Skip to main content
Rules for YouPlanning, made clearerMenu
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 6005702

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

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 display of non illuminated fascia signs (retrospective).

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of signs on the character and appearance of the host building and the [address] and St Paul’s Conservation Area (‘the CA’).

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The Council’s concern relates to the already installed fascia sign that according to the [name] is constructed of metal and PVC and has dimensions of 0.8m in height, 3.7m in width and 0.15m in depth. I saw on my visit that there are two smaller projecting signs on the fascia displaying the street number of the premises and the business phone number respectively. I also observed that the appearance of the street was one of a great many advertisement signs, both on the shop fascias and projecting from the walls, together with in some cases further lettering on shop awnings and freestanding ‘A’ boards on the pavement.

    This variety notwithstanding, the modern materials and the projecting letters of the sign at No. 57 have a prominence that draws the eye and appear out of character with the more numerous flat surfaced and painted fascias of adjoining and nearby premises. An additional harmful feature is the fascia’s ‘standing proud’ from the building’s projecting console brackets which are an attractive architectural feature of the building.

    In assessing the effect on the building and the [address] I must also give significant weight to the location within the CA and ensure that any signage does not detract from its historic character. In this regard I have had regard to the Appraisal and Management Plan, adopted December 2019.

    Taking this information into account, I am satisfied that the materials and signage that appear above the shopfront have an adverse effect and thereby cause harm to Appeal Decision Ref. 6005702 the building, the [address] and the CA. This would be in harmful conflict with Policies HE2, QD11 and QD12 of the Lewisham Local Plan 2025; Policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021 and Section 16: ‘Conserving and Enhancing the [name] of the National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024 (‘the Framework’).

    The grounds of appeal include references to other uses of modern materials in the street’s signage and that the appellant has already taken some remedial measures with the possibility of further alterations. However, neither of these factors are of sufficient weight for me to conclude other than the signage has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the [address] and St Paul’s Conservation Area.

    As regards the latter, paragraph 215 of the Framework December states that ‘less than substantial harm’, as is the case here, should be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal including securing an optimum viable use. However, there is no evidence that the impact of the advertisement compared to a proposal that would be acceptable to the Council would measurably result in any such benefit.

  4. Section 05

    Conclusion

    For the reasons explained above, the appeal fails.

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 204No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    1 June 2026Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    15 April 2026 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
6005702
Application reference
DC/25/140164
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
London Borough of Lewisham
Planning authority code
E09000023

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
27 February 2026
Valid date
27 February 2026
Start date
5 March 2026
Planning authority decision date
2 February 2026
Appeal decision date
1 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
89631
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
Back to appeals databaseRequest a correction or privacy review