kiosk and installation of a BT Street Hub 3 unit with two 75-inch digital advert screens (Appeal A); linked Appeal B 6008435 advertisement consent (P2025/3560/ADV), also dismissed
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE4, HE6, HE9, S4(1)
- **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, HC1, T2, Islington Local Plan 2023 PLAN1, DH1, DH2, DH6, T4, Stroud Green CA Design Guidelines 2007
- **Main issues:** conservation area character, advertisement amenity
- **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, s4-substantially-outweighed, transitional-no-consultation, old-wording-slip

## Summary
A BT Street Hub 3 with two large digital screens, replacing a phone kiosk in the Stroud Green Conservation Area. Dismissed, together with the linked advertisement consent appeal (6008435). The Inspector found harm to the conservation area at "the higher end of the spectrum" and held that a second digital hub would cause clutter. CO1 benefits carried substantial weight but were small in magnitude, because a nearby hub already offers the same services. The harm therefore failed HE4/HE6 and was "substantially outweighed" under S4.

## What made the difference
Another hub already stood nearby. That both added to the clutter and cut the practical benefit of a second one (DL ¶¶17, 27). The street had few illuminated features, so it could not absorb the screens (DL ¶18). As in PINS-6007391, the same Inspector separated the weight given to a benefit from its magnitude.

## Policy findings
- **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** high-end harm to Stroud Green CA: taller, monolithic unit with digital screens on a street with few illuminated features; clutter with an existing hub nearby (DL 16-19, 23, 27)
- **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight, but small in magnitude given an existing hub nearby already provides Wi-Fi and phones (DL 26-27)
- **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 32)

## Key facts
- An existing communications hub with a digital display is already close by (DL 17, 27)
- No harm to the Grade II listed Elkins Brothers building (limited intervisibility) (DL 22)
- Decided without consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework (DL 4); the Inspector also refers to Framework "Chapter 9" (DL 26)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008436
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fef6057b-0dd9-4804-94cd-61d38f02e76a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008436.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.