- Decision
- dismissed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: David Troy
- Authority
- Kensington and Chelsea (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6012075
- Application reference
- PP/26/00146
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Installation of one JOLT unit (electric vehicle charge point with integral double-sided LCD advertisement screen) and electrical connection works on the footway
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), DP3
- Development plan policies
- Kensington and Chelsea Local Plan 2024 CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD15, TR4, TR6, London Plan 2021 T4
- Main issues
- character and appearance; conservation area setting; highway safety
Summary
A freestanding electric vehicle charge point with two advertisement screens on the King's Road footway, opposite the Sloane/Stanley Conservation Area. The inspector found it incongruous in the street scene and harmful, at the lower level, to the conservation area through its setting. The charging benefits were modest and could be achieved less harmfully, so the HE6(4) balance failed. Highway safety was acceptable. Appeal A (planning) and the linked advertisement appeal were both dismissed.
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).
- Character: CONFLICT (local plan). "it would have an undue presence in its setting, appearing as an incongruous and uncharacteristic feature" (DL ¶9).
- Conservation area setting, HE6(4): FAIL. "Whilst the degree of harm resulting from the proposed JOLT and advertisement on the significance of the 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 ¶12). "I find insufficient public benefits arising from the proposals to offset the identified harm to which I attach substantial weight" (DL ¶14).
- Less harmful alternative. "these benefits would be modest and there is no indication that they could not be achieved in a less harmful manner than proposed" (DL ¶24).
- Highway safety: PASS. The unit "would not significantly interrupt any obvious desire line for pedestrians along the footpath" (DL ¶19).
Planning balance
HE6(4): lower-level harm to a conservation area against modest public benefits from one charging unit. The inspector attached "substantial weight" to the harm (DL ¶14); the Framework gives substantial weight to the asset's conservation (HE6(1)) and treats harm as a matter of considerable importance and weight (HE6(3)). The slip is incidental: the weighing itself follows HE6(4). The appeal then fails against the development plan read as a whole (DL ¶25).
What made the difference
The unit's size and solidity in a relatively open stretch of footway facing a conservation area, and the lack of any evidence that the charging benefits needed this design or this spot. At 369 Fulham Road the same inspector found no heritage harm, because the conservation area was 70 to 100 m away behind intervening buildings, but still dismissed on clutter and obstruction.
Transferable points
- Electric vehicle charging is a public benefit, but one unit gives a modest benefit, and the HE6(4) balance asks whether it could be delivered in a less harmful way (DL ¶14, ¶24).
- Lower-level harm to a conservation area through its setting was enough to fail HE6(4) against a small infrastructure scheme (DL ¶12–14).
- A footway left at about 2 m, below a local 3 m standard but meeting Transport for London guidance, was acceptable where no desire line was interrupted (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(4) | fail | harm to the significance of the Sloane/Stanley Conservation Area (through its setting) "at the lower level"; weighed against public benefits "in accordance with Policy HE6 (4)"; benefits insufficient (DL 11-14) | |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | letter says the harm is one "to which I attach substantial weight" (DL 14); the Framework's words are considerable importance and weight to harm, substantial weight to conservation |
| DP3 | conflict | mapped: Framework design policy not cited; the unit would be the most prominent feature in its setting, incongruous and uncharacteristic, contrary to local plan CD1, CD2, CD15, TR4 (DL 9-10, 15) | |
| TR6 | pass | mapped: about 2 m clear footway left, below the Council SPD 3 m but in line with TfL Streetscape Guidance 2,000 mm; no obvious desire line interrupted; no harm to highway safety (DL 17-20) |
Key facts
- Joint letter with advertisement Appeal B 6012078 (CA/26/00147), also dismissed on amenity; public safety acceptable (DL 16, 21, 26)
- Conservation area boundary is on the opposite side of King's Road; harm is through the setting (DL 11)
- Benefits claimed - public on-street charging, free daily 7 kWh allowance funded by advertising, inclusive design, decarbonisation; found modest given the limited scale and achievable in a less harmful manner (DL 13-14, 24)
- Same inspector dismissed the sister unit at 369 Fulham Road (6012112 and 6012114) on the same day, on local plan policies only
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.