High Court upholds ruling on advertisement removal notice issued by London borough

The High Court has confirmed a district judge’s ruling that an advertisement hoarding overhanging a road in Hackney must be removed.

Mrs Justice Steyn heard applicant Build Hollywood appealed by case stated against the dismissal by DJ Susan Holdham of its appeal against a removal notice issued by the London Borough of Hackney under s.225A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in March 2021.

Hackney required the removal of advertisements and their associated fixtures and fittings from The Tram Depot, in Upper Clapton Road.

There was a high-level advertisement on the flank wall and three wooden advertising hoardings at street level protruded over the pavement by about 20cm. The appeal concerned only the latter.

For these not to be in contravention of regulations, Build Hollywood had to show deemed consent, it being common ground that there was no express consent.

DJ Holdham held there was no deemed consent because they contravened the standard conditions referred to in the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

The questions stated by DJ Holdham for the opinion of the High Court were whether she was correct to find that Transport for London (TfL) had an interest in the site and to find Build Hollywood breached the 2007 regulations by failing to show that it had a licence from TfL.

Hackney had said that TfL was the highway authority and so had an interest in the site as the low level advertisements protruded over the public highway

Build Hollywood argued the protrusion was de minimis at approximately 20 cms and caused no difficulty to passing pedestrians.

It also argued there was an abuse of process because Hackney was forcing TfL to ask Build Hollywood to get a licence rather than coming to its own view, and that there was no evidence that TfL required a licence until the matter was raised by Hackney.

In Build Hollywood Ltd v London Borough of Hackney [2022] EWHC 2806 (Admin) Steyn J said in her judgment it was evident that Upper Clapton Road was a highway maintainable at public expense, and “clear, in my view, that TfL had the power to grant a licence, and impose terms and conditions, in respect of the display of the low-level advertisements”.

She concluded: “The answers to both the questions stated for the opinion of the High Court are 'yes'.

“The district judge's conclusion that TfL was a 'person with an interest’ within the meaning of Standard Condition 1 (contained in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations) was correct.”

Build Hollywood failed to show that it had a s.177 licence or any other permission from TfL to display the low-level advertisements, so DJ Holdham’s conclusion that it  breached Standard Condition 1 was also correct.

Mark Smulian