®Planning appeal decision
Footpath Outside Sainsbury’s, 129-133 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6NH
Planning appeal 6007419 at Footpath Outside Sainsbury’s, 129-133 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6NH (London Borough of Camden) was dismissed on 21 July 2026, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: For Appeals A, B, K, L, M, P, Q, R and S: whether the proposals would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings, the effect of the proposals on the amenity of the area and public safety, and the effect of the proposals on crime and anti-social behaviour.
Installation of 1No. BT Street Hub Unit and associated advertisement panels on either side of the unit
- Authority
- London Borough of Camden
- Appeal type
- Planning
- Procedure
- Written
- Development
- telecoms
- Postcode
- WC2B 6NH
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- For Appeals A, B, K, L, M, P, Q, R and S: whether the proposals would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings, the effect of the proposals on the amenity of the area and public safety, and the effect of the proposals on crime and anti-social behaviour.
- For Appeals C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J: the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area, the effect of the proposals on the amenity of the area and public safety, and the effect of the proposals on crime and anti-social behaviour.
- For Appeals N and O: whether the proposals would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, the effect of the proposals on the amenity of the area and public safety, and the effect of the proposals on crime and anti-social behaviour.
What decided it
The absence of any enforceable mechanism to secure long-term maintenance of the units, combined with their harmful visual impact on the character, appearance and heritage assets of the surrounding areas, outweighed the moderate benefits claimed.
The moderate weight given to the digital infrastructure and public safety benefits of the Street Hub Units did not outweigh the significant harm found to visual amenity, character and appearance, and in some cases heritage assets, so the proposals conflicted with the development plan as a whole.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy D1Policy D2
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in London Borough of Camden
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026
- Allowed12 October 20266007435Footpath Adjacent, 2 Castlehaven Road, London, NW1 8QU
- Allowed12 October 20266007299Camden Road, Outside No.'s 84 - 92, London, NW1 9DY
- Dismissed10 September 20266010353Footpath Outside 3 Millbrook Place, London, NW1 2JA
- Dismissed10 September 20266010352Footpath Outside 3 Millbrook Place, London, NW1 2JA
- Dismissed10 September 20266007600Footpath Outside 9 - 17 Highgate Road, London, NW5 1JY
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.