# Pavement outside 10 Bargate Street, Southampton

- **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Leonard
- **Authority:** Southampton (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010617
- **Application reference:** 26/00357/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Multifunctional communication hub with defibrillator and digital advertisement (Appeal A 6010617 planning; Appeal B 6010618 advertisement)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3, TR4(1)(c)(iii)
- **Development plan policies:** Southampton Core Strategy Partial Review 2015 CS13, CS14, City Centre Action Plan 2015 AP16, AP19, Local Plan Review saved HE1, HE3, Streets and Spaces Framework SPD 2015
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, heritage, advertisement amenity
- **Tags:** street-hub, telecoms, advertisement, transitional-no-consultation, old-heritage-wording, previous-appeal-followed

## Summary
Communication hub with a digital advert on Bargate Street, near the Grade I listed and scheduled Bar Gate. Both appeals were dismissed on street clutter and visual amenity, although no heritage harm was found. The letter includes an express comparison of the 2024 and 2026 heritage wording.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The revised Framework "does not differ significantly from the 2024 Framework in respect of the substance", so there was no consultation (DL ¶6).
- **Heritage wording.** "the 2024 Framework required 'great' weight … In the 2026 revised Framework, 'great' is replaced by 'substantial'. There is still a requirement to balance any harm … against any public benefits" (DL ¶9). The conclusion nonetheless reverts: "I have given great weight to their conservation" (DL ¶23).
- **Heritage: no harm.** The hub would interrupt views of the Bar Gate only "from a discrete section of the footway … fleeting and only experienced in one direction" (DL ¶22).
- **Character and clutter: FAIL.** The structure "would interrupt the existing spacious line arrangement of trees … giving a cluttered appearance" (DL ¶17).
- **Benefits.** Connectivity and defibrillator benefits are "localised", and "there is no firm evidence that the proposed location before me is the only means of securing such benefits … thereby moderating the weight" (DL ¶32).

## Planning balance
Plan-led (s38(6)). Visual harm outweighed the moderated benefits. For the advertisement, benefits cannot count because control is limited to amenity and public safety (DL ¶34).

## What made the difference
Placement between a regular row of street trees and right next to an existing ad unit. A near-identical scheme a few metres away had been dismissed in 2023, and nothing had changed (DL ¶¶28–30).

## Transferable points
- Inspectors are expressly recognising the HE6(1) change from "great" to "substantial" weight while treating the balance as unchanged (DL ¶9).
- Communications-hub benefits are moderated where there's no evidence the location is the only way to secure them (DL ¶32).

## Policy findings
- **DP3: fail.** 2.63m bulky unit between regularly spaced street trees next to existing ad unit — cluttered, awkward, intrusive, also at night (DL 15-18, 24-25)
- **HE6(1): neutral.** Inspector notes 2024 "great" weight now "substantial"; but then states "I have given great weight" (DL 9, 23)
- **HE6: pass.** no harm to setting of Grade I listed and scheduled Bar Gate; negligible effect on Old Town CA (site just outside CA, so s72 not engaged) (DL 5, 19-23)
- **CO1: benefit (moderate weight).** need not questioned; localised benefits, moderated because no evidence this is the only location; removal of other kiosks minimal weight (DL 31-33)

## Key facts
- Almost identical scheme outside 14 Bargate Street dismissed in 2023 (APP/D1780/W/22/3299729 and H/22/3299730)
- Bus-only city-centre street with two existing digital ad units nearby

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b978a933-af08-4d48-8361-b5e9c5d2e38e
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010617

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010617.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.