# Pavement outside 43-47 Bethnal Green Road, Tower Hamlets (communication hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Leung - **Authority:** Tower Hamlets (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010661 - **Application reference:** PA/26/00088 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Removal of two advertised kiosks and installation of a 2.6 m multifunctional communication hub with defibrillator and digital advertisement display (Appeal A planning; Appeal B 6010662 advertisement consent PA/26/00089) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), S4(2)(c), CO1, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 (2020) S.DH1, D.DH10, D.DH11, S.TR1, D.TR3, London Plan 2021 D3, T1, T2, T3, T5 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, public cycle infrastructure, visual amenity (advert) - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, co1-substantial-weight, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A 2.6 m communication hub with a digital advertising screen on a wide pavement outside Rich Mix, Bethnal Green Road, replacing two kiosks. The inspector found it prominent and cluttering, in conflict with DP3, and a "should be refused" policy under S4(2)(c). It would also displace three public cycle stands with no secured replacement. CO1 network benefits got substantial weight but were substantially outweighed. Both the planning and advertisement appeals were dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were given an opportunity to comment" (DL ¶4). - **Character, DP3: CONFLICT.** "its scale, height, bulk and location would result in a prominent and visually intrusive addition to the street scene, adding materially to the existing visual clutter" (DL ¶10). "Appeals A and B would conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶13). - **Cycle stands: HARM.** "there does not appear to be a reasonable prospect of the works being delivered because ownership, control and the delivery mechanism are uncertain" (DL ¶16). - **S4(2)(c).** "The appeal proposals would therefore fail to comply with a national decision-making policy that states that proposals should be refused in specified circumstances" (DL ¶23). - **CO1.** "Insofar as the proposed hub under Appeal A would provide those network benefits, I give them substantial weight" but "It would therefore fail to minimise its visual impact as required by Policy CO1" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance S4(1) with S4(2)(c): CO1 substantial weight and positive weight to public services "would be substantially outweighed by the significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and the unacceptable loss of existing public cycle infrastructure" (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference Height and bulk at the kerb in an ordered line of low street furniture, plus the unsecured cycle stand relocation. ## Transferable points - A street hub's DP3 conflict engages S4(2)(c) and outweighs CO1 substantial weight (DL ¶23-27). - Replacement facilities on third-party land cannot be secured by a negative condition without a reasonable prospect of delivery (DL ¶15-16). - Public-service benefits of hubs (Wi-Fi, defibrillator) are discounted without evidence of need at the location (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** tall, solid hub at the kerb disrupts the spatial order of low, permeable street furniture; significant harm (DL 9-11, 13) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3 conflict means failure to comply with a "should be refused" policy; clear justification not expressly addressed (DL 22-23) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** network benefits substantial weight to the extent provided; siting limb failed - does not minimise visual impact (DL 24, 27) - **TR3: harm.** mapped: loss of 3 of 17 public cycle stands; replacements on third-party land unsecured and not conditionable (DL 14-17) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Knave of Clubs PH preserved; s66 applied (DL 18-19) - **S4(1): fail.** CO1 and other public benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25, 27) ## Key facts - Hub about 2.6 m high and 1.3 m wide, leaving 2.7 m of footway (DL 8) - Wi-Fi, phone, defibrillator and charging benefits given positive weight, but no evidence of need at this spot (DL 25) - Promised kiosk removal 300 m away unsecured; limited weight (DL 26) - Advert Appeal B (6010662) dismissed on visual amenity in the same letter (DL 12, 29) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010661 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e612f9e4-75dc-4409-b7d7-d47e2ac24f98 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010661.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.