|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Westminster City Council vSecretary of State for Housing Communities And Local Government  EWHC 176 (Admin) (05 February 2019)
Cite as:  PTSR 1510,  WLR(D) 89,  EWHC 176 (Admin)
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [View ICLR summary:  WLR(D) 89] [Buy ICLR report:  PTSR 1510] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL
|- and -
|SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
|- and –
|NEW WORLD PAYPHONES LTD
MR MARK WESTMORELAND SMITH (instructed by THE GOVERNMENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT) for the Defendant
MR PAUL STINCHCOMBE QC (instructed by SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS) for the Interested Party
Hearing dates: 15 January 2019
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY :
The legislative and policy framework
"A. Development by or on behalf of an electronic communications code operator for the purpose of the operator's electronic communications network in, on , over or under land controlled by that operator or in accordance with the electronic communications code consisting of –
(a) the installation, alteration or replacement of any electronic communications apparatus…."
Conditions are imposed by paragraph A2, materially in A.2 (2):
"(2) Class A development is permitted subject to the condition that –
(a) any electronic communications apparatus provided in accordance with that permission is removed from the land or building on which it is situated –
(ii) in any other case, as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for electronic communications purposes; and….;"
"Before beginning the development described in paragraph A. 2(3), the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to the siting and appearance of the development."
The Decision Letter
"However, the construction of a kiosk and the display of advertisements are distinct and separate matters requiring different applications where necessary. A proposed illuminated advertisement which was refused by the Council is considered separately under Appeal B. Whilst I have considered the prospect that a non-illuminated advertisement may be capable of being displayed on the kiosk, it is not what has been applied for and I have no reason to resist the kiosk on that basis, given that static, non-illuminated advertisements are a feature of other kiosks within the surrounding area.
15. The overall number of applications and appeals for similar kiosks within the Council's area is not a matter that has a direct bearing on my consideration of the appeal, particularly as those other proposals have little effect on the siting and appearance of the proposed kiosk before me."
The City Council's case to the Inspector
New World Payphones' evidence to the Inspector
The City Council's submissions
The Secretary of State's submissions
New World Payphones' submissions
Conclusions on "purpose"
The need for a kiosk