Infocus Public Networks Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Infocus Public Networks Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Inspector erred in treating advertising material on the kiosks as a material consideration for prior approval, as advertisement control is governed by separate regulations; the predominant reason for refusal in appeals A, C, E, F, and G was advertising, so those appeals must be allowed. The applications were validly received when the fee was received, and the planning authority was in time for appeals B and D, where siting was the main issue.

Parties
Appellant: Infocus Public Networks Limited; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Mayor and Commonality of the Citizens of London
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Prior Approval Procedure, Permitted Development, Planning Enforcement, Advertisement Control
Administrative Law Planning Law Prