Appeal 6004549
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
5 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
the installation of an internally illuminated full motion LED advertisement screen, measuring 2.57m wide x 1.45m high, on the first floor of the host building (within 1m from the window front).
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary matter
The sign was in place at the time of my site visit.
Section 04
Main Issue
Advertisements are subject to control in the interests of amenity and public safety only. The main issue for this appeal is the effect of the proposed sign on the visual amenity of this part of [address].
Section 05
Reasons
[site address] is a commercial building with a restaurant on the ground floor and a community radio station over, situated near to a transition point between a heavily commercialised section of [address] and a quieter residential section. The commercial section of the road is a busy, bright and vibrant district centre with numerous illuminated signs, including some relatively small projecting signs at first floor level. The proposed sign fills most of a first floor window at No 107 with a changing digital display.
I saw no examples of similar signs on [address]. Although the street is characterised by a variety of illuminated signs, the introduction of a digital sign of significant size and at first floor level represents a step change in the nature of local advertisements. It significantly intensifies the already fairly intense overall visual impact of the various advertisements, and this would be especially true in hours of darkness. The changing images stand out and add visual clutter, even in this commercial context. Moreover, the sign is particularly noticeable and out of place because of No 207’s location near the end of the commercial strip, with residential properties opposite and not far away on the same side.
I note that the sign could be subject to various controls including levels of illumination, hours of operation and use of static images only. These would not be sufficient to allay my concerns about the sign’s visual impact. I also note that digital signs have been approved in other locations and are becoming a more normal part of the street scene in some commercial areas. No similar signs in first floor windows in local centres have been brought to my attention, however.
I conclude that the proposed sign would unacceptably harm the visual amenity of this part of [address]. In making this decision, I have had regard to the Council’s Core Strategy policy CS03 and its [name], which aim to secure good quality design in general, including for commercial signs. I have also had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework’s statement that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed. Powers under the advertisement regulations may only be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety, however - taking account of material factors such as adopted policies which are not by themselves decisive factors.
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
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 890No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 April 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 March 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6004549
- Application reference
- 20251668
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Leicester City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000016
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
- 2 February 2026
- Valid date
- 2 February 2026
- Start date
- 5 February 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 January 2026
- Appeal decision date
- 7 April 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
- 87068
- 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