# 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
- **Tags:** street-hub, digital-advertising, telecoms, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, he6-harm-ungraded, no-framework-reference, generic-benefits

## 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
- **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading — "less than substantial in terms of the proposal's effect on the significance of heritage assets" (legacy wording); "any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance" (HE6(3) wording, without "and weight"); no HE6(1) substantial-weight statement; s66/s72 duties cited (DL 3, 14)
- **HE4(2): fail.** public benefits (Wi-Fi, free calls, emergency button, wayfinding, charging, sensors, kiosk removal) "genuine and, cumulatively, not insignificant" but "generic benefits ... wherever it were sited" — not a "clear and convincing justification" (DL 14)
- **HE9: harm.** 3m illuminated structure incongruous and dominant on uncluttered section of Huddersfield Town Centre CA; adjacent Grade II 21 Market Street (DL 8-13)
- **TR4: fail.** changing screens near signalised junction and crossing distract drivers and pedestrians (DL 16-19); letter cites only "the National Planning Policy Framework" — code mapped by harvester

## 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)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010180
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f909c6d8-4971-435d-beee-8304fed585a5

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010180.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.