# Footpath outside 1 Prince Street, Bridlington (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Caines - **Authority:** East Riding of Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009141 - **Application reference:** 26/00310/PLF - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub replacing a telephone kiosk and cash machine at a prominent corner in Bridlington Quay Conservation Area (Appeal A; linked advertisement Appeal B 6009153 for two 75-inch digital screens) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S4, DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** East Riding Local Plan 2025 ENV1, ENV3, Bridlington Quay Conservation Area Appraisal 2010 - **Main issues:** conservation area, advertisement amenity - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, bt-street-hub, digital-advertising, co1-substantial-weight, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A BT Street Hub replacing a kiosk and cash machine on a prominent corner of the Bridlington Quay Conservation Area. The inspector graded the harm as low but applied HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight, and found the public benefits, including CO1's substantial weight for connectivity, did not outweigh it. The design conflict was treated as a refusal policy and the S4 benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed, with the linked advertisement appeal. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶4). - **Degree of harm.** "I find that the proposal would result in a low level of harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶17). - **CO1.** "I attach substantial weight to the benefits of maintaining and improving network coverage, capacity, reliability and resilience, although the contribution made by this individual installation to those wider objectives would be relatively limited" (DL ¶19). - **HE6(4): FAIL.** "the public benefits would not outweigh the identified harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶21). - **DP3 as refusal policy.** "Policy S5(2) of the Framework indicates that conflict with a national decision-making policy requiring refusal, including Policy DP3, is a circumstance in which the benefits of development are likely to be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶25). The site is inside a settlement, so the limb is S4(2)(c); the letter cites S5(2). ## Planning balance HE6(4) first, then S4: CO1 benefits (substantial) and others (limited) against heritage harm and design conflict (substantial). "the benefits of granting permission would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference The hub's dark, monolithic form and changing illuminated screens, which made it more conspicuous than the kiosk it replaced, at a highly visible corner of a traditional townscape. ## Transferable points - CO1 substantial weight attaches to network benefits, but it can be tempered by the small contribution of one unit (DL ¶19). - Low graded harm, with HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight, outweighed CO1 benefits (DL ¶17-21). - Replacing a larger kiosk does not help if the replacement is more conspicuous (DL ¶12, ¶20). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2): harm.** degree identified - low harm to the CA's significance; dark monolithic hub with illuminated screens more conspicuous than the kiosk it replaces (DL 12, 15, 17) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** HE6(1) substantial weight irrespective of level of effect; HE6(3) considerable importance and weight (DL 18, 21) - **HE6(4): fail.** public benefits meaningful but do not outweigh (DL 19-21) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to network benefits, though this unit's contribution relatively limited; other social benefits and kiosk removal limited (DL 19-20, 24) - **DP3(3): fail.** conflict with DP3 (integrate with surroundings) treated as a refusal policy; routed through "S5(2)" although the site is inside a settlement (S4(2)(c)); no clear-justification words (DL 25) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 26) ## Key facts - Joint letter with advertisement Appeal B 6009153, also dismissed on amenity (DL 2, 28) - Parties had the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4) - Hub nearly 3 m high, dark finish, illuminated digital screens both faces; smaller footprint than the kiosk and ATM it replaces (DL 11-12) - Local policies ENV1 and ENV3 "broadly consistent" with the Framework (DL 22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009141 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/de362c41-ab51-482e-8611-91cc15a996d8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009141.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.