# Pavement outside Clarendon House, 3 Heavitree Road, Exeter (BT Street Hub)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Hills
- **Authority:** Exeter (South West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6013695
- **Application reference:** 26/0641/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital advertisement screens, replacing payphones (Appeal A 6013695 planning; Appeal B 6013697 advertisement)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4), CO1
- **Development plan policies:** Exeter Core Strategy CP17, Exeter Local Plan First Review C1, C2, C3, DG1, DG8
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, setting of listed buildings, visual amenity
- **Tags:** street-hub, telecoms, advertisement, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, heritage-harm-decisive, co1-substantial-weight, harm-moderate

## Summary
BT Street Hub on a wide Exeter pavement about 10m from a listed 1840s terrace. Both appeals were dismissed. The Inspector found "a moderate degree of harm to the setting and significance of No 5". Applying HE6(1) substantial weight, that harm outweighed telecoms benefits that themselves carried substantial weight under CO1. This is the cleanest 2026-vocabulary heritage balance in this batch.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** Both parties commented on the new Framework (DL ¶6).
- **HE6(1).** "when considering the potential effect of a development proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (DL ¶8).
- **Harm, HE5/HE6.** "it would generate a moderate degree of harm to the setting and significance of No 5. In these circumstances it is necessary to weigh this harm against the public benefits" (DL ¶11). The harm is graded by degree; there is no "less than substantial" category.
- **CO1 balance.** "The obligation to provide telephony services is understood, as is the substantial weight the Framework attaches to the benefits of improving network coverage. However, Framework Policy CO1 also recognises that proposals should be sited and designed to minimise their visual impact. In these particular circumstances, the substantial weight given to the harm to the setting of the listed building outweighs any such public benefits" (DL ¶12).
- **CA: neutral** given separation (DL ¶11).

## Planning balance
HE6(4): moderate harm, with substantial weight under HE6(1), against substantial-weight CO1 benefits. Harm prevailed because CO1's own siting-and-design limb pointed the same way.

## What made the difference
Isolation on the pavement meant the hub "would draw the eye, rather than blend in". It would stand as a foreground feature on the approach to the listed gable end (DL ¶10).

## Transferable points
- Where both sides carry "substantial" weight (HE6(1) vs CO1), the Inspector resolves it through CO1's internal requirement to minimise visual impact (DL ¶12).
- Heritage harm is now expressed as a plain degree ("moderate") and fed straight into the HE6(4) weighing (DL ¶11).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(4): fail (substantial weight).** "moderate degree of harm" to setting and significance of listed No 5 Eaton's Place (1840s terrace ~10m away); HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation (DL 8, 10-12)
- **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to network coverage acknowledged, but CO1 also requires siting and design to minimise visual impact; outweighed (DL 12)
- **HE9: neutral.** neutral effect on Lower Summerlands CA given separation (DL 11)
- **DP3: fail.** ~3m hub isolated on wide pavement draws the eye, adds clutter (DL 9-10)

## Key facts
- Hub nearly 3m tall and 1.23m wide; 876 hours a year of free council advertising offered
- Parties consulted on the new Framework (DL 6)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ec4cf3a3-7d61-490b-abb3-a3f72764ee8b
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6013695

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6013695.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.