King Media v Housing Secretary: uncompensated advertisement discontinuance notices compatible with A1P1

The High Court has ruled that removing deemed advertisement consent through a discontinuance notice, without compensation, does not breach Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. It also held that there is no enhanced duty to give reasons on heritage matters.

In King Media Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2026] EWHC 2406 (Admin), Mrs Justice Lieven dismissed a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The claim challenged an inspector's decision upholding a discontinuance notice served by the London Borough of Hackney under regulation 8 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

Background

The claimant, an outdoor advertising company holding a 15-year lease, displayed an externally illuminated mesh shroud of approximately 10m by 10m on a building at a major junction in the South Shoreditch Conservation Area. The building is identified as making a positive contribution to the conservation area. The advertisement had been in place for well over a decade, benefiting from Class 13 deemed consent. The council considered enforcement as early as 2014 but did not serve the notice until 2024.

The inspector found the advertisement a "dominant and intrusive feature" causing substantial injury to the amenity of the locality, and further harm to the amenity of residents in flats within the building.

Reasons and heritage harm

The claimant argued that the Planning Practice Guidance required the inspector to articulate precisely where the harm to the conservation area sat within the "less than substantial" category. Lieven J disagreed, holding that the guidance simply restates the South Bucks DC v Porter (No 2) standard and imposes no higher threshold in heritage cases. R (Kinsey) v Lewisham was distinguished as concerning an officer's report that left committee members inadequately advised. The inspector's conclusions were "clear and stark".

There was no inconsistency between accepting that the setting of nearby listed buildings was unharmed and finding harm to the wider historic character of the area, since the two assessments are distinct.

Residential amenity and change of circumstances

The inspector wrongly recorded that the parties agreed residential amenity was relevant. The court found no prejudice, however. "Amenity of the locality" in regulation 8(1) is capable of including residential amenity, and the definition of amenity in regulation 2 is non-exhaustive. In any event, applying Simplex, the outcome would inevitably have been the same given the inspector's findings on conservation area harm.

A material change in circumstances under regulation 8(8) is not a gateway requirement, and the inspector had adequately addressed the competing arguments.

A1P1 and compensation

The court proceeded on the assumption that the deemed consent was a possession. Lieven J held that neither Strasbourg nor domestic case law establishes an absolute requirement for compensation. Pannon Plakat v Hungary and R (Mott) v Environment Agency both turned on multiple factors, including arbitrariness and disproportionate individual impact, not the absence of compensation alone.

Two features distinguished the case from Former King of Greece v Greece. Deemed consent was always subject to the regulatory scheme, bearing an analogy to permitted development rights removed by Article 4 directions, as recognised by the Court of Appeal in City Outdoor Media v SSHCLG [2026] EWCA Civ 829. The deprivation was also not absolute, as the claimant could apply for express consent.

On the standard of review, the court applied Shvidler and Chapman v United Kingdom. While proportionality is for the court, very significant weight was due to an expert inspector who had visited the site. Arguments that the court should instead quash and remit were rejected.

The delay in serving the notice did not render it disproportionate. Unlike Beyeler v Italy, the delay had largely benefited the claimant, which continued to derive substantial income from the display throughout. The challenge to the compatibility of regulation 8 with A1P1 also failed, and the claim was dismissed on all grounds.