Council granting respondent express permission to display advertisement – Advertisement to be kept in clean and tidy condition – Express permission expiring – Advertisement kept in unclean and untidy condition – Whether advertisement subject of deemed consent – Town and Country Planning Act (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 1992
On 7 August 1977 the local authority granted the respondent company express permission to display an advertisement sign on a site at the junction of Radlett Road and Church Lane, Aldenham, for a period of five years, subject to standard conditions printed on the reverse of the form. One of the conditions required the advertisement sign to be “maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the local planning authority”. The advertisement was duly erected by the respondent. It was two-sided, and read: “There’s a warm welcome waiting at Church Farm shop. Fresh Produce from the farm.” The sign was maintained by the respondent’s maintenance staff, who washed it a number of times each year.
After a number of visits to the site by the council’s senior enforcement officer between November 1998 and May 1999, the appellant council wrote to the respondent requesting the removal of the advertisement on the basis that the sign had become partially obscured by hedges and algae. The respondent took steps to tidy and clean the sign, but did not remove it. On 5 May 1999 an information was laid against the respondent alleging that between 6 November 1998 and 6 May 1999 it had displayed an advertisement without the consent of the council or the Secretary of State, contrary to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 and section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The council claimed that the express consent to display the advertisement had expired on 4 August 1982, and that the respondent had not become entitled to deemed consent pursuant to Class 14 of Schedule 3 to the 1992 Regulations, as would otherwise have been the case, because it had failed to comply with the condition requiring the advertisement to be clean and tidy. The justices held that the council had acted unreasonably in finding that the advertisement had not been maintained in a clean and tidy condition because, once the council had brought the state of the advertisement to the respondent’s attention, the respondent had taken steps to tidy and clean it. On that basis, the justices dismissed the information, concluding that the respondent enjoyed deemed consent pursuant to the 1992 Regulations. The council appealed by way of case stated.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The crucial question was not whether a defendant had, in the view of the justices, behaved reasonably, but whether a local authority were entitled to be satisfied that the advertisement had not been maintained in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the relevant time. The justices had proceeded on the basis that the advertisement had not been kept in a tidy and clean condition, but that the respondent had taken reasonable steps to maintain the sign after it had been contacted by the council about its condition. Accordingly, the justices had erred in finding that the advertisement had been kept in a reasonable and tidy condition. The respondent did not therefore enjoy the benefit of deemed consent pursuant to Class 14 of Schedule 3 to the 1992 Regulations. The matter was to be remitted to the justices with a direction to convict.
Gregory Jones (instructed by the solicitor to Hertsmere Borough Council) appeared for the appellants; Peter Harrison (instructed by Reid Minty & Co) appeared for the respondent.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
