Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 3 February 2026

by A Owen MA BA(Hons) MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 24 February 2026

Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/H/25/3376169

750-758 Greenford Road, Greenford UB6 8QQ

• The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) against conditions imposed when granting express consent.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing.
• The application Ref 252562ADV was approved on 5 November 2025 and express consent was granted for the display of an advertisement subject to conditions.
• The advertisement permitted is Installation of 1x Digital Poster (Lightweight digital LED panel) advertisement.
• The condition in dispute is No 3 which states that: “The maximum illumination of the sign(s)/advertisement(s) shall comply with the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting Professionals in their Professional Lighting Guide "PLG05 2023 "The Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements including Digital Displays", including the following operational features o Pre-curfew (07:00-23:00): 200cd/m2 (up to 20m2) o Post curfew (11:00pm-07:00am): display off or level reduced to 50% of pre-curfew level. o Daytime level: to be set according to Table 10.5 of PLG05 2023. o Static images to be displayed only (no moving or flashing images). o Vertical illuminance of sensitive facades shall not exceed the recommendations for Environmental Zone 3 of the ILP 'Guidance Note 01/20 For The Reduction Of Obtrusive Light'.”
• The reason given for the condition is: “To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of the application site and surrounding premises is not adversely affected by artificial lighting, in accordance with Policy D8 of the London Plan 2021.”

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and the express consent Ref 252562ADV for Installation of 1x Digital Poster (Lightweight digital LED panel) Advertisement at 750-758 Greenford Road, Greenford, UB6 8QQ granted on 5 November 2025 by the Council of the London Borough of Ealing is varied by deleting condition 3 on page three of the decision and substituting for it the following conditions:
2. In the hours of darkness, the advertisement display luminance shall be no greater than the recommended maximum nighttime luminance value set out for Environmental Zone 3 in Table 10.4 within the Institution of Lighting Professionals - Professional Lighting Guide (PLG 05) 'Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements including Digital Displays' (or its equivalent in a replacement guide) in cd/m[2].
3. In daylight hours, the advertisement display luminance shall be controlled in order to reflect ambient light conditions (to ensure it is neither too bright or too dull), and shall at all times be no greater than the recommended maximum daytime luminance values set out in Table 10.5 within the Institution of Lighting Professionals - Professional Lighting Guide (PLG 05) 'Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements including Digital Displays' (or its equivalent in a replacement guide) in cd/m [2].

Preliminary Matters

2. I saw at my site visit that the advertisement as shown on the submitted drawings has already been installed.
3. The Council’s decision notice contains two conditions numbered as ‘3’; one on page two and one on page three. It is the condition on page three of the decision that this appeal refers to.

Main Issue

4. The main issue is whether the condition meets the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework in the interests of protecting amenity.

Reasons

5. The first bullet point of the condition limits the brightness of the illuminated advert from 7am to 11 pm to 200cd/m [2] (as the advert measures less than 20m [2]). The third bullet point of the condition also limits the brightness during daytime hours to be in accordance with table 10.5 of the Institution of Lighting Professionals in their Professional Lighting Guide "PLG05 2023 "The Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements including Digital Displays". Table 10.5 shows that the lowest level of brightness should be 400cd/m [2]. There is therefore inconsistency within the condition and so it is not enforceable.
6. From correspondence between the parties, it is apparent that the Council intended for the first part of the condition to relate to hours of darkness before 11pm, particularly in winter. However the wording of the condition does not reflect this nuance. By referring to specific hours, the condition would not account for seasonal variations in light and hence the effect that an illuminated advert would have on local amenity.
7. As such, instead of referring to specific times, it would be more effective and enforceable for the condition to refer to hours of darkness and hours of daylight. Indeed this is how the suggested conditions are phrased in the Professional Lighting Guide, referred to in the condition.
8. As such, although I have considered the appellant’s suggestion for amending condition 3, I consider it simpler to replace the condition with two conditions which reflect those in Appendix 1 of the Professional Lighting Guide. With these conditions in place, the brightness of the advert would be suitably controlled such that it would protect the amenity of the area in hours of daylight and darkness at all times of year. The other requirements currently set out in condition 3 would be covered by other retained conditions on the consent.
9. It is recognised that the appellant agreed to the conditions as originally imposed, but that has no effect on an assessment of the appropriateness of the conditions, having regard to the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework.
10. I have taken into account policy D8 of the London Plan (2021) which seeks to ensure that lighting, including for advertisements, should be carefully considered and well designed in order to minimise intrusive lighting infrastructure, and so is material in this case. Given I have concluded that the advertisement with the new conditions in place would not harm amenity, it would not conflict with this policy.

Conclusion

11. The advertisement, with the new conditions in place, would not harm amenity. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is allowed and I vary the advertisement consent as set out above.

Andrew Owen

INSPECTOR