Pavement outside 137 Chiswick High Road (BT Street Hub)

Decision

dismissed, 25 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: K Dryden

Authority

Hounslow (London)

Appeal reference

6012328

Application reference

P/2026/0937

Procedure

written representations

Development

BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital advert screens and removal of a BT kiosk, on the footway in the Chiswick High Road Conservation Area (Appeal A; linked advertisement Appeal B 6012330 also dismissed)

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(4), TR4, S4

Development plan policies

Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 CC1, CC2, CC4, CC5, EC2, London Plan 2021 HC1, D8, T2

Main issues

amenity and conservation area; public safety

Summary

A BT Street Hub with two large digital screens on the busy Chiswick High Road footway in a conservation area, dismissed with its linked advertisement appeal. The inspector found a low level of harm to the conservation area, given considerable importance and weight, which the connectivity benefits did not outweigh because less harmful siting had not been ruled out. The hub would also obstruct a busy footway near bus stops and a crossing, contrary to TR4. Under S4 the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Both parties "were given the opportunity to comment on any changes relevant to the main issues in these appeals. No further comments were received" (DL ¶4).
• Heritage: low HARM, HE6(4) FAIL. "It is noteworthy that even a low level of harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset carries considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶17). "I do not dispute that meaningful public benefits would arise from the proposal. However, I have been provided with insufficient evidence to demonstrate that these benefits could not be provided in a less harmful manner and/or in a less sensitive location" (DL ¶19).
• Public safety: TR4 FAIL. "the proposal would fail to provide a street arrangement that is safe, inclusive and attractive for all users, contrary to Policy TR4 of the Framework" (DL ¶26). Inclusive Mobility compliance "remains guidance only" (DL ¶27).
• CO1. "Policy CO1 of the Framework requires such proposals to be sited and designed to minimise their visual impact" (DL ¶37).
• S4: FAIL. "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶38).

Planning balance

HE6(4) first (harm not outweighed, DL ¶22), then S4 with heritage, TR4 and CO1 conflicts against connectivity benefits (DL ¶36–38).

What made the difference

The size and siting of the large lit screens in a conservation area whose appraisal prizes its wide pavements and street trees. The appellant had no evidence that the benefits needed this spot.

Transferable points

• Low harm to a conservation area still carries considerable importance and weight under HE6(3) (DL ¶17).
• Street-hub public benefits are discounted where no alternative, less harmful siting has been examined (DL ¶19).
• TR4 (safe, inclusive streets) can be a free-standing refusal ground for footway clutter, and meeting Inclusive Mobility widths is not conclusive (DL ¶26–27).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Linked Appeal B (6012330) under the Advertisements Regulations, dismissed on amenity and public safety in the same letter; no separate case file
• No distraction harm to drivers found (DL 28)
• Bristol street-hub allowals in conservation areas (APP/Z0116/W/25/3366474, APP/Z0116/W/25/3369235) not followed (DL 32)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.