# Pavement outside 297 King Street, Hammersmith

- **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh
- **Authority:** Hammersmith and Fulham (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009772
- **Application reference:** 2025/03048/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Freestanding multifunctional hub with digital screen and public defibrillator on footway (non-determination)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4, DP3
- **Development plan policies:** Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan 2018 DC1, DC8, DC10, T3, London Plan 2021 D8, T1, T2, D5
- **Main issues:** character and CA setting, highway safety
- **Tags:** street-hub, telecoms, conservation-area-setting, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-ungraded, he6-3-considerable-weight, non-determination, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
A new multifunctional hub (screen and defibrillator) on a verdant, uncluttered stretch of King Street was dismissed. It harmed the character of the street and, through that, the settings of two conservation areas opposite. The Inspector ran the new heritage sequence: HE5 (no assessment submitted), HE4, HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight", and HE6(4) against limited CO1-type benefits.

## Issues and findings
- **HE5(1): no assessment.** HE5 requires an assessment of significance including setting. "This is not before me" (DL ¶6).
- **Character: harm, significant weight.** The hub "would appear somewhat monolithic … a significant and prominent addition to a street scene which is generally clear of furniture" (DL ¶12).
- **CA setting: harm, ungraded.** "As a result of this harm, it stands to reason that it would also harm the significance of both conservation areas through harm to their respective settings" (DL ¶12). The Inspector used the Annex B definition of setting (DL ¶9).
- **HE6(3)/(4).** "any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶19). The Wi-Fi, calls, defibrillator and wayfinding benefits "contribute to the aims of section 9 … However, this is with the caveat that … support is not ubiquitous. These benefits are given limited weight" (DL ¶20).
- **Highway safety: PASS** (DL ¶¶15–18).

## Planning balance
An HE6(4) weighing inside a s38(6) decision. Considerable weight to setting harm plus significant character harm, against limited benefits.

## What made the difference
The street had been deliberately kept clear of furniture, and the frontage facing it is a key contributor to the Westcroft Square CA. Compare the Islington and Liverpool hubs allowed where the setting was cluttered or modern (PINS-6008701, PINS-6009241).

## Transferable points
- Harm to CA setting can be found without grading, then given HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶¶12, 19).
- The absence of an HE5 significance assessment is noted against the applicant (DL ¶6).
- Communications benefits under the new chapter 9 (CO1) are limited where the kit is not justified at that spot (DL ¶20).

## Policy findings
- **HE5(1): fail.** no heritage assessment of setting submitted (DL 6)
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** harm to setting of Westcroft Square and Ravenscourt & Starch Green CAs — ungraded; "a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 12, 19)
- **HE6(4): fail.** Wi-Fi, calls, defibrillator, wayfinding — limited weight (DL 20)
- **HE4(1): conflict.** "heritage assets, as an irreplaceable resource, should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance" (DL 13)
- **DP3: fail (significant weight).** monolithic 2.64 m hub on a clear, verdant street — harm to character weighs "significantly" (DL 12, 19)
- **CO1: benefit (limited weight).** section 9 support for communications "not ubiquitous" (DL 20)
- **TR4: pass.** set back 3 m+ from cycle-lane crossing; 2.4 m wheelchair space (DL 15-18)

## Key facts
- Wide verdant stretch of King Street clear of street furniture; CAs on opposite side with Buildings of Merit frontage
- Ad consent application undetermined and not appealed; screen assessed as structure only
- No existing hub at the site despite reference to replacement

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e752355f-6e28-42cc-a398-413c62650f91
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009772

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009772.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.