Maiden Outdoor Advertising Ltd , Regina (on the Application Of) v Lambeth: Admn 9 May 2003

Notices had been issued by the defendant local planning authority under section 11 of the 1995 Act.
Held: The notices had to be quashed for several reasons. The court considered whether there was a deemed consent: ‘It seems to me that, as things stand, it is necessary to consider in relation to any particular site whether the provision of illumination does amount to a substantial alteration in the manner of the use of the site. It may or it may not, and that will depend upon the effect of the illumination in any particular case.
It is to be remembered that the approach under the Act, and under the Regulations, is that powers should be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. If there is a deemed consent to an advertisement, it seems to me that it is relevant to consider, as things stand, whether the illumination does have an effect on amenity or does create a danger. If it does not in any way, it is difficult to see how it could properly be regarded within the context of the approach to construction that should be adopted of these Regulations as a substantial alteration.
It is pertinent in my judgment to have regard to the purpose behind the need for control, which is to further the interests of amenity and to avoid any danger. It may well be thought by Lambeth, and it may be perfectly reasonable so to believe, that the advertisements, even as they are, are contrary to amenity. That is a matter which may have to be considered in the future. But as the matter stands under the Regulations, there is nothing positive that could be done unless it can be established within the terms of Regulation 8 that there is a substantial effect on amenity, or a danger resulting from this. It would be right in those circumstances to consider whether the illumination creates any additional adverse effect.’
References: [2003] EWHC 1224 (Admin), [2004] JPL 820
Links: Bailii
Judges: Collins J
Statutes: London Local Authorities Act 1995 11
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.185341