Blow Up Media Ltd UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 03, 2008, [2008] EWHC 1912 (Admin)
Linked as:
Extract
Blow Up Media Ltd UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 03, 2008, [2008] EWHC 1912 (Admin)
SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE
Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 1912 (Admin) CO/7151/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice StrandLondon WC2A 2LL Thursday, 3rd July 2008 B e f o r e: SIR MICHAEL HARRISON- - - - - - - - - - - - -Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF BLOW UP MEDIA LIMITED UK LTD Claimantv LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - -Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of WordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)- - - - - - - - - - - - -Mr G Jones (instructed by Webster Dixon) appeared on behalf of the ClaimantMr Edwards [Mr M Lewis] (instructed by Steele and Co) appeared on behalf of the Defendant- - - - - - - - - - - - -J U D G M E N T1. SIR MICHAEL HARRISON: Introduction: This is an application by the claimant, Blow Up Media UK Ltd, for judicial review to quash a decision of the defendant, Lambeth London Borough Council, to serve notices on the claimant under section 11 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995, ("the 1995 Act"), and under section 225 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act") as amended by section 10 of the 1995 Act, requiring the claimant to remove an advertisement hoarding erected on scaffolding on the front of premises of 441 to 447 Brixton Road, Lambeth. Factual Background 2. The factual background is that, on 2nd March 2006, the claimant applied to the defendant under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 1994 for express consent to erect an advertisement approximately 20 metres by 10 metres on a scaffold safety screen located on a scaffold to be erected in order to facilitate building works on part of the existing building at 441 to 447 Brixton Road.3. The drawings accompanying the application showed that the advertisement was to be attached to a scaffold flush to the front elevation of the upper stories of the building which were themselves set back some 15 metres or so from the front elevation of the ground floor of the building. The application stated that the claimant was anxious to mitigate the effect of unsightly scaffold and debris netting whilst cleaning and building works were in progress on the building. Temporary consent was sought for a period of 12 months. The building is centrally located in a prominent position in Brixton shopping centre and it is within a conservation area. It is next to the underground station and a short walk from Lambeth Town Hall.4. On 8th June 2006 the defendant granted express consent for the advertisement for 12 months subject to a number of conditions which included a condition requiring the advertisement to be erected strictly in accordance with the approved plans.5. On 1st August 2006 the advertisement was erected by the claimant, but not in the position for which consent had been granted. It was erected on a self-standing structure on the front of the flat roof over the ground floor of the building about 15 metres or so forward from the front elevation of the upper floors of the building and supported by gantry like structures projecting out from some open windows in the front elevation of the upper floors.6. The reason subsequently given by the claimant for erecting the advertisement in that position was Health and Safety concerns that the advertisement could not be fitted to abut the upper floors of the building because there were concerns that the roof would not be able to bear the weight of the advertisement and the surrounding apparatus, but no such concern nor any intention to erect the advertisement in a different position from that which had been approved had been communicated to the defendant.7. The erection of the advertisement immediately resulted in complaints from members of the Council, including the Chairman of the Planning Committee, from members of the public, from a residents' association and from the Community Safety Department of the Council. Due to the level of public concern the matter was classified as a "top priority case" which meant that the complaints had to be investigated and enforcement action taken, if possible, within 24 hours.8. Mr Costigan, a senior planning enforcement officer in the defendant's planning department, was appointed as the case officer. He visited the site on 4th August 2006, took photographs of the offending advertisement, retrieve...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
