Appellant advertiser displaying advert at site for over three months – Building operations not commencing – Justices convicting appellant of offence – Whether appellant entitled to maintain advertisement if reasonable belief that works would commence within three months – Schedule 3 Class 8 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 – Appeal dismissed
The respondent planning authority laid an information against the appellant, alleging that, in October 1998, it was displaying an advertisement, in the form of a hoarding, at the Monarch Hotel, contrary to Regulations 5 and 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 and section 224(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
The justices found as facts that, inter alia: (i) planning permission had been granted in March 1998 for the enlargement of the basement and for the erection of railings at the hotel; (ii) an advertisement hoarding had been erected in May 1998, pursuant to Schedule 3 Class 8 of the 1992 regulations; (iii) the appellant was informed that works would commence at the beginning of December 1998; (iv) more than three months had elapsed, during which a hoarding had been displayed at the site; and (v) in October 1998 no works had commenced pursuant to the permission. The justices held that deemed consent for the hoarding had, therefore, expired by October 1998, and they convicted the appellant of the offence.
The appellant appealed by way of case stated. Its principal contention was that, within the terms of Class 8 of the 1992 regulations, it was entitled to maintain a hoarding at the premises for as long as it genuinely and reasonably believed that the building operations would commence within three months, subject to an overall time-limit of three years. Such belief did exist in October, and, thus, no offence had been committed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The reference in Class 8 of the 1992 regulations to works “about to take place” involved a relaxation of the strict control of advertisements in relation to certain types of building works. The extent of that relaxation was quantified by condition 2 of Class 8, namely that no advertisement might be displayed earlier than three months before the commencement of the building operations. There was nothing offensive in approaching the wording of Class 8 on the basis that the risk was placed upon the party seeking to take advantage of the relaxation. If building operations did not commence within three months, deemed consent was lost and a remaining advertisement would constitute an offence. The onus was, therefore, on the advertiser to ensure that works did commence within that time. There was no need to introduce the concept of reasonable belief, as it did not appear in the statute or the regulations, and the context did not require it.
David Wolfe (instructed by JW Godfrey & Co, of Berkhamsted) appeared for the appellant; Scott Lyness (instructed by the solicitor to Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
