- Decision
- dismissed, 1 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: David Troy
- Authority
- Kensington and Chelsea (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6012098
- Application reference
- PP/26/00150
- 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, TR6
- Development plan policies
- Kensington and Chelsea Local Plan 2024 CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD15, TR4, TR6, London Plan 2021 T4, Transport and Streets SPD 2016
- Main issues
- character and appearance; conservation area setting; highway safety
Summary
A JOLT electric vehicle charge point with advertising screens on the Old Brompton Road footway was dismissed, with its linked advertisement appeal. It would harm the setting of the Boltons Conservation Area at the lower level, and the modest public benefits did not outweigh that harm under HE6(4). Unlike the sister case at Fulham Road (PINS-6012105), it also failed on highway safety, because pedestrians naturally walked across the proposed position where the footway narrows.
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).
- Heritage: harm to one conservation area, none to the other. "I do not find harm in relation to this aspect and the setting of the Thurloe/Smiths Charity CA would be preserved" (DL ¶12).
- HE6(4): FAIL. "Whilst the degree of harm resulting from the proposed JOLT and advertisement on the significance of the Boltons 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 ¶13). "I find insufficient public benefits arising from the proposals to offset the identified harm to which I attach substantial weight" (DL ¶15).
- Highway safety: harm. "I observed many pedestrians naturally move out to the edge of the pavement and across the position of the proposed JOLT which formed a natural desire line for pedestrians in this location" (DL ¶19). The unit "would cause an undue obstruction to pedestrians and impede the free flow of pedestrian movements, including those with mobility impairments" (DL ¶20).
Planning balance
HE6(4): lower-level harm to a conservation area's setting against modest public benefits. No S4 balance is run; the conclusion is plan-led (DL ¶26).
What made the difference
Two things: the open footway within 30 m of the Boltons Conservation Area, and the pinch point next door that pushed pedestrians across the proposed position. Meeting the 2 m numerical guidance did not answer what the inspector saw on site.
Transferable points
- Compliance with a minimum clear footway width does not settle pedestrian safety where the footway narrows nearby and the unit would sit on an observed desire line (DL ¶19–20).
- Setting harm was found for a conservation area about 30 m away but not for one about 70 m away behind intervening buildings (DL ¶11–12).
- Lower-level harm to a conservation area's setting outweighs the benefits of one public charge point (DL ¶13–15).
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 Boltons Conservation Area (through its setting, boundary about 30 m away) "at the lower level"; weighed against public benefits "in accordance with Policy HE6 (4)"; benefits insufficient; no harm to the Thurloe/Smiths Charity CA about 70 m away (DL 11-15) | |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | letter says the harm is one "to which I attach substantial weight" (DL 15); the Framework's words are considerable importance and weight to harm, substantial weight to conservation |
| DP3 | conflict | mapped: Framework design policy not cited; incongruous and uncharacteristic feature in an open footway, contrary to local plan CD1, CD2, CD15, TR4 (DL 9-10, 16) | |
| TR6 | fail | mapped: Framework not cited; about 2.1 m clear width meets the 2 m guidance, but the footway narrows next door and pedestrians were seen walking across the proposed position; undue obstruction, contrary to local plan TR6(f) and London Plan T4 (DL 18-21) |
Key facts
- Joint letter with advertisement Appeal B 6012102 (CA/26/00151), also dismissed on amenity and public safety (DL 1, 17, 22, 27)
- Site outside a car showroom on a principal strategic route; cycle hire stations nearby (DL 7, 18)
- Unit would leave about 2.1 m of footway and sit about 450 mm from the kerb (DL 19)
- Benefits claimed - public on-street charging, free daily 7 kWh allowance funded by advertising, inclusive design, decarbonisation; found modest and achievable in a less harmful manner (DL 14-15, 25)
- Same inspector dismissed a similar unit outside 131 Fulham Road (PINS-6012105) on the same day
- Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4)
Related decisions
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.