- Decision
- dismissed, 1 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: David Troy
- Authority
- Hammersmith and Fulham (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6010445
- Application reference
- 2025/03052/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Free-standing multifunctional communications hub with a digital advertisement screen on one side and emergency functions, including a public defibrillator, on the other
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), DP3, TR6
- Development plan policies
- Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan 2018 DC1, DC8, DC9, DC10, T3, London Plan 2021 T2, D5, Planning Guidance SPD 2018 CAG2, CAG3
- Main issues
- character and appearance; conservation area; highway safety
Summary
A communications hub with a digital advertising screen on the Fulham Road footway, inside the Walham Green Conservation Area, was dismissed with its linked advertisement appeal. The harm to the conservation area was at the lower level, but the benefits, although given substantial weight in principle, were modest in scale and did not outweigh it under HE6(4). The scheme also failed on highway safety: driver distraction at a busy junction and obstruction of pedestrians at a pinch point.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties have been consulted and provided with an opportunity to provide … comments on it in relation to these appeals" (DL ¶4; the break is a page break).
- Character: harm. "it would have an undue presence in its setting, appearing as an incongruous and uncharacteristic feature" (DL ¶10).
- HE6(4): FAIL. "Whilst the degree of harm resulting from the proposed Hub and advertisement on the significance of the Walham Green CA would be at the lower level, in accordance with Policy HE6 (4) of the Framework, that harm should be weighed against any public benefits of the proposals" (DL ¶14). "whilst afforded substantial weight in line with the policies in the Framework, given the limited scale of the proposals, these benefits would be modest. I therefore find insufficient public benefits arising from the proposals to offset the identified harm to which I attach substantial weight" (DL ¶16).
- Highway safety: harm. "the proposals would result in increased potential risk of collision between motorists and/or pedestrians/cyclists and as such would have an unacceptable effect on highways safety" (DL ¶20).
- Off-site kiosk removal. "I am not satisfied this would mitigate the harm arising from the appeal proposals, nor that a planning condition to secure its removal would meet the tests on conditions set out in the Framework" (DL ¶26).
Planning balance
HE6(4): lower-level harm to a conservation area against benefits that carry substantial weight in principle but are modest in scale. No S4 balance is run; the conclusion is plan-led (DL ¶30).
What made the difference
The junction. A lit screen close to the kerb at a multi-lane roundabout with a collision record, on a corner where the footway narrows, failed on safety whatever the heritage balance. The absence of other illuminated advertisements in the footway made the hub more prominent on both issues.
Transferable points
- Substantial weight in principle for communications infrastructure does not make the benefits large: a single hub's benefits were "modest" and lost the HE6(4) balance to lower-level harm (DL ¶16).
- Removing a kiosk at another site in the borough does not mitigate harm at the appeal site and cannot be secured by condition (DL ¶26).
- A measured clear footway width does not answer obstruction where the footway narrows at a corner and pedestrians were seen to cross the proposed position (DL ¶22–23).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(4) | fail | harm to the Walham Green Conservation Area (site within it) "at the lower level"; weighed against public benefits "in accordance with Policy HE6 (4)"; benefits insufficient; no harm to the setting of the Barclay Road CA (DL 12-16) | |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | letter says the harm is one "to which I attach substantial weight" (DL 16); the Framework's words are considerable importance and weight to harm, substantial weight to conservation |
| CO1 | benefit | substantial | mapped: benefits "afforded substantial weight in line with the policies in the Framework", no policy named; but "modest" given the limited scale (DL 16, 29) |
| DP3 | conflict | mapped: Framework design policy not cited; most prominent feature in an uncluttered footway, incongruous and uncharacteristic, contrary to local plan DC1, DC8, DC9, DC10 (DL 10-11, 17) | |
| TR6 | fail | mapped: Framework not cited; advert would distract drivers at a busy multi-lane roundabout junction with a collision record, and the hub would obstruct pedestrians at a corner pinch point; contrary to local plan T3 and London Plan T2, D5 (DL 19-25) |
Key facts
- Joint letter with advertisement Appeal B 6010443 (2025/03053/ADV), also dismissed on amenity (DL 1, 18, 31)
- Site on a corner plot in Fulham town centre, opposite the Fulham Road and North End Road roundabout; 20 mph limit; highways objection and collision data from the Council (DL 8, 19)
- Plan showed about 3.6 m clear footway, but the footway narrows at the corner and beside a restaurant seating area (DL 22-23)
- Offer to remove a telephone kiosk elsewhere in the borough gave no mitigation; a condition would not meet the tests (DL 26)
- Offer to move and re-orientate the hub would be a material change and was not considered (DL 24)
- Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4)
Sources
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.