Court issues fair play warning over posters
Series: Planning (for the Natural and Built Environment) ; 10 November 2000, 22(1)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Summary: Examines the growing frustration in the advertising industry with the Planning Inspectorate's handling of appeals relating to six-sheet advertisements. Advertising companies such as Primesight have become annoyed with the inspectorate's inability to make fair comparisons between proposals for free-standing displays and those in existence in the same area, particularly in bus shelters. Discusses how the recent case of "Retail Media Ltd v SoS Environment", established clear guidelines for how future appeals should be conducted. Concludes that if an existing display is to be disregarded under regulation 4(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, this must be clearly stated, and there must be a good reason for doing so.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63203 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 109435-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Examines the growing frustration in the advertising industry with the Planning Inspectorate's handling of appeals relating to six-sheet advertisements. Advertising companies such as Primesight have become annoyed with the inspectorate's inability to make fair comparisons between proposals for free-standing displays and those in existence in the same area, particularly in bus shelters. Discusses how the recent case of "Retail Media Ltd v SoS Environment", established clear guidelines for how future appeals should be conducted. Concludes that if an existing display is to be disregarded under regulation 4(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, this must be clearly stated, and there must be a good reason for doing so.