# Footpath outside 366 Gray's Inn Road, Camden (BT Street Hub)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Skelly
- **Authority:** Camden (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010844
- **Application reference:** 2025/5871/P
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** BT Street Hub with digital advertisement panels (Appeal A 6010844 planning; Appeal B 6010845 advertisement)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), P5
- **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2, D4, C5, T1, A1, C6, G1
- **Main issues:** heritage and character, community safety, pedestrian safety
- **Tags:** street-hub, telecoms, advertisement, transitional, old-heritage-wording, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, public-benefits-unevidenced, crime-and-safety

## Summary
BT Street Hub on Gray's Inn Road in the Kings Cross/St Pancras CA, beside Grade II Willing House. Both appeals were dismissed for heritage and clutter harm and for community-safety risk. The letter is a reissue under s56(2), dated 4 September 2026, of a decision first issued on 17 August 2026. It still applies the **December 2024 Framework** (¶¶212, 215) and the "less than substantial" vocabulary, with no mention of the 2026 Framework.

## Issues and findings
- **Heritage, 2024 ¶¶212/215 (now HE6): HARM.** "I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance, and at the lower end of the spectrum, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶14).
- **Public benefits.** Wi-Fi, 5G, free calls and sensors "occupy only a small part of the structure, with the dominant element being the advertisements. Moreover, I have not been provided with any evidence that these benefits could not be provided in a way which does not result in the harm" (DL ¶15).
- **Community safety: FAIL.** Met Police objection, a high-crime ward, and no site-specific ASB mitigation (DL ¶¶19–23).
- **Pedestrian safety: PASS.** 5.83m clear footway (DL ¶24).

## Planning balance
Heritage harm (considerable weight) against public benefits, under 2024 ¶215. Benefits insufficient. Also a plan-led refusal on design and safety.

## What made the difference
A cluttered triangular pavement, a hub seen against the listed hotel in views from Kings Cross, and Met Police evidence of hub misuse. The benefits case did not show that the harm was necessary to deliver them.

## Transferable points
- Decisions re-issued under s56(2) after 17 August 2026 can still carry 2024-Framework reasoning. The corrected version did not update the policy basis (preamble; DL ¶¶14, 16).
- Communication-hub benefits are discounted where advertising is the dominant element and there's no evidence of a less harmful alternative (DL ¶15).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(4): fail.** applied as 2024 paras 212/215 — "less than substantial … lower end of the spectrum" harm to Kings Cross/St Pancras CA and setting of Grade II Willing House, "of considerable importance and weight"; benefits not shown to be deliverable without harm (DL 12-16)
- **DP3: fail.** adds to cluttered pavement edge (plan D4) (DL 11)
- **P5: fail.** Met Police evidence of hub-related drug dealing and phone theft; ASB plan not site-specific (plan C5) (DL 18-23)
- **TR4: pass.** 5.83m clear footway retained; no pedestrian safety harm (DL 24-27)
- **CO1: benefit.** connectivity, 999, sensors — but advertising is the dominant element (DL 15)

## Key facts
- Decision re-issued under s56(2) PCPA 2004, superseding a decision issued on 17 August 2026
- Concurrent hub appeals by the same Inspector outside 297 Pentonville Road and the Standard Hotel

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1e68633d-0970-464b-a221-29abefd50973
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010844

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010844.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.