- Decision
- dismissed, 1 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: D Troy
- Authority
- Kensington and Chelsea (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6012105
- Application reference
- PP/26/00162
- 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, Transport and Streets SPD 2016
- Main issues
- character and appearance; conservation area setting; highway safety
Summary
A JOLT electric vehicle charge point with double-sided advertising screens on the Fulham Road footway was dismissed, with its linked advertisement appeal. The unit would be the most prominent feature in an open, uncluttered footway and would harm the setting of the Thurloe/Smiths Charity Conservation Area at the lower level. The public benefits of on-street charging were modest and achievable less harmfully, so they did not outweigh the harm under HE6(4). Pedestrian safety was acceptable.
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: harm. "it would have an undue presence in its setting, appearing as an incongruous and uncharacteristic feature" (DL ¶9).
- 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 alternatives. The benefits would be modest and "there is no indication that they could not be achieved in a less harmful manner than proposed" (DL ¶25).
- Highway safety: acceptable. The unit "would not have any additional significant impact in this respect and would, in my view, leave ample room for the free and safe movement of pedestrians" (DL ¶19).
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 that the scheme is "not in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole" (DL ¶26).
What made the difference
The open, lightly furnished footway opposite the conservation area. A unit replacing existing street furniture, as with the BT Street Hub the appellant cited, would have been judged against a different baseline.
Transferable points
- Lower-level harm to a conservation area's setting from a single item of street furniture outweighs the benefits of one public charge point (DL ¶12–14).
- Benefits that could be achieved "in a less harmful manner" are discounted in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶25).
- A footway width just below a council's SPD standard is not harmful where the unit does not interrupt a pedestrian desire line (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 Thurloe/Smiths Charity 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 2.8 m clear footway left, just below the Council SPD 3 m but above the TfL Streetscape Guidance 2,000 mm; no obvious desire line interrupted; no harm to highway safety (DL 18-21) |
Key facts
- Joint letter with advertisement Appeal B 6012107 (CA/26/00163), also dismissed on amenity; public safety acceptable (DL 1, 16, 22, 27)
- Site in the Brompton Cross district centre; the conservation area boundary is on the opposite side of Fulham Road, so the harm is through the setting (DL 7, 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, 25)
- BT Street Hub approved at 97 Fulham Road distinguished, as it replaced an existing kiosk (DL 23)
- The highway section refers to "King's Road" although the site is on Fulham Road (DL 17)
- Same inspector dismissed a similar unit at 125-133 Old Brompton Road (PINS-6012098) 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.