# Pavement outside 1b Shepherds Bush Road, Hammersmith

- **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh
- **Authority:** Hammersmith and Fulham (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009776
- **Application reference:** 2025/03050/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Freestanding multifunctional street hub with digital screen and public defibrillator on footway (non-determination)
- **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE7(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan 2018 DC1, DC8, DC10, T3, London Plan 2021 D5, D8, T1, T2
- **Main issues:** character and appearance / heritage, highway safety
- **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-ungraded, conservation-area, ndha-harm, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation, non-determination

## Summary
A street hub on an uncluttered footway in Shepherd's Bush Conservation Area, next to the Granville Mansions Building of Merit, was dismissed. The harm to the conservation area was given "considerable importance and weight" without being graded. The harm to the non-designated heritage asset was "moderate". Telecoms and public-safety benefits got limited weight. Highway safety was acceptable.

## Issues and findings
- **Significance (HE5).** "There is nothing before me to establish the significance of the CA as required by policy HE5 of the Framework" (DL ¶6). The inspector derived it from site observation.
- **Harm.** The hub "would appear somewhat monolithic … a significant and prominent addition to a street scene which is generally open and includes sparse furniture … it would also harm the significance of the CA and the Granville Mansions non-designated heritage asset" (DL ¶14).
- **HE6.** "I must give this harm considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶22). "great weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (DL ¶26).
- **HE7.** "a moderate level of harm to the setting of the BoM … worthy of additional moderate weight against the scheme" (DL ¶23).
- **Benefits.** "support is not ubiquitous. These benefits are given limited weight" (DL ¶24).

## Planning balance
HE6(4) and HE7(2) balances against limited public benefits. Contrary to the plan, with no material considerations indicating otherwise (DL ¶26-27).

## What made the difference
The setting: an uncluttered footway next to historic frontages in a conservation area. Compare PINS-6009681 (Ilford, allowed), where a busy Metropolitan Centre footway already full of street furniture absorbed a similar hub.

## Transferable points
- Street-hub telecoms benefits get limited weight against conservation-area harm (DL ¶24, 26).
- Harm to a conservation area is expressed only as "harm" carrying "considerable importance and weight", with no grading. Old "great weight" wording persists (DL ¶22, 26).
- A failure to supply an HE5 significance assessment is noted but does not stop the inspector forming their own view (DL ¶6-7).

## Policy findings
- **HE5(1): neutral.** "There is nothing before me to establish the significance of the CA as required by policy HE5" — inspector assessed significance from own observations (DL 6-7)
- **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** harm to Shepherd's Bush CA ungraded — "I must give this harm considerable importance and weight" (DL 22, HE6(3) wording); later "great weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (DL 26) — 2024 wording, not HE6(1) "substantial weight"; s72 and s66 cited (DL 6, 8); listed Empire and Grampians settings not affected (DL 15)
- **HE7(2): harm (moderate weight).** "moderate level of harm to the setting" of Granville Mansions (Building of Merit), "additional moderate weight" (DL 23)
- **CO1: benefit (limited weight).** code mapped by harvester — free wi-fi, calls, wayfinding, emergency button, defibrillator; support "not ubiquitous" and subject to environmental safeguards (DL 24); removal of an old hub elsewhere also limited (DL 25)
- **TR4: pass.** code mapped by harvester — 1.75m clearance for wheelchair users; no visibility obstruction at Miller's Way (DL 18-21)

## Key facts
- Hub 2.64m high x 1.33m wide; 0.6m from kerb, 4.9m to building line; sparse existing street furniture (DL 5, 14)
- Advertisement consent not before the inspector; screen assessed as structure only (DL 2)
- Parties not re-consulted; Framework "material … from the day of publication" (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009776
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1afff23f-8cbf-4c61-871f-6f0078c62efc

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009776.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.