Appeal 6007441

The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for a [name] logo (non-illuminated) at Pink Storage Ltd, [site address] in accordance with the terms of application 144749/AO/2025, dated 11 December 2025. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulations 2007.

In the banner above, and in my formal decision, I have taken the site address from the decision notice of the Council rather than that which is detailed on the original application form. This is because the application form incorrectly identifies the site as being in “Cardiff”, which is plainly an error.

I have also taken the description of the advertisement from the decision notice of the Council as it provides clarity on illumination, albeit I have removed wording which is not necessary to describe the advertisement.

At the time of my site visit, the advertisement was already in place and, therefore, express consent is sought retrospectively. I am satisfied that the plans before me reflect the advertisement which is displayed. Therefore, I have considered the appeal based on the submitted plans and what I saw on site.

The Council’s decision does not refer to public safety as a reason for refusal, and no concerns have been raised by any party in this respect. Therefore, there is no evidence before me to indicate that the appeal advertisement would have a harmful effect on public safety.

Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the advertisement on the amenity of the area.

The appeal site is located adjacent to [site address] and is visible from [address] (the A635). The A635 is one of the main arterial routes to/from Manchester city centre. The surrounding area is mixed in character. On the same side of the A635 as the appeal site, uses are mainly commercial or industrial. The area includes numerous adverts of varying size and form. By contrast, the opposite side of the A635 is predominantly residential in the immediate context of the appeal site.

The advert relates to white “[name]” lettering attached to two storage containers which are sited end-to-end. The containers are painted part pink and part black. The containers are sited in an elevated position on the top of an embankment. The advertisement faces towards [site address] and has the same alignment as this highway. [site address] in this location spurs at an angle from the A635 although there is no vehicular junction where these two roads intersect. To either side of the shipping containers are tall trees. These are planted for some length along [site address] and the A635. This creates a verdant corridor along one side of the street. A car repair garage, with a tall gable roof, is located close to the appeal site. This forms part of the immediate visual context of the site.

The advert is set back from the A635 while the height and close proximity of existing vegetation screens the advert when approaching from the Manchester city centre direction. From the opposite direction, the advert appears set back from the A635, with the adjacent car repair garage in the foreground. In this approach, the advert appears visually subservient to the more dominant scale of the garage. Therefore, the advert has little visual prominence within the wider context when viewed along the A635.

For a short stretch of [site address] and the A635, the advertisement is viewed in relative isolation, without the influence of nearby commercial development or other signage. Its size, colour and elevated position give it some localised prominence within this limited visual envelope. However, it is flanked on both sides by vegetation that is substantially taller than the advertisement. This mature planting visually contains the display and limits its overall prominence, providing a verdant context that prevents it from appearing incongruous.

I note the concerns raised by third parties with regard to the illumination of the advertisement. The description of the advert, along with confirmation in the appellant’s submission, makes clear that the advert is “non illuminated”. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

There is disagreement between the parties regarding the lawful status of the shipping containers and whether planning permission is required for their siting. However, that is a matter for the parties to resolve and falls outside of my remit in assessing the amenity effects of the advertisement only.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed advertisement is not harmful to the amenity of the area. In accordance with the Regulations, I have had regard to the provisions of policies EN1, SP1 and DM1 of Manchester’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2012) and saved policies E3.3 and DC14 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester ̧ in so far as they relate to amenity. [name] have found that the advertisement is not harmful to the amenity of the area, it accords with these policies.

In terms of conditions, I consider that the appeal should be subject to those required by the Regulations only. The Council have suggested a condition relating to illumination. However, as the advertisement is non-illuminated, such a condition would not be necessary.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.