[2005] EWHC 2835 (Admin), 22 November 2005. Concerns the interpretation of the word advertisement for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Country Planning Act (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. Appeal by B by way of case stated against his breaches of planning control. D claimed that B had displayed an advertising banner on property without D's consent. The banner presented the logo and contact details of a group opposed to a land development proposed by D. The judge held that the contact details constituted a direction and the banner was an advertisement. As B had not applied for consent to display his rights under Art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not engaged. "Held": appeal dismissed. The banner constituted an advertisement. The word advertisement was to be given a very broad meaning for the purposes of the Act and the Regulations. The words advertisement, announcement and direction were not mutually exclusive and an announcement could be a direction or an advertisement and vice versa. The commencement of the criminal proceedings did not engage B's rights to freedom of expression.