R v O`Brien and Hertsmere BC
Language: English Series: Property, planning & compensation reports ; (1997) 74 P&CR 264-269(6)Publication details: 1997Subject(s): Summary: QBD 3 March 1997. O had a business displaying advertisements on hoardings. In this instance there was no express or deemed consent, as required by Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and the Control of Advertisements Regulations 1992. Enforcement officer found no consent for advertisement. O was fined. Crown Court dismissed an appeal. Held, unnecessary for prosecution to produce register of advertisement consents, or for a re-hearing of the matter.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS57977 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 81996-1001 |
QBD 3 March 1997. O had a business displaying advertisements on hoardings. In this instance there was no express or deemed consent, as required by Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and the Control of Advertisements Regulations 1992. Enforcement officer found no consent for advertisement. O was fined. Crown Court dismissed an appeal. Held, unnecessary for prosecution to produce register of advertisement consents, or for a re-hearing of the matter.