# 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 - **Tags:** tier-2, bt-street-hub, street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, alternatives-not-explored, inclusive-access, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## 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 - **HE5: harm.** HE5 and HE9 cited; hub erodes the contribution of the wide footway and mature street trees identified in the CA appraisal (DL 16) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "a low level of harm" to the significance of the CA; "even a low level of harm ... carries considerable importance and weight" (DL 17) - **HE6(4): fail.** free wi-fi, 5G small cell, charging, wayfinding, emergency button and sensors are "meaningful public benefits", but not shown unachievable in a less harmful way or place; kiosk removals elsewhere do not relate to the site (DL 18-22) - **TR4: fail.** obstruction on a busy footway beside cycle stands, bus stops and a crossing, particularly for disabled and visually impaired people; Inclusive Mobility widths met but "guidance only" (DL 25-27) - **CO1: fail.** telecoms should be sited and designed to minimise visual impact (DL 37) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 36-38) ## 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012328 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/af3b0e61-0a8f-4270-886d-9bdd3acf3c3c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012328.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.