Maiden Outdoor Advertising Ltd., R (on the application of) v Lambeth

Maiden Outdoor Advertising Ltd., R (on the application of) v Lambeth

The advertisement hoarding at 220-224 Coldharbour Lane benefits from deemed consent under Class 14 of Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, as the express consent did not prohibit illumination and the site has been continually used for advertisements since the expiry of consent. The addition of illumination did not remove the deemed consent, and Lambeth's procedural approach was unlawful, particularly in demanding affidavits, misplacing the burden of proof, and failing to consider all relevant evidence. The section 11 notices must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Maiden Outdoor Advertising Limited; Defendant: Lambeth London Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; section 11 notices quashed; costs to claimant.
Legal Topics
Advertisement Consent, Local Authority Powers, Deemed Consent, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Planning Law Advertisement Consent Local Authority Powers Deemed Consent Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maiden Outdoor Advertising Limited

Claimant

Lambeth London Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the advertisement hoarding at 220-224 Coldharbour Lane benefits from deemed or express consent under the relevant planning regulations
  2. 2 Whether the addition of illumination in 1989 constituted a substantial alteration in the manner of use of the site, thus affecting deemed consent under Class 13 or 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992
  3. 3 Whether Lambeth's procedural approach to enforcement was lawful and appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The advertisement hoarding at 220-224 Coldharbour Lane benefits from deemed consent under Class 14 of Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, as the express consent did not prohibit illumination and the site has been continually used for advertisements since the expiry of consent. The addition of illumination did not remove the deemed consent, and Lambeth's procedural approach was unlawful, particularly in demanding affidavits, misplacing the burden of proof, and failing to consider all relevant evidence. The section 11 notices must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; section 11 notices quashed; costs to claimant.

Orders

  • Section 11 notices issued by Lambeth London Borough Council are quashed.
  • Costs awarded to the claimant, including reserved costs from interlocutory applications, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.