BT Street Hub at Land Outside 78 - 82 High Street, Sutton

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Sutton Planning Committee on 5 Aug 2026.

DM2026/00124Approved

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing the current digital kiosk with a BT Street Hub containing advertisement screens on its front and rear.

“The application seeks planning permission for a replacement of the current Digital Kiosk with a BT Street Hub. The new Street Hub unit would feature two advertisement screens on the front and rear elevations of the unit.”

Officer report

The site

The site is in a busy pedestrianised High Street area outside Lidl and within the Sutton Town Centre Conservation Area.

“The application site is part of a busy, pedestrianised area of the High Street, situated immediately outside the Lidl supermarket (78-82 High Street), which commenced trading in February 2026, following Wilkinsons store's closure in October 2023.”

“Sutton Town Centre Conservation Area, Central Setting Sutton Town Centre Conservation Area, Primary Shopping Frontage, Sutton Town Centre Boundary, Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), Area of Taller Building Potential, Archaeological Priority Area and Area of Potential Intensification.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would preserve the conservation area, protect residential amenity and avoid highway or pedestrian safety impacts.

“The design of the proposal would reflect the intended use of the site, whilst having a neutral effect on the context of the site that would not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the Town Centre streetscene and the Sutton Town Centre Conservation Area.”

“The proposal would not result in any adverse impact on the safe operation of the public highway or pedestrian safety and would not be detrimental to the parking stress on the existing highway.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The highways engineer raised no objections, while urban design provided no comments.

“The following internal consultees were consulted and the comments are listed in the table below:”

“Internal Consultation Comments Received Highways Engineer There are no objections to the proposal in terms of parking, highway and pedestrian safety. Urban Design No comments were received.”

Officer report

Objections received

Five objection letters from four households raised concerns about appearance, accessibility, safety, health, noise, lighting, environmental effects and antisocial behaviour.

“The consultation on the application has received a total of 5 objection letters from 4 households. These are detailed in Appendix C of this report and objection letters are available to view in full on the Council’s planning portal, and material planning considerations are addressed within the report.”

“Design and Visual Amenity ○ Design of the unit ○ Development out of keeping with the surrounding area ○ Negative visual impact ○ Adds to street clutter ● Safety and Accessibility ○ Concerns regarding disability and accessibility ○ Concerns regarding pedestrian and highway safety ● Health and Sensory Impacts ○ Radiation and radio frequency radiation (RFR) ○ Noise and light stimulation ● Environmental and Functional Impact ○ Lack of public benefit and functionality ○…”

Officer report

Committee discussion

Members asked about the earlier refusal, the appeal decision and why the application had returned after the previous permission expired.

“In response to a question, officers explained that an application for two digital LCD display screens had been refused by the Planning Team in 2021 due to concerns regarding size, height, illumination and its location in a Conservation Area. However, this application was…”

“Planning Committee 5 August 2026 21 allowed on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate in 2023. When asked why the item had returned to the Planning Committee, officers clarified that the previous planning permission had expired in April 2026.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted nine in favour and one against the officers’ recommendation.

“DM2026/00124 - Land Outside 78 - 82 High Street, Sutton SM1 1EZ (Committee Report) A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted. Councillor Jayne McCoy For Councillor Chandra Alapati For Councillor James Appleby For Councillor Rukhsar Askari For Councillor Sunil Kumar For Councillor Cumar Sahathevan For Councillor Naveen Samrat For Councillor Alison Long Against Councillor Trish Fivey For Councillor Jake Short…”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions in Appendix B.

“RESOLVED: To GRANT planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix B.”

Minutes

Sources

  • Sutton Planning Committee minutes, 5 August 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Sutton's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Sutton
Date
Wednesday 5 August 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Approved
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

This committee's year

33 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 8 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →