Permission for judicial review has been granted on the following grounds:

1. The Inspector failed to properly assess whether the displays, either together or individually, caused substantial injury to amenity, failed to give adequate reasons, and / or was irrational
2. The Inspector erred in his approach to heritage impact by (i) failing to have regard to the expert evidence (ii) misconstrued the approach to heritage harm and (iii) failed to give adequate reasons
3. Unlawful violation of the Claimant’s A1P1 rights
4. The Inspector’s amendments are irrational, ineffective and render the Notice void for uncertainty

The first three grounds each raise important points of practice that will be of interest to all those practicing in the advertising industry given the prevalence of multiple displays on single sites and the frequent interaction between heritage assets and advertisement displays. Moreover, this will be the first case to consider the interaction between A1P1 rights and discontinuance proceedings.

Gregory Jones KC and Charles Merrett act for the Claimant, instructed by Emily Williams of Addleshaw Goddard.