When dealing with advertisements in the Scottish planning system, one of the trickiest questions for both officers and applicants is how to handle marginal infringements. These are the “near misses” – cases where a sign almost fits within the limits of deemed consent but just steps over by a few centimetres or through a minor technicality.
The answer depends on understanding both the legal position and the planning judgement that follows.
1. The legal position — no tolerance in the rules
Permitted Development Rights (PDR) for adverts are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984, as amended. They grant deemed consent for certain classes of advertisement – such as business nameplates, projecting shop signs, or temporary notices – provided strict size, position, and illumination limits are met.
Importantly, these rules operate on a binary basis. If a sign exceeds the limit – even by 5 cm – it does not benefit from deemed consent. Legally, there is no tolerance or “close enough” approach. At that point, the advert requires express consent.
So, in law, a marginal infringement is still a breach.
2. The planning judgement — is action expedient?
While the legal position is clear-cut, enforcement in Scotland is discretionary, not mandatory. Local authorities must ask whether taking formal action is expedient – that is, in the public interest – in light of amenity and public safety.
This means that small breaches are assessed in terms of impact, not just measurement. Officers will look at:
- Amenity – Does the infringement materially affect the street scene, heritage character, or visual clutter?
- Public safety – Does it create a highway hazard, obstruct sightlines, or distract drivers?
- Proportionality – Is the breach trivial (de minimis) or does it change the scale/character of the advert?
In practice, many marginal infringements are dealt with informally. An authority may invite a minor adjustment (e.g. trimming a projecting bracket by 50 mm) or suggest a retrospective consent application, while reserving enforcement for cases where real harm is caused.
A worked example
Imagine a shop projecting sign in a conservation area. The deemed consent limit allows a maximum projection of 0.60 m, but the installed bracket measures 0.65 m.
- Strictly speaking, the sign is unlawful – it exceeds the limit and needs consent.
- In practice, the extra 50 mm is visually imperceptible, does not reduce pedestrian clearance, and causes no additional clutter or safety risk.
- Officer judgement: Not expedient to enforce. The owner is advised either to shorten the bracket slightly or to apply retrospectively for consent, which would likely be granted subject to standard conditions.
Conclusion
Marginal infringements on permitted development for adverts highlight the two layers of planning control in Scotland:
- Legal certainty – The GPDO and Ad Regulations are strict: if you miss the limit, you lose deemed consent.
- Planning judgement – Enforcement is about expediency. Authorities focus on amenity, safety, and proportionality rather than punishing trivial technical breaches.
For applicants, the lesson is clear: aim to stay within the limits, but know that in borderline cases, negotiation and regularisation are far more likely than heavy-handed enforcement.