Stadium Capital Holdings No 2 Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Anor

In determining whether an advertisement causes substantial injury to amenity, the relevant state of affairs is that existing when the discontinuance notice is served and when the appeal is decided. The history of the use and absence of complaints may be relevant, although usually only with limited weight on the question of injury.

When fixing the compliance period, the decision-maker must consider the particular circumstances, including financial consequences and relevant governmental guidance. The period is not confined to the time physically necessary to remove the display. The statutory minimum period may be extended where the circumstances justify it.

The applicants challenged an inspector’s decision upholding a discontinuance notice under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. The notice required discontinuance of the use of land for an illuminated advertising hoarding.

The inspector found substantial injury to visual amenity, but extended the compliance period from 28 days to three months. The applicants contended that the inspector had failed to give proper weight to the longevity of the use, the absence of complaints, their financial investment and paragraph 82 of Circular 03/2007. The central issues were whether the finding of substantial injury was lawful and whether the compliance period had been lawfully determined.

1. The claim succeeded in part. The inspector’s finding that discontinuance action was justified was upheld, but his decision on the compliance period was quashed.
2. In assessing injury to amenity or danger to the public under regulation 8 of the Town and Country (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, the decision-maker must consider the state of affairs existing when the notice is served and when the appeal is determined. Policies concerning advertising and sustainable development did not determine whether the display caused injury, although revenue from the display could be relevant to the time allowed for compliance.
3. The length of time for which advertisements had been displayed without complaint was capable of being relevant both to injury and to the compliance period. It carried, at most, very limited weight on injury because that issue principally depended on the inspector’s judgment after seeing the display.
4. The compliance period had to be reasonable in the circumstances. Regulation 8(4) and (6) recognised that the eight-week period was a minimum and that the period could be extended. Paragraph 82 of Circular 03/2007 required consideration of particular circumstances, especially where discontinuance might have serious financial consequences.
5. The inspector erred by limiting the period to what was absolutely necessary for physical removal of the display. That approach disregarded relevant financial considerations and conflicted with the Regulations and the Circular. The matter was therefore to be reconsidered following quashing of the decision on compliance time.

First-instance judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The judgment itself does not state any subsequent appellate history.