DATE: 20 Jan 2009
A London Council served a notice under s11 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995 against an advertisement hoarding sited in the playground of a school. The hoarding was freestanding but was less than 1m from the flank wall of a adjoining building. Until January 2007 the same hoarding had been attached to the flank wall: this flank wall had been used for the display of advertisements for many years. Apart from the movement away from the wall the position of the hoarding had not changed. The advertiser contended that the hoarding had the benefit of deemed consent under Class 13 of the 2007 Advertisement Regulations since the relevant 'site' had been used for the display of advertisements for more than 10 years and challenged the section 11 notice by way of judicial review.
Blake J rejected the challenge, finding that the site used for the pre-January 2007 advertisement was confined to the flank wall whereas the site used for the later display was part of the playground. If he was wrong about this he found that there had been a material alteration in the manner of the use of the site when the hoarding was moved.
The case is interesting because it required the judge to decide several questions of fact/planning judgment. R (Maiden Outdoor Advertising) v Lambeth LBC [2004] JPL 820 established that it might be necessary for a court considering a challenge to a s11 notice to determine whether the hoarding had deemed consent, deciding whatever issues of fact were necessary for this purpose.
Richard Langham appeared for the defendant planning authority. He also appeared (withDavid Holgate QC) for the successful advertiser in R (Maiden Outdoor Advertising) v Lambeth LBC.
