Appeal 6009770

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the advertisement from page 2 of the appellant’s covering letter dated 16 January 2026. The advertisement is already in place and I have therefore dealt with the appeal on the basis of its retention.

The regulations state at 3(1) that powers shall be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account the provisions of the development plan, in so far as they are material; and any other relevant factors. I have considered the appeal on this basis, and have framed the main issues accordingly.

The main issues are the effect of the advertisement on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • public safety.

The advertisement is located at a service area, which opened in July 2025, where the A606 crosses the A46. It is on an embankment above the service area buildings and car park, close to the southbound A46 slip road. Having regard to the submitted drawings and the appellant’s statement, it is on a pole at a maximum height of 20 metres, it is 6.5 metres wide and 1.2 metres tall. The ‘[name] text is 0.5 metres high, with static, internal illumination up to a maximum of 400cd/m2.

The service area has various authorised advertisements, including two internally illuminated totem poles, canopy signage, and fascia and other signs associated with commercial premises1.

Whilst this scheme’s supporting pole is sleek, given the sign’s considerable height in an already elevated position on an embankment, and its significant scale, it is very prominent from a number of locations, including close to the roundabout junction and when travelling northbound on the A46.

By their very nature, advertisements are intended to attract attention. However, other than highway infrastructure and the service area, this site is largely surrounded by agricultural fields and landscaping. In the context of the local characteristics of this neighbourhood, this very prominent advertisement appears as an intrusive feature, which jars markedly with the area’s rural character.

Given its height and its siting, rather than adding significantly to a proliferation of clutter, in many views, it stands alone, visually isolated and somewhat divorced from the remainder of the service area. Its harmful impact is particularly evident during the hours of darkness, when I observed that its illuminated lettering appears to float in the night sky, particularly travelling northbound on the A46.

The appellant states that there is a functional need for the sign to alert drivers on the A46 to the service area, which provides a range of benefits including 24-hour refuelling, EV charging, refreshment, rest and respite facilities. It continues that it is required at this height to give drivers sufficient notice to safely exit the trunk road, and as the site is barely visible from there due to land levels and landscaping. Table 3.1 of the statement of case sets out that it has been trying to agree a package of signage on the A46 with National Highways (‘NH’) since November 2023.

However, whilst it is stated that this advertisement is temporary, and that it will be removed within one month of the installation of signage on the A46, I have not been provided with the wording of such a condition, and I cannot be certain what, if any, signage will be agreed and subsequently installed, or whether it is likely to be in place by the end of 2026 as claimed. In the absence of further details, I am not therefore persuaded that a condition would satisfy the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) tests of precision and enforceability.

I have considered the scheme having regard to Policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: [name] (2014), Policy 1 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies (2019) (‘RLP2’) and Policy H3 of the Hickling Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2028 (2022). These are material to the matter of amenity, insofar as they require proposals to have regard to local context, to be sympathetic to the character of the surrounding area, to conserve landscape characteristics and make a positive contribution to the public realm; and to avoid an obtrusive use of light.

For the above reasons, the scheme conflicts with their approach and with the stance at Framework paragraph 141 regarding the need to ensure that the quality and character of places does not suffer as a result of poorly sited and designed advertisements. 1 Ref: 25/00887/ADV

I have also had regard to advice in the Planning Practice Guidance that, in assessing amenity, the local characteristics of the neighbourhood must be considered. For the above reasons, and having regard to the local context here, this advertisement has significantly harmed the character and appearance of the area.

In its second reason for refusal the Council alleges that, in the absence of technical approvals from NH, along with mitigation measures and a technical assessment as to whether a [address] [name] is required, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the signage does not pose a risk to public safety on the strategic road network. Having regard to NH’s representation dated 20 March 2026, this concern relates to the absence of an assurance that the sign does not present an immediate risk due to a potential fall onto the A46 southbound slip road following structural failure, or because of the impact of an errant vehicle leaving the carriageway.

However, the appellant is an experienced national operator of roadside facilities, the majority of which include totem signage. Structural drawings were prepared prior to the installation of this sign as evidenced at Appendix 6.0 of the appellant’s statement and, as evidenced at Appendix 7.0, [name] had no adverse comments on the scheme, stating that the base size was suitable for the sign arrangement. I also understand from NH that there is a separate structural and technical approvals process.

RLP2 Policy 1 is of limited, if any, relevance on this issue. However, having taken into account paragraphs 116 and 141 of the Framework, which require a consideration of the impact on highway and public safety, I have no cogent evidence that this scheme is structurally unsafe or that it poses a public safety risk.

Advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. In this case, whilst I have found no cogent evidence that the scheme poses a risk to public safety, it has caused significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. For this reason, and having regard to all other matters raised, including interested parties’ representations, the appeal is dismissed.