Pavement outside 19-23 Market Street, Huddersfield

Decision

dismissed, 28 August 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: N McGurk

Authority

Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Appeal reference

6010180

Application reference

2026/62/90569/W

Procedure

written representations

Development

BT Street Hub incorporating two 75-inch digital advert screens and removal of two BT kiosks

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

No Framework version cited

Determinative policies

HE6(4), HE4(2), TR4

Development plan policies

Kirklees Local Plan 2019 LP17(a), LP21, LP24(a), LP35

Main issues

conservation area and listed building setting; highway safety

Summary

BT Street Hub with two digital screens on an uncluttered stretch of Market Street, Huddersfield, next to a Grade II listed building in the town-centre conservation area. Dismissed on heritage and highway-safety grounds. The letter never says which Framework it applies and never mentions the 17 August 2026 publication. It uses pre-2026 language, "less than substantial" harm, alongside 2026-style "clear and convincing justification" and "considerable importance".

Issues and findings

• Conservation area / listed setting — HE9 / HE6: HARM. The hub "would result in a development of such scale and prominence as to appear as an incongruous and unduly dominant feature" (DL ¶13).
• Heritage balance — HE6(4) / HE4(2): FAIL. "The harm arising would be less than substantial … any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and should be weighed against the public benefits … they are generic benefits that would arise from the Street Hub model wherever it were sited, rather than comprising benefits specific to this particular, sensitive location … I do not consider that they amount to a clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶14).
• Highway safety — TR4: FAIL. "the illuminated and eye-catching nature of the proposal would result in it being likely to distract the attention of both drivers and pedestrians" (DL ¶18).

Planning balance

An HE6(4) harm-versus-public-benefits balance, run together with the HE4(2) "clear and convincing justification" test. The benefits were accepted as "not insignificant", but their generic, location-independent character reduced their weight.

What made the difference

The site's openness and lack of clutter in a conservation area, and the absence of site-specific benefits. The kiosk removals were elsewhere, so they did not offset the harm. For the other outcome, the hub would have needed an already-cluttered location or a real one-for-one kiosk replacement at the site (compare PINS-6010150).

Transferable points

• Benefits that "would arise from the Street Hub model wherever it were sited" carry less weight against site-specific heritage harm (DL ¶14).
• Removing street furniture away from the site does not offset harm at the site (DL ¶12).
• Some letters dated after 17 August 2026 still use "less than substantial" harm, a category the 2026 HE5/HE6 no longer has, and do not identify the Framework version (DL ¶14).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Hub 1.23m wide, 2.98m high, next to Grade II listed 21 Market Street, within Huddersfield Town Centre CA (DL 8, 10)
• Payphones to be removed are across Cloth Hall Street, not at the site, so no offset (DL 12)
• Previous hub at the site dismissed on appeal in 2019 (DL 4); linked advert appeal 6010183 decided separately (DL 2)

Related decisions

• PINS-6010150

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.