The court rejected King Media’s challenge over a large illuminated Hackney advertisement.
The High Court has dismissed King Media Limited’s challenge to an advertisement discontinuance notice, finding that the removal of deemed consent for a large illuminated advertisement in Hackney did not breach the company’s human rights.
Mrs Justice Lieven handed down judgment on 25 September 2026 in King Media Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2026] EWHC 2406 (Admin). The claim was brought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an inspector’s decision dismissing King Media’s appeal against a discontinuance notice issued by the London Borough of Hackney.
The dispute concerned an externally illuminated mesh advertisement measuring approximately 10 metres by 10 metres at 1 Great Eastern Street, Hackney. The site is within the South Shoreditch Conservation Area, and the advertisement had been in place for more than 10 years.
Hackney issued the discontinuance notice under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. The Council said the advertisement caused substantial injury to local amenity because of its size, prominence, illumination and impact on the building and surrounding area.
The inspector subsequently concluded that the advertisement was substantially out of scale, dominated the façade and obscured architectural detailing. She found that it was a dominant and intrusive feature that caused harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and substantial injury to the amenity of the locality.
King Media challenged the inspector’s decision on several grounds, including the adequacy of her reasoning on heritage harm, the treatment of residential amenity, the requirement to consider material changes in circumstances and alleged breaches of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
On the heritage issue, Mrs Justice Lieven rejected the argument that the inspector was required to identify precisely where the harm fell on a scale within the category of “less than substantial harm”. The judge held that the inspector’s reasons were adequate and that there was no enhanced duty to give reasons simply because heritage issues were involved.
The court also held that residential amenity could be a relevant consideration when assessing the “amenity of the locality” under the Regulations. However, the judge concluded that the inspector’s decision would have been the same even without the residential amenity finding because her conclusions concerning visual amenity and the conservation area were sufficiently clear.
A further challenge concerned Regulation 8(8), which requires regard to be had to any material change in circumstances when considering whether to issue a discontinuance notice. The court found that a material change was not a gateway requirement for issuing a notice. It held that the inspector had considered the issue and had rejected the argument that the advertisement was in keeping with the character of the area.
The court then considered King Media’s A1P1 argument. The judgment proceeded on the basis that the benefit of the deemed consent constituted a “possession” for A1P1 purposes. However, the court held that the absence of compensation did not automatically make the interference unlawful. The assessment depended on the full factual and legal context.
Mrs Justice Lieven distinguished the case from authorities involving outright deprivation of property. The deemed consent was subject to the regulatory scheme, including the possibility of a discontinuance notice, and King Media remained able to apply for express consent for an advertisement in a different form. The court therefore found that the removal of deemed consent was not a full and outright deprivation.
The court also rejected the argument that the delay in enforcement made the decision disproportionate. While the advertisement had been present for more than 10 years, the judge noted that the delay had allowed King Media to continue receiving income from the display.
The High Court ultimately dismissed the application for statutory review.