- Decision
- dismissed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Carla Livingstone
- Authority
- Ealing (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6008483
- Application reference
- 260011FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Installation of one BT Street Hub unit with digital advertisement panels on both sides, on the footway near Ealing Broadway station
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), HE4(2)
- Development plan policies
- London Plan 2021 D3, D4, D8, T2, T4, Ealing Development Strategy 2012 1.1, 1.2, Ealing Development Management DPD 2013 7.4, 7B
- Main issues
- character and appearance; conservation area; pedestrian and highway safety
Summary
A BT Street Hub with two digital advertisement screens on the wide footway outside Ealing Broadway station, inside the Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area. The inspector found modest harm to the conservation area from a bulky, illuminated unit, no clear and convincing justification, and public benefits of only moderate weight. The unit would also block views between pedestrians and drivers near a busy crossing. Appeal A (planning) and the linked advertisement appeal were both dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Although there have been significant amendments to its layout and formatting such that previously cited paragraph references are no longer relevant, other changes are not substantive or determinative to the outcome of this appeal" (DL ¶3).
- Heritage harm, graded. "It would also result in a dominant element within the streetscape that would undermine the attractive qualities of the public realm within this part of the CA, causing harm to its significance. However, in acknowledgement of the commercial nature of the area the degree of harm would be modest" (DL ¶19).
- HE4(2): FAIL. "I do not find that the location of the appeal site at the edge of the CA or an absence of material concerns from the Council Conservation Officer as a clear and convincing justification for the harm" (DL ¶20).
- HE6(1). "substantial weight should be given to its conservation" (DL ¶21).
- HE6(4): FAIL. "I find that all of the above-mentioned public benefits attract moderate weight in favour of the appeal proposal. However, these public benefits do not outweigh the considerable importance I must attach to the preservation of the CA as a designated heritage asset" (DL ¶25).
- Plan consistency. "When read together, these policies are consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶27).
- Public safety: HARM. "it is reasonable to take a precautionary approach in regard to highway and public safety" (DL ¶36).
Planning balance
HE6(4) on its own terms, then the development plan. Modest harm, given considerable importance, against moderate public benefits. No S4 balance is run. The communications benefits are weighed as public benefits at moderate weight; CO1's substantial weight for network improvements is not mentioned.
What made the difference
The location's views and crowding. The wide footway and the curve of the street give views that contribute to the conservation area, and the inspector saw the balance between street furniture and open space as "delicately poised" (DL ¶12). A solid 3 m unit next to the kerb also raised a safety concern that the appellant had no sightline evidence to answer.
Transferable points
- A conservation officer's lack of objection is not "clear and convincing justification" under HE4(2) (DL ¶20).
- Modest harm to a commercial conservation area outweighed the connectivity benefits of a street hub, which got moderate weight (DL ¶19, ¶25).
- Where visibility evidence is missing, an inspector may take a precautionary approach to pedestrian safety (DL ¶36).
- A wide footway does not answer a clutter or safety concern where existing furniture and pedestrian flows already constrain it (DL ¶35).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE5(2) | harm | harm to the significance of the Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area from a dominant, illuminated unit that would obscure views along The Broadway; "the degree of harm would be modest" given the commercial setting (DL 17-19) | |
| HE4(2) | fail | the edge-of-area location and the absence of concerns from the Council's Conservation Officer are not "a clear and convincing justification" for the harm (DL 20) | |
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | substantial weight to conservation of the asset stated (DL 21) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | "the considerable importance I must attach to the preservation of the CA" (DL 25) |
| HE6(4) | fail | public benefits (free public wi-fi, device charging, free calls including to support charities, digital connectivity) given moderate weight together; they do not outweigh the harm (DL 22-25) | |
| CO1 | benefit | moderate | mapped: letter cites "Section 9 of the Framework" on communications infrastructure and support for expanding networks; CO1 is not named and its substantial weight is not applied (DL 23, 25) |
| DP3 | conflict | mapped: DP3 not named; local policies said to be "consistent with the Framework in requiring that development proposals respond to their context so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings"; visually intrusive, bulky, adds clutter (DL 15, 27) | |
| TR6 | harm | mapped: letter says "contrary to the highway safety provisions of the Framework"; unit near the kerb by a busy crossing would block views between pedestrians and road users; precautionary approach without sightline evidence (DL 29-37) |
Key facts
- Unit about 2.99 m high, 1.24 m wide and 0.35 m deep, with screens about 1.67 m by 0.95 m (DL 9)
- Footway about 12.6 m wide but with much street furniture and dense pedestrian flows by a major rail interchange (DL 10, 29, 35)
- Joint letter with advertisement Appeal B 6008485 (260012ADV), also dismissed on amenity and public safety (DL 2, 26, 40)
- Parties not consulted on the August 2026 Framework - changes "not substantive or determinative" (DL 3)
- Letter refers to "Section 71(1)" of the 1990 Act at DL 27; the duty it applies at DL 6 is section 72(1)
- Site visit made on 21 July 2026
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.