Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 11 November 2025 by S Harrington MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 November 2025 Appeal A Ref: APP/K5600/W/25/3372034 Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London W11 3JD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by BT Telecommunications PLC against the decision of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. • The application Ref is PP/25/01431. • The development proposed is the removal of an existing InLink Unit, and the deployment of a replacement Street Hub 3 unit. Appeal B Ref: APP/K5600/H/25/3372037 Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London W11 3JD • The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) against a refusal to grant express consent. • The appeal is made by BT Telecommunications PLC against the decision of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. • The application Ref is CA/25/01432.

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — Appeal Decisions • The advertisement proposed is the removal of an existing InLink Unit, and the deployment of a replacement Street Hub 3 unit. Decision Appeal A 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for The proposed removal of an existing InLink Unit, and the deployment of a replacement Street Hub 3 unit at Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3JD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PP/25/01431, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Decision Appeal B 2. The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for the proposed removal of an existing InLink Unit, and the deployment of a replacement Street Hub 3 unit in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref CA/25/01432. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations and the additional conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 3. There are two appeals on this site. Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission for the proposed Street Hub 3 unit, while Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent for digital advertisements on the same Street Hub.

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — Appeal Decisions I have https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — Appeal Decisions I have https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decisions APP/K5600/W/25/3372034, APP/K5600/H/25/3372037 considered each on its individual merits. As they raise similar issues, I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated, to avoid duplication. 4. In respect of Appeal B, the Regulations and the National Planning Policy Framework both make it clear that advertisements should be subject to control in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account cumulative impacts. Therefore, while I have taken relevant policies of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea New Local Plan Review July 2024 (LP) into account as a material consideration, they have not been determinative. 5. The descriptions of development used in the headings above have been taken from the application forms. In determining the appeals, the Council amended the description of development. However, whilst the amended description describes the proposals in more detail, I can see no evidence that the appellant formally agreed to it being changed. Noting this and that the original description is not incorrect, I have used the original descriptions in my decision. 6.

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — Appeal Decisions The Council’s second reason for refusal in relation to Appeal B refers to the effect of the proposal on living conditions of surrounding neighbours, particularly those living at Troy Court. The Council have since confirmed that this reason for refusal was included on the decision notice due to human error and that they will not be pursuing this reason for refusal. I will therefore determine the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 7. The main issue in respect of both Appeals A & B is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the Pembridge Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 8. The appeal site is an area of footpath which currently accommodates an existing ‘BT InLink Unit’ hub and is located within the CA. The area surrounding the appeal site contains buildings of differing styles and heights, including notable bank buildings directly adjacent the appeal site. I observed that the significance of the CA derives, in part, from the historic pattern of development and range of buildings from differing periods often of high architectural value. 9.

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — Appeal Decisions As well as being tree lined, the streetscape features various types of street furniture, including lighting columns, traffic lights, wayfinding, control boxes and bike stands. Active frontages incorporating a range of illuminated and non- illuminated signage further contribute to a vibrant commercial character. 10. The proposed replacement hub would be a freestanding, upright structure similar to the existing hub. Whilst larger than the existing, and thereby featuring larger digital screens, it’s scale would not be incongruous in the street scene given the variety of other street furniture, and vertical emphasis provided by nearby streetlights, traffic signals and trees. 11. Additionally, it would not be significantly larger than the existing hub so as to result in any notable additional street clutter. Moreover, even with the classical facade of the bank building nearby, the contemporary design would not appear out of place with its surroundings, given the variety of colours and styles of some modern shopfronts, and more modern architecture in the area. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/K5600/W/25/3372034, APP/K5600/H/25/3372037 12. In respect of Appeal B, the proposal would incorporate digital displays on both sides of the hub. I observed a variety of advertisements near the appeal site including those displayed on the existing hub, illuminated projecting advertisements at shopfronts as well as a large digital display on a building to the west of the appeal site, and digital advertisements on bus shelters. 13. As such, the inclusion of advertisement displays within the hub would not be unusual in this predominantly retail area and would not be out of scale with its surroundings. Furthermore, a degree of illumination of advertisements would normally be expected in retail areas and luminance levels can be controlled by conditions to ensure that they do not appear dominant in the street scene, particularly at times of darkness. As such, I do not find the proposal would be out of character and would preserve the significance of the CA. 14. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal proposals would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, including the CA and accords with LP policies CD1, CD2, CD4 and TR4.

