King Media Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

Under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, a discontinuance notice may be served where the authority is satisfied that it is necessary to remedy substantial injury to the amenity of the locality. A material change in circumstances must be considered, but it is not a gateway condition. Amenity can include residential amenity, and the decision-maker need not identify a precise point on a scale of heritage harm if the reasons adequately address the principal controversy. For Article 1 Protocol 1, absence of compensation is not determinative. The court makes its own proportionality assessment, while giving substantial weight to an inspector’s site-specific planning judgment. Deemed consent remains a limited regulatory interest where express consent can still be sought.

The claimant, an outdoor advertising company, sought statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of an inspector’s dismissal of its appeal against a discontinuance notice issued under the 2007 Regulations. The notice required removal of a large illuminated advertisement displayed under deemed consent at a building in a conservation area. The challenge concerned the adequacy of heritage reasons, residential amenity, material change under regulation 8(8), and the compatibility and proportionality of removing deemed consent without compensation under A1P1. The court also considered the effect of delay and the availability of express consent.

1. Disposition. The application for statutory review was dismissed.
2. Reasons and heritage. Applying South Bucks DC v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, the court held that the decision letter gave intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal controversy. The Planning Practice Guidance did not impose an enhanced reasons standard or require a precise position on a scale of less than substantial harm. R (Kinsey) v London Borough of Lewisham [2021] EWHC 1286 and Newcastle upon Tyne CC v SSLUHC [2023] 2 P&CR 7 were distinguishable because they concerned different reasoning contexts. A finding of no harm to the setting of listed buildings was not inconsistent with harm to the broader character of the conservation area.
3. Residential amenity and prejudice. Amenity of the locality under regulation 8(1) could include residential amenity. Regulation 2’s reference to visual and aural amenity was not exhaustive. Any misunderstanding of the claimant’s position caused no prejudice. Under Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v SSE (1986) 57 P & CR 306, the decision would stand in any event because the visual and conservation-area harm independently established substantial injury.
4. Material change. Regulation 8(8) required regard to material changes but did not create a gateway condition for serving a discontinuance notice. The Inspector considered the alleged improvement to the area and rejected the argument that the advertisement was consistent with its character.
5. A1P1. The court assumed that deemed consent was a possession, following the approach in R (Nicholds) Security Industry Authority [2007] 1 WLR 2067. Applying R (Mott) v Environment Agency [2018] 1 WLR 1022, Former King of Greece v Greece (App no 25701/94) and Pannon Plakat v Hungary (39859/14), the absence of compensation was not determinative. Under Shvidler v SSFCDA [2026] UKSC 30, the court made its own proportionality assessment but gave substantial weight to the Inspector’s site-specific planning judgment, consistently with Chapman v United Kingdom (2001) 33 E.H.R.R. 18. City Outdoor Media v SSHCLG [2026] EWCA Civ 829 established that express consent remained available, so the notice was not an outright deprivation. The delay did not make the interference disproportionate, unlike the circumstances in Beyeler v Italy [2003] EHRR 5.
6. The discontinuance scheme was compatible with A1P1 on the facts, and no ground of challenge succeeded.

The judgment records that permission to bring the statutory review was granted on all grounds by Lang J on 23 January 2026. The High Court (Planning Court) subsequently dismissed the application.