The NPPF: A Digest

Achieving well-designed places

NPPF 124 and 127

R (Shave) v Maidstone Borough Council [2020] EWHC 1895 (Admin), Holgate J

“where a proposal for a change of use includes the installation of features (not amounting to buildings) on the land, policies seeking good quality design are applicable to those features. It would be arbitrary to confine such policies to items which happen to involve “building operations” and to exclude objects which may affect the quality of the design of a “place”.” [40]

NPPF 132

Calderdale BC [2021] EWHC 695 (Admin), Timothy Mould KC
Heather Sargent appeared for the Secretary of State

“46. As a matter of planning policy, paragraph 132 of the Framework indicates that decision makers should consider exercising the power to impose conditions on a grant of express consent for the purpose of controlling both the siting, design and operation of the proposed advertisement in the interests of public safety. Paragraph 18b-068-20140306 of the Planning Practice Guidance states that one of the main types of advertisement which may cause danger to road users are externally or internally illuminated signs incorporating either flashing or static lights which, because of their size and brightness, may cause driver distraction. The Guidance refers to illuminated advertisements which are subject to frequent changes of display and which incorporate moving or apparently moving elements in their display. The Guidance states that it may be possible for hazardous traffic features to be removed by a range of measures, giving as examples re-siting the advertisement, screening of floodlights, changing the colour of lights or restricting the frequency with which the display changes.”