Image from Google Jackets

R (Clear Channel UK Ltd) v Southwark LBC

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWCA Civ 1328, 13 December 2007. Considers the time limits pursuant to consent granted for the display of advertising hoardings. The appellant (C) appealed against a decision by the local authority (S) requiring C to remove advertising hoardings. Permission had been given for the erection of seven hoardings. After this permission expired a further hoarding was erected and alterations made to the previous seven. The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 stipulated that the site would have to have been continually used for such a purpose for this to be deemed acceptable by default. C argued that this was not the correct interpretation of the Regulations. S argued it was improper to class a re-erected hoarding as being an advertisement displayed with express consent, after the expiry of that consent. "Held": It was not possible to hold that a hoarding erected after expiration of consent was erected with that consent. Similarities of that hoarding to those erected within the consent were immaterial. The interpretation of the Regulations had been correct. Appeal dismissed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 142575-1001

[2007] EWCA Civ 1328, 13 December 2007. Considers the time limits pursuant to consent granted for the display of advertising hoardings. The appellant (C) appealed against a decision by the local authority (S) requiring C to remove advertising hoardings. Permission had been given for the erection of seven hoardings. After this permission expired a further hoarding was erected and alterations made to the previous seven. The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 stipulated that the site would have to have been continually used for such a purpose for this to be deemed acceptable by default. C argued that this was not the correct interpretation of the Regulations. S argued it was improper to class a re-erected hoarding as being an advertisement displayed with express consent, after the expiry of that consent. "Held": It was not possible to hold that a hoarding erected after expiration of consent was erected with that consent. Similarities of that hoarding to those erected within the consent were immaterial. The interpretation of the Regulations had been correct. Appeal dismissed.