# Pavement at East Road, Cambridge (BT Street Hub, planning)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: T Bennett
- **Authority:** Cambridge (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6012279
- **Application reference:** 26/01377/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Installation of a BT Street Hub and removal of associated BT payphones (Appeal B, planning; the advertisement Appeal A is 6012281)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), CO1, S4
- **Development plan policies:** Cambridge Local Plan 2018 Policies 55, 61, 65
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, visual amenity
- **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, street-hub, bt-street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, transitional-no-consultation, linked-appeals

## Summary
A BT Street Hub on a cluttered pavement in Cambridge's Kite Conservation Area, facing Petersfield. Dismissed, as was the linked advertisement appeal. Harm to the conservation area and to the settings of listed buildings was limited, but still of considerable importance and weight. It was not outweighed by connectivity benefits carrying substantial CO1 weight, because there was no evidence the hub could not go somewhere less harmful.

## Issues and findings
- **Harm.** "Given the small scale of the proposal, the level of harm would be limited and at the lower end of a spectrum of harm" (DL ¶18).
- **CO1.** "These public benefits are afforded substantial weight in line with Policy CO1 of the Framework" (DL ¶20). "there is limited evidence before me that these telecommunication benefits in the form of the street hub, could not be provided in a less harmful location, whilst still delivering the same benefits" (DL ¶21).
- **HE6(4).** "Overall, when taken together, I find that the public benefits do not outweigh the considerable importance and weight I must attach to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset" (DL ¶22).
- **Plan weight.** "Policies 55 and 65 are consistent with section 14 of the Framework in seeking to achieve well-designed places, in particular Policy DP3" (DL ¶33).
- **CO1 siting.** "the street hub would not be sited so as to minimise the visual impact of the new structure" (DL ¶35).

## Transferable points
- Substantial CO1 weight to connectivity benefits can still lose the HE6(4) balance where no evidence shows a less harmful site is unavailable (DL ¶20-22).
- Kiosk removals outside the red line, and not secured, carry minimal weight (DL ¶29).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** added clutter and illuminated screens intrude on an important positive view towards Petersfield and Grade II buildings in the Kite CA; limited harm "at the lower end of a spectrum of harm" (DL 13-19)
- **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** Wi-Fi, 5G, charging; but no evidence the benefits could not be delivered in a less harmful location, and the hub is not sited to minimise visual impact (DL 20-21, 35)
- **HE6(4): fail.** public benefits do not outweigh the considerable importance and weight given to the harm (DL 22)
- **DP3(1): conflict.** fails to respond to, integrate with or enhance its surroundings; weighed as harm; no DP3(3) clear-justification step (DL 34)
- **Transitional(2): accord (significant weight).** LP Policies 55, 65 (design) and 61 (heritage) consistent with the Framework; conflict given significant weight (DL 33)
- **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31, 37)

## Key facts
- Same decision letter as the advertisement Appeal A (6012281), also dismissed; no case file for Appeal A in this batch
- Removal of three kiosks elsewhere is outside the red line and unsecured, so minimal weight (DL 29)
- Grade I Church of Our Lady and the English Martyrs unaffected (DL 23)
- Framework switch without consultation (DL 8)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012279
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a23fe854-8970-4535-bd52-4d923b0dd9ce

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012279.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.