In Westminster City Council v SoS (2019) EWHC 176 (Admin) Ouseley J held that under the GPDO, the whole development for which prior approval as permitted development was sought had to fall within the Class of development relied on. If part fell outside the Class, it was not a permitted development. Under Schedule 2 Part 16 Class A, a proposed telephone kiosk had to be “for the purpose” of the telephone network. A kiosk with a large digital advertising panel was not entirely for that purpose and did not fall within the Class. It was not permitted development.
Subscribe
Get an email when we publish a new post on this blog. We’ll never share your email and you can unsubscribe any time. Our use of your details is explained in our privacy policy.
"*" indicates required fields
Headings
- Best Value (13)
- Capital Finance and Companies (55)
- Council Tax and Rates (75)
- Decision making and Contracts (266)
- Elections and Bylaws (33)
- Environment, Highways and Leisure (119)
- General (17)
- Housing (151)
- Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty (104)
- Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation (221)
- Land, Goods and Services (73)
- Local Authority Powers (74)
- Non Judicial Control (21)
- Planning and Environmental (156)
- Social Care (77)
- Standards (23)
Disclaimer
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
Comments are closed.
11KBW, 11 King’s Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7EQ | Tel: 020 7632 8500
Privacy | Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2025
Privacy | Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2025