Mills & Rockleys Ltd v. Leicester City Council
[1946] 1 All ER 424Between: Mills & Rockleys Ltd
And: Leicester City Council
Judges:
Lord Goddard LCJ
Humphreys J
Henn Collins J
Subject References:
Town and Country Planning
Advertisements
Power of local authority to prohibit the use of a wall of dwelling-house for advertising purposes
"Structure"
Legislative References:
Town and Country Planning Act, 1932 (c 48) - s 47(5), (8)
Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943 (c 29) - s 5; s 15; Sched I
Judgment date: 29 January 1946
The appellants, a firm of advertising contractors, were the owners of a dwelling-house and they proposed to use the exterior wall of the house for the display of pictorial advertisements. The house was within the area which, under a scheme to be prepared under the Town Planning Acts, 1932-1943, was to be protected in respect of advertisements. The respondents, as the interim development authority, served the appellants with a notice, under the Town and Country Planning (Interim) Development Act, 1943, s 5, of their intention to make an order prohibiting the use of the exterior wall of the house for the purposes of advertising. On appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, the justices held that the respondents were entitled to take the proposed action. From this decision a case was stated for the opinion of the High Court at the request of the appellants:-
Held - Sect 5 of the 1943 Act must be read subject to the provisions of sect 47(8) of the 1932 Act, which did not empower a local authority to prohibit or control in advance a prospective advertisement or the use of a building for its display. The appellants were therefore entitled to the relief asked for and the notice served by the respondents must be set aside.
Per Lord Goddard LCJ, "Structure" means something which is constructed, and therefore includes a wall.
Notes
Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, a local authority may serve notice requiring the removal of unsightly advertisements set up in an area to which a scheme applies. They may not, however, forbid the erection of structures for the purpose of advertising, which appears to enjoy a very advantageous position under the Act. In view of this express prohibition an authority cannot pray in aid sect 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943, to restrain the use of a structure for advertising, since an interim scheme under that Act may not include something expressly prohibited by the principal Act. The purpose of sect 5 is to enable a local authority to restrain the use of land, while a scheme is being prepared, in a manner which will be contrary to the provisions of the scheme when made.
As to Advertisements, see Halsbury, Hailsham Edn, Vol 32, pp 238-240, paras 356-361; and for Cases, see Digest, Vol 38, pp 178, 179, Nos 201-204.
Special Case
Special Case stated by the justices for the city of Leicester under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, 1857-1879. The facts are fully set out in the judgment of Lord Goddard LCJ.
Appeal allowed with costs here and in the court below.