Appeal 6004342
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
6 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
described as “single sided sequential 48 sheet advertisement”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
For the sake of brevity and clarity I have taken the address of the site from the appeal form.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on public safety.
Section 05
Reasons
The proposed advertisement would be located adjacent to the A61 highway which is dual laned and is a primary vehicle route in Sheffield. In close proximity to the appeal site there is a pedestrian crossing controlled by traffic signals and also dropped kerbs with markings to allow cyclists to exit and enter the highway.
The proposed advertisement is a digital 48 sheet LED panel that would display illuminated static images that would change remotely. The illumination of the advertisement would be consistent with the recommendations of the Institute of [name], and the advertisement would replace three existing static advertisements at the site. The replacement of static advertisements with an illuminated LED panel that would have changing images is a fundamental change that would distract motorists. I have had regard to the appellants JCD1 document including images of the advertisements from different distances along the A61 highway. However, motorists need to be alert when approaching a traffic signalled pedestrian crossing that also has cycle junctions, and the introduction of an illuminated advertisement in close proximity to these highway items would have the potential to create visual confusion that could lead to motorists being distracted and thus posing a threat to other road users.
My attention has been drawn to Crashmap information that indicates that there have been no traffic incidents in the near vicinity of the appeal site. This matter, however, does not alter my findings above and that the proposed advertisement, which would be significantly different from the existing situation, would have a harmful effect on highway safety in this location.
Accordingly, the proposed advertisement would have a harmful effect on public safety in relation to road users. The proposal would be contrary to Policy BE13 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan which seeks large poster advertisements and illuminated advertisements to not be a traffic hazard.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposed advertisement would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding.
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
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 173No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 June 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 May 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6004342
- Application reference
- 25/03488/HOARD
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Sheffield City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000019
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Commercial Appeals Service (Adverts)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- No Application Type Assocaited
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
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
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 29 January 2026
- Valid date
- 3 February 2026
- Start date
- 12 February 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 January 2026
- Appeal decision date
- 9 June 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 90100
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29