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — Appeal Decisions These policies seek, amongst other things, to achieve good design and high-quality streetscape, and preserve heritage assets. Other Matters 15. Although the need for the proposal has been raised by an interested party, I have not been directed to any development plan policy which requires a need to be demonstrated. Nevertheless, the appellant has confirmed that the proposal is part of a wider national programme of replacement of InLink devices which are nearing end of life. Moreover, the proposal would facilitate the necessary change for access to wifi and contact services. Conditions 16. In the event of the appeals being allowed, the Council has suggested conditions in relation to Appeal A, although no conditions have been suggested in relation to Appeal B. I am however aware of suggested conditions within the Council’s Committee report to which I have had regard and, where necessary, amended wording with regard to the advice provided in the Planning Practice Guidance. 17. In relation to Appeal A, in addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary for a condition to confirm the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — Appeal Decisions However, reference to an InLink Data Usage Letter and BT Street Hub Project Letter are not necessary as the plans provide sufficient clarity. 18. For Appeal B, in addition to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations, conditions in relation to display time, display of road signs, interval and method of change between advertisements, and a mechanism in the event of malfunction are necessary. These are required in the interests of the visual amenity of the area, and to prevent undue distractions to drivers of vehicles in the interest of public safety. 19. In relation to illumination, the appellant’s suggested condition states that the intensity of illumination should not exceed 600 candelas per square metre (cd/m2) between dusk and dawn, whilst the Council’s condition as stated on the Committee Report refers to an intensity of 280 cd/m2. The Institute of Lighting Professionals ‘Professional Lighting Guide 05/23: The Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements including Digital Displays’ (ILP), sets out that a level of 600 cd/m2 is a suitable https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/K5600/W/25/3372034, APP/K5600/H/25/3372037 nighttime luminance, and I have not been directed to any development plan policy indicating that a lower level is necessary. 20. As such and given the proposal would be situated within a busy area where there are already illuminated advertisements, a condition restricting luminance to 600 cd/m2 during dusk and dawn in combination with the requirement for a light sensor to adjust brightness to changes in ambient levels would be reasonable and necessary in the interests of amenity and public safety. Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, I conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B should be allowed.

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — S Harrington INSPECTOR Schedule https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — S Harrington INSPECTOR Schedule https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decisions APP/K5600/W/25/3372034, APP/K5600/H/25/3372037 Conditions Appeal A 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings nos: 24006858_PLN_LOC_1.1; 24006858_PLN_EL_3.1; 24006858_PLN_SI_2.1. Appeal B 1) The minimum display time for each advertisement shall be 10 seconds and there shall be no moving images, animation, video or full motion images or any images that resemble road signs, traffic lights or traffic signs of any kind before, during or after the display of any advertisement. 2) The intensity of the illumination of the two digital display screens shall not exceed 600 candelas per square metre between dusk and dawn and the screens shall be fitted with a light sensor designed to adjust the brightness to changes in ambient light levels. 3) The interval between the display of each advertisement shall be 10 seconds or less and the complete display screen shall change without visual effects (including fading, swiping or other animated transition methods) between each advertisement.

Pavement North Side of Notting Hill Gate, Outside No. 50 Lloyds Bank, London, W11 3JD — Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — S Harrington 4) The advertising display panel shall have a default mechanism to freeze to a black screen in the event of any malfunction to avoid any flashing error messages or pixilation. **** End of Schedule **** https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5