Section 169(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (“HA 1980”) allows a highway authority to impose on a scaffolding licence “such terms as the authority issuing it thinks fit”. 

However, by s.169(2), the authority must issue the licence unless satisfied: “(a) that the structure would cause unreasonable obstruction of a highway; or (b) that a relevant structure erected otherwise than as proposed by the applicant would cause less obstruction of a highway than the structure proposed by him and could conveniently be used for the work in question.”

The appellant argued that the condition went beyond the statutory scope of s.169 and the HA 1980 and/or that it was contrary to Government policy because public advertisements are comprehensively addressed by other legislation, including (but not limited to) the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements (England) Regulations 2007.

In a decision dated 15 July 2026, District Judge Pilling dismissed those arguments.

She concluded that s.169(1) gives a broad discretion and that “[a]dvertising on scaffolding obstructing the highway potentially has direct implication for the safety, use and enjoyment of the highway”.  Moreover, there are express indications elsewhere in the HA 1980 that it allows for controls on advertising.  She accordingly concluded that “[t]he decision to impose a condition to restrict the use of the scaffold erected on public highway to its stated purpose, and to restrict it from being used for advertising, is not unreasonable.”

In response to the appellant’s arguments about other legislation, the Judge acknowledged that there was a potential overlap in that highway considerations may be considered by the local planning authority, however it was not necessarily comprehensive.  Moreover, that did not affect the interpretation of the HA 1980.  The Judge’s ultimate conclusion was that:

“TfL is the public authority with responsibility for highways, and it must follow that as the authority granting a licence under section 169 HA for scaffold to be erected, it can impose a condition restricting the use of that scaffold for another purpose, namely advertising.”

The Judge also awarded costs to TfL.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

Ned Westaway, instructed by TfL Legal, acted for the highway authority