- Decision
- allowed, 7 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: A Hartley
- Authority
- Newcastle upon Tyne (North East)
- Appeal reference
- 6011428
- Application reference
- 2024/1319/01/ADV
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Temporary scaffold-mounted 1:1 montage shroud with central advertising banner on a Grade II listed terrace (retrospective)
- Site context
- conservation area, listed building setting, inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6
- Development plan policies
- Newcastle and Gateshead Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan 2015 DM22
- Main issues
- amenity
Summary
A temporary scaffold shroud advert on a Grade II listed Regency terrace in central Newcastle was allowed for 12 months. The inspector expressly did not apply HE6(4)-(6) or s66 to advertisement consent. Heritage was dealt with only as part of amenity, assessed against the scaffolded building as the baseline.
Issues and findings
- Framework and plan. Under the Regulations, "although I have taken the development plan into account and the National Planning Policy Framework … they have not been decisive" (DL ¶4). "for the avoidance of doubt, I have not applied Policy HE6 (4)-(6) of the Framework as these are not relevant in the context of the Regulations" (DL ¶5).
- Transition. "While the referencing has changed, the substance of the Framework in relation to the issues in this appeal are not affected" (the second paragraph numbered 2 in the letter).
- Baseline. Case law supports "the baseline for assessing the impact of an advertisement on a listed building to be not the unfettered façade of the building, but the existing condition and scaffold shroud" (DL ¶6).
- Amenity: no harm. "Due to the temporary nature of the advertisement, I am satisfied that it does not cause harm to the Grade II listed building … nor does it cause irreversible change to the townscape" (DL ¶12).
Planning balance
None. The decision was on amenity and public safety only.
What made the difference
The ongoing, evidenced need for repair scaffolding, and a 1:1 image of the facade on the shroud. Without active works, Historic England's view that the advert would harm the terrace would have prevailed (DL ¶11).
Transferable points
- HE6(4)-(6) and the s66 duty are not applied to advertisement consent. Heritage enters only through "amenity" (DL ¶5).
- For shroud adverts, the baseline is the scaffolded building (Southwark v SSHCLG & Blow Up Media [2025] EWHC 1556) (DL ¶6).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(4) | not-engaged | HE6(4)-(6) "not relevant in the context of the Regulations"; s66 LBCA duty also not applied to advert consent; listed status considered within amenity (DL 5, preliminary para 1) | |
| HE9 | pass | temporary shroud during necessary repairs preserves CA and listed terrace significance; baseline is the scaffolded building, not the clean facade (DL 6, 11-13) |
Key facts
- Shroud already displayed beyond a previous 12-month temporary consent; repairs complex (structural report)
- Southwark LBC v SSHCLG & Blow Up Media [2025] EWHC 1556 relied on for the scaffold baseline (DL 6)
- Consent limited to 12 months or scaffold removal, per DM22 (DL 10)
- No consultation on new Framework - referencing has changed, the substance not affected (preliminary para 2)
Related decisions
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.