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 worksOne-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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