- Decision
- dismissed, 24 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: T Bennett
- Authority
- Cambridge (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6012284
- Application reference
- 26/01379/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- BT Street Hub with two digital display screens and removal of payphones (Appeal B planning; Appeal A 6012288 advertisement consent 26/01380/ADV)
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DP3(1), CO1, S4(1)
- Development plan policies
- Cambridge Local Plan 2018 Policies 55, 65
- Main issues
- character and appearance; visual amenity (advert)
Summary
A BT Street Hub with two digital screens on the wide Hills Road pavement in Cambridge. The inspector found it "stark, highly prominent and discordant" in an open streetscape, in conflict with the local plan and DP3, and not sited to minimise visual impact under CO1. CO1 substantial weight did not prevent the benefits being substantially outweighed under S4. Both appeals were dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I am satisfied that it does not affect the substantive matters of the appeal and that proceeding without further consultation with the main parties would not be prejudicial to their respective cases" (DL ¶5).
- Character: HARM. "the street hub with its illuminated digital advertisements would appear as a stark, highly prominent and discordant addition to the street scene" (DL ¶9).
- CO1. Benefits "are afforded substantial weight in line with Policy CO1" (DL ¶17), but "the street hub would not be sited so as to minimise the visual impact of the new structure" (DL ¶19).
- DP3. "The proposal would also conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework by failing to respond, integrate with or enhance the surroundings" (DL ¶20).
Planning balance
S4(1), with S4(2)(c) described (DL ¶16) but not expressly applied to DP3: "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶22). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶24).
What made the difference
An uncluttered stretch of pavement with little bulky street furniture.
Transferable points
- In an open streetscape a hub perpendicular to the kerb is prominent however slim (DL ¶8-9).
- Luminance and static-image conditions do not cure prominence harm (DL ¶10).
- Kiosk removals elsewhere do not mitigate harm at the hub site (DL ¶13).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(1) | conflict | tall, solid, illuminated hub perpendicular to the kerb in an open streetscape - "stark, highly prominent and discordant"; DP3(3) substantial weight to plan compliance noted; no clear-justification step (DL 8-11, 20) | |
| CO1 | benefit | substantial | Wi-Fi, 5G capability, calls, USB charging; not sited to minimise visual impact (DL 17, 19) |
| S4(1) | fail | S4(2)(c) framing set out; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 16, 22) |
Key facts
- Kiosk removal at St Margarets Square elsewhere and unsecured; minimal weight (DL 13)
- Local Plan design conflict given significant weight (DL 15)
- Advert Appeal A (6012288) dismissed on visual amenity in the same letter (DL 23)
- New Framework applied without consultation; "does not affect the substantive matters" (DL 5)
Related decisions
- PINS-6012288
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.