Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3272717

Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.

A clearer next step

See how Inspectors approached issues like yours

Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.

  • See which issues the decision appears to turn on
  • Compare the facts and open the full appeal records

One private comparison

How the refusal review works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

7 sections

Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.

Section 01

Development description

No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed, and express consent is granted to replace 6mx3m display with LED illuminated 6mx3m D-Poster display, with condition No. 3 on approved application [name]/21/0039 varied. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision. It is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the following 2 additional conditions:

    The maximum level of luminance of the sign hereby granted consent shall at no time exceed 2000 candela/sqm. Additionally, when the public streetlights are on, or darkness has descended (whichever occurs first) the luminance level shall be limited to 300 candela/sqm. The sign shall be equipped with a dimmer control and a photo cell that constantly monitors ambient light conditions and adjusts the luminance level of the sign accordingly.

    The sign hereby granted express consent shall not be illuminated between the hours of 2300 to 0700 on any day.

  2. Section 03

    Procedural Matter

    Paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that there is a separate consent process to control the display of advertisements1. The Framework, the Regulations, and the Planning Practice 1 They are regulated by The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). Guidance (PPG) all make it clear that advertisements are controlled with reference only to their effect on amenity and public safety2. The provisions of the development plan, and any other relevant factors, can be considered, so far as they are material3. I have assessed the proposal in accordance with the Regulations.

  3. Section 04

    [name]

    The main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisement on the visual amenity of the area and public safety, should the condition be removed or varied.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The proposed advertisement sign would be affixed to the side of a building that fronts [address]. The sign would face a side road which serves a small number of industrial units and a public car parking area. Hednesford road cuts through a built-up area comprising a mix of land uses including shops, restaurants, take-aways, hair and beauty salons, public houses, light industrial units, and dwellings.

    The sign would be highly visible to pedestrians and drivers travelling from the north-west of [address] in a south-easterly direction. As such, the level and hours of illumination could potentially be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and public safety.

    I agree with the parties that varying the condition to provide different levels of luminance suitable for different times of the day, taking account of guidance provided by the Institute of [name], would ensure the proposed advertisement had an acceptable effect on the visual amenity of the area whilst also ensuring public safety. As such, I consider that express consent can be granted with the disputed condition suitably varied.

  5. Section 06

    Conditions

    The consent is granted subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations. I have attached 2 non-standard conditions relating to luminance levels and hours of illumination, taking account of the suggested condition and the relevant conditions tests, in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and public safety.

  6. Section 07

    Conclusion

    For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.

Planning inspector and document dates

The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.

  • Appeal Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 487No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    8 July 2021Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    29 June 2021 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3272717
Application reference
Not recorded
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Cannock Chase District Council
Planning authority code
E07000192

Casework details

The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.

Casework type
Advertisement Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development type
Other minor developments
Appeal type reason
2. Grant consent for the advertisement(s) subject to conditions to which you object
Appeal reason
Appeal Against Conditions
Type detail
Unknown
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked

Site and development

Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.

Site area
Not recorded
Floor space
Not recorded
Number of residences
0
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
Not recorded
Affects setting of a listed building
Not recorded
Historic building grant made
Not recorded
Relates to a conservation area
Not recorded
Flooding is an issue
Not recorded
Site within an AONB
Not recorded
Site within an SSSI
Not recorded

Decision and dates

The published outcome and every imported case date.

Official decision
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
8 April 2021
Valid date
8 April 2021
Start date
23 April 2021
Planning authority decision date
Not recorded
Appeal decision date
8 July 2021

Case administration

Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.

Redetermined
No
Bespoke
No
Date recovered
Not recorded
Date not recovered or derecovered
Not recorded
Call-in date
Not recorded
Costs applied for
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds count
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds
Not recorded

Source and catalogue history

When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.

Source
Planning Inspectorate casework database
Source data system
Horizon
Dataset status
Current release
Catalogue record ID
415
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:25
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21