The Molesey Street Hub proposed outside Tesco on Walton Road has lost both its planning and advertising appeals. BT Group Plc wanted a new pavement unit carrying two illuminated digital advertising panels outside 108 to 118 Walton Road in East Molesey, but an Inspector found that its size would harm the character of this landscaped high street.
Inspector Alice James dismissed planning appeal 6008598 and advertising appeal 6008605 on 16th October 2026 after visiting the site on 26th August. The decisions were issued together because they concerned one installation, although planning permission for the physical hub and express consent for its advertising displays required different legal assessments.
The Molesey Street Hub result is particularly instructive because the Inspector gave substantial weight to the technology’s public benefits under England’s new August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework. Those benefits were not dismissed lightly. They were outweighed by the scheme’s effect on this specific stretch of the high street.
Why the Molesey Street Hub was considered too large
The proposed position was within a paved area next to a three-storey building with commercial units at street level and residential accommodation above. Walton Road already had ordinary shop fascia signs, but comparatively few other advertisements, especially illuminated ones.
The Inspector described a line of raised planting beds with mature vegetation which gives the high street much of its attractive character. Between the beds are occasional benches, bollards, cycle stands and information boards. A bus shelter further away contains an advertisement, but overall the existing furniture was relatively small in scale and spaced out.
The Molesey Street Hub would sit within one of those gaps, with some screening from neighbouring planting. However, its combined width and height and conspicuous illuminated displays would be unlike the modest objects already in the gaps. It would interrupt the established pattern of street furniture and dominate views along the pavement.
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would ‘form a dominating feature and add clutter’. That wording matters because the refusal is not an assertion that electronic hubs cannot appear in commercial centres. It is a site-specific finding that this particular installation would not fit the spacing, scale and planting character of Walton Road.
Two appeals, but different tests for planning and advertising
The first appeal followed Elmbridge Borough Council’s refusal of planning application 2025/3162. Under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Inspector assessed whether the physical Street Hub was acceptable in terms of the character and appearance of the area.
The second appeal, against the refusal of advertisement application 2025/3220, was considered under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. The relevant advertising considerations were amenity and public safety, although the council’s objection concerned visual amenity alone. The Inspector recorded no reason to disagree with that approach.
Both decisions referred where relevant to Elmbridge Core Strategy policies CS7 and CS17 and Development Management Plan policies DM2 and DM15. These address high-quality design and whether new features or advertisements are proportionate to their surroundings without creating undue clutter.
That distinction is worth preserving in reporting the Molesey Street Hub outcome. Permission for the structure and advertisement consent are not interchangeable, even where both decisions concern one physical installation. The Inspector dismissed both appeals on their own merits.
Would limiting the screen brightness have helped?
Conditions could potentially have restricted brightness, operating hours or how frequently the digital advertising images changed. The Inspector acknowledged that such measures were available in principle.
But none of them would materially reduce the underlying physical bulk of the unit. The screens would still be prominent and the structure would still interrupt the rhythm of existing furniture. The Inspector considered that those visual effects would remain unacceptable.
This is an important design point. Conditions are useful for managing operational effects, but they cannot necessarily rescue a scheme whose position and dimensions are fundamentally unsuitable. A better initial location or smaller design can be more important than an elaborate package of lighting restrictions.
What the new National Planning Policy Framework actually changed
The new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17th August 2026, during the appeals. The Inspector offered the parties an opportunity to comment on the new framework and received a response from the council. She applied the new national policies rather than relying on the superseded December 2024 document.
The CO1 telecommunications policy gives substantial weight to the benefits of maintaining or improving network coverage, capacity and resilience. However, it simultaneously requires new equipment to minimise visual effects, so far as practical in light of operational needs.
According to the decision, the Molesey Street Hub could have provided public wi-fi, device charging, access to public-service information and helplines, potentially better 4G and 5G services, accessible community functions, environmental sensors and renewable-power arrangements. The Inspector gave these claimed benefits substantial weight.
That positive weight was not enough to defeat the design objection. Policy DP3 also gives substantial weight to compliance with relevant local design policies. Inspector James found that the installation’s size and prominence ran contrary to their requirements for sensitive, context-led development.
The Inspector then applied policy S4, which expects development in settlements to be approved unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects when assessed against national decision-making policies. Here she found the visual harm did substantially outweigh the benefits. The new pro-development approach was not an automatic permission.
Why removing other kiosks was not enough
BT suggested that approval could lead to the removal of two telephone kiosks elsewhere, in Creek Road and Oakbank Avenue. Their removal could improve those individual street scenes, and the Inspector accepted that it might have a decluttering benefit.
However, there was no mechanism before the Inspector to secure that outcome, and both kiosks were beyond the appeal site. It would have been misleading to treat their removal as a definite offset to the harm on Walton Road.
The appellant also referred to other appeal decisions involving digital Street Hubs. The Inspector regarded their locations and circumstances as different, with insufficient detail to draw a direct comparison. She also acknowledged the absence of harm to nearby heritage or highway assets and cooperation with the council, without finding that either changed the main issues.
Thus the Molesey Street Hub appeals failed not for want of any public benefit, but because those benefits did not overcome the harm of one specific installation in its actual setting.
What the decision means for other Street Hub proposals
For a digital kiosk or advertising structure, a busy shopping street does not automatically mean visual impact is acceptable. A wide pavement can still have an intentional landscape character, shaped by planting, views and the careful spacing of existing items.
I would want to see a proposal tested against the exact local sightlines, cabinet dimensions, nearby planting and alternative locations. If removing other equipment is advanced as a benefit, the applicant should explain how that removal can actually be secured and whether it materially helps the particular site.
For comparison, our reports on the Camden Street Hub, Liverpool Street Hub and Salisbury Street Hub appeals show the importance of circumstances and evidence in each individual decision.
The combined Molesey Street Hub decision, references 6008598 and 6008605, was issued on 16th October 2026. Both appeals were dismissed. As Inspector decisions they carry practical interest but do not establish binding court precedent, and an entirely different site could produce a different conclusion.
0 Comments