Whiteside, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon & Anor

In determining an application for advertisement consent, a local planning authority must consider amenity and public safety, taking account of material development-plan policies and other relevant factors. An officer’s report is read with reasonable benevolence, and omission of a policy’s name does not necessarily establish that it was ignored where the policy was considered in substance.

A site-specific assessment may be made through planning judgment by applying relevant best-practice guidance to the proposed development and its location. Advertisement-consent procedures do not generally require neighbour consultation. A legitimate expectation requires a clear, unambiguous and unqualified undertaking, while conspicuous unfairness gives rise to a consultation duty only in exceptional cases.

The claimant sought judicial review of the London Borough of Croydon’s decision to grant consent for digitally illuminated advertisements forming part of a replacement bus shelter outside his home.

He alleged failure to consider the local development plan, failure to assess the site-specific impact of the proposed illumination, and failure to consult him or nearby residents. The Council argued that the claim had no merit and was filed late. The court considered whether the decision-maker had lawfully addressed the statutory advertisement-consent criteria, the site’s residential context, and any duty to consult.

1. Outcome. Permission was granted, but the claim was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the Council’s costs.
2. Local development plan. Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 required the Council to act in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of material development-plan provisions. The Council had considered the Croydon policy in substance. The consent conditions expressly referred to Policy DM12, the officer’s report recommended approval for compliance with the policies and guidance discussed, and London Plan Policy D8 materially overlapped with DM12. The report was to be read with reasonable benevolence, applying R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 and R (Hayes) v Wychavon District Council [2014] EWHC 1987 (Admin).
3. Site-specific assessment. The officer’s report addressed the proposed illumination at this location by applying PLG05 guidance for a suburban or zone 3 area. That was a site-specific planning judgment, particularly since the former advertisements had been back-lit. The alleged failures concerning material considerations, the Tameside duty and reasons therefore failed. New World Payphones Ltd v Westminster City Council [2019] EWCA Civ 2250 was distinguishable because the present advertising consent did not depend on permitted-development rights.
4. Consultation. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement concerned planning applications and contained discretion as to neighbour notification. It gave no clear, unambiguous and unqualified assurance that neighbours would be consulted on advertisement consent. R (on the application of Majed) v Camden LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 1029 and R (on the application of Velayuthan) v Southwark LBC [2023] EWHC 1396 (Admin) did not assist. Conspicuous unfairness would create a duty to consult only in exceptional cases: R (Plantagenet Alliance) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 1662 (Admin). This routine replacement-bus-shelter application was not exceptional.
5. There was consequently no need to decide whether the claim was filed out of time or whether an extension should be granted.