- Decision
- dismissed, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Heppell
- Authority
- Bromley (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6010811
- Application reference
- 26/00380/FPA
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- BT Street Hub with illuminated advertisement panels on the pedestrianised High Street (Appeal A planning; Appeal B 6010812 advertisement consent 26/00455/ADV)
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), CO1, S4(1)
- Development plan policies
- Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 37, 41, 102, London Plan 2021 D8, HC1
- Main issues
- character and appearance and conservation area; amenity (advert)
Summary
A BT Street Hub with illuminated advertising panels on Bromley's pedestrianised High Street in the town centre conservation area. The inspector found moderate harm to the conservation area from clutter and dominance, and that the public benefits did not outweigh it, partly because other hubs might duplicate them and no less harmful position had been explored. Under S4, with CO1 substantial weight, the benefits were still substantially outweighed. Both appeals were dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework for the proposals" (DL ¶5).
- Heritage: HARM, moderate. The hub "would contribute to a sense of clutter in an area where, despite the presence of lamp posts and litter bins, street furniture is not prevalent" (DL ¶10); "resulting in a moderate degree of harm to the CA’s significance, to which I attach considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶14).
- HE6(4): FAIL. "it has not been explained why the hub could not be located in a different, less harmful position, whilst still delivering the same benefits. Overall, the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset outweighs the public benefits" (DL ¶17).
- S4(2). "There are no specific national policies directing refusal in this case" (DL ¶21); the S4(1) balance still applies (DL ¶22).
- CO1. "The limited benefits resulting from the proposal attract substantial weight, but the harm I have identified is a matter of considerable importance and weight by reference to Policy HE6(3) of the Framework" (DL ¶25).
Planning balance
HE6(4) first (DL ¶17), then S4(1): "the benefits of approving Appeal A would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶25).
What made the difference
The pedestrianised, uncluttered historic street. Benefits that might be supplied by nearby hubs, and no search for a less harmful spot.
Transferable points
- Public benefits are discounted where they may duplicate other hubs and no less harmful location has been explored (DL ¶17).
- Heritage harm under HE6 is not an S4(2) trigger, but can still substantially outweigh CO1 substantial weight in the S4(1) balance (DL ¶21-25).
- Appeal decisions on hubs elsewhere carry limited weight unless the context is shown to be similar (DL ¶18-19).
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(3) | harm | considerable | moderate harm to Bromley Town Centre CA - dominant, cluttering hub in a sensitively pedestrianised street; impinges on appraisal key view of locally listed Aberdeen Buildings (DL 10-11, 14, 20, 25) |
| HE6(4) | fail | Wi-Fi, 999 button, sensors, 5% council screen time, renewable power, P5 safety; possible duplication with other hubs; no explanation why a less harmful position could not deliver the same benefits (DL 15-17) | |
| CO1 | benefit | substantial | "limited benefits ... attract substantial weight"; minor coverage contribution; not sited to minimise visual impact (DL 23-25) |
| P5 | benefit | emergency access, street illumination, less antisocial behaviour than kiosks (DL 16) | |
| S4(2) | not-engaged | "There are no specific national policies directing refusal in this case"; none of the S4(2) situations apply, but S4(1) still weighed (DL 21-22); DP3 not considered | |
| S4(1) | fail | benefits substantially outweighed by the heritage harm (DL 25) |
Key facts
- Removal of two telephone boxes outside the CA gives limited visual benefit (DL 12)
- Hub outside 3 High Street permitted by the council (outside CA) distinguished; other hub appeals given limited weight for unknown context (DL 13, 18-19)
- Advert Appeal B (6010812) dismissed on amenity in the same letter (DL 7, 26)
- Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 5)
Related decisions
- PINS-6010812
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.