Sarah Moakes v Canterbury City Council
[2024] EWHC 1272 (Admin)
Whiteside, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon & Anor
17 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1806 (Admin)
High Court
Someone didn't like a new, bright advertising bus stop outside their house. They sued the council, saying they didn't follow the rules. The judge said the council did follow the rules and the resident lost the case.
Key Facts
- •The claimant challenges the London Borough of Croydon's decision to grant advertising consent for a new digitally illuminated bus shelter outside his home.
- •The replacement bus shelter includes two-sided digital advertising screens.
- •The claimant argues the Council failed to consider the local development plan, conduct a site-specific impact assessment, and consult with him and neighbors.
- •The Council argues the claimant's claim is invalid due to significant delay.
- •The claim was filed after the 6-week limitation period expired.
Legal Principles
Local planning authorities must exercise their powers under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety, considering the development plan and other relevant factors.
Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, Regulation 3
Planning officers' reports are not to be read with undue rigor, but with reasonable benevolence.
R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
The same approach applies to reports of delegated decision-makers.
R (Hayes) v Wychavon District Council [2014] EWHC 1987 (Admin)
A legitimate expectation of consultation arises only from a clear, unambiguous, and unqualified undertaking by the council.
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)
Conspicuous unfairness as a basis for a duty to consult arises only in exceptional cases.
R (Plantagenet Alliance) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 1662 (Admin)
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review granted but claim dismissed.
The court found that the Council did consider the relevant parts of the local development plan, conducted a site-specific assessment regarding illumination levels, and was not obligated to consult the claimant.
Similar Cases
Christine Pratt & Anor, R (on the application of) v Exeter City Council
[2024] EWHC 185 (Admin)
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Carol Gurajena & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham
[2024] EWHC 1745 (Admin)
Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring, R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2024] EWHC 440 (Admin)