# Outside 118 Mile End Road, Tower Hamlets (BT Street Hub replacing InLink) - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Whitfield - **Authority:** Tower Hamlets (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6012153 - **Application reference:** PA/26/00601 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Removal of an InLink unit and installation of a BT Street Hub 3 with two 75-inch digital screens (linked advertisement appeal 6012151, ref PA/26/00602; 10-year advert consent) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, HE4, HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 S.DH1, S.DH3, D.DH10, S.TR1, London Plan 2021 D3, HC1, T2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance including heritage, highway and pedestrian safety - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, heritage-no-harm, need-not-required ## Summary A BT Street Hub with digital screens replacing an InLink unit on Mile End Road, in the Stepney Green Conservation Area and near Grade II listed buildings. The inspector found no harm to character, the CA, the listed settings or pedestrian safety on this very wide, commercial boulevard. Both the planning and advertisement appeals were allowed, with a 10-year advertisement consent. ## Issues and findings - **Context.** "This section of Mile End Road forms a wide, tree-lined boulevard with a busy, urban character … Street furniture, signage and advertising are frequent" (DL ¶15). - **Character: no harm.** "As it would be broadly in line with the avenue of trees and where most existing street furniture is clustered, it would not be an incongruous feature … the proposal would not lead to visual clutter or an unacceptable proliferation of street furniture" (DL ¶17). - **Heritage: preserved.** "The proposed hub and advertisement displays would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the CA, the significance of which would be preserved" (DL ¶20). Listed-building settings were preserved (DL ¶21). The scheme accords with "Policies DP3, HE4 and HE6 of the Framework" (DL ¶23). - **Need.** "The Council has referred to a lack of public benefits to demonstrate the proposed street furniture is necessary. However, I have not been directed to any policy where this is a specific requirement" (DL ¶22). - **Pedestrian safety.** 6.3 m remains to the building line, so pedestrians can "easily deviate and navigate around the proposed hub" (DL ¶27-28). ## Planning balance No harm was found, so there was no balance. Compliance with the development plan, and DP3, HE4 and HE6, meant both appeals were allowed (DL ¶23-24, ¶30-31, ¶39). CO1 is not mentioned. ## What made the difference Street width and context. A 20-50 m boulevard with trees and existing street furniture absorbed the hub. Compare Turnpike Lane (PINS-6003086), with a digital unit only 6.2 m away, and Barnsley (PINS-6009866), with a narrowing pavement at a station door. ## Transferable points - A modern pavement plot contributes neutrally to a CA and to nearby listed settings, so a hub can preserve significance in a commercial, well-furnished street (DL ¶12-14, ¶20-21). - There is no policy requirement to demonstrate need or public benefit for street furniture of this kind (DL ¶22, ¶33). - Benefits from removing other structures are not weighed unless they are part of the scheme or secured (DL ¶16). - Luminance limits can apply at all times, not only from dusk to dawn (DL ¶36). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** sits in line with the tree avenue and other street furniture on a very wide boulevard; no clutter or proliferation (DL ¶17-18, ¶23) - **HE6: neutral.** preserves Stepney Green CA and settings of Grade II 90-126 Mile End Road and a Grade II drinking fountain; site makes a neutral contribution (DL ¶12-14, ¶20-23) - **HE4: pass.** cited with DP3 and HE6 as satisfied (DL ¶23) - **TR4: pass.** 6.3 m clear to the building line; about 0.5 m from the cycleway kerb; TfL clutter concern not evidenced (DL ¶26-30) - **DM6: neutral.** conditions tested against DM6; luminance of 600 cd/m2 at all times, not just dusk to dawn (DL ¶34-36) ## Key facts - Mile End Road is 20-50 m wide, a tree-lined boulevard; the CA appraisal treats its transport function as part of its historic character (DL ¶12, ¶15) - Removal of a phone kiosk and a cash machine was claimed but not in the description or secured, so not weighed (DL ¶16) - No policy requires a need for street furniture to be shown: "I have not been directed to any policy requirement for the appellant to demonstrate a need" (DL ¶22, ¶33) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012153 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/799fe93a-1f54-4cfd-b7f5-ed90d171e02f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012153.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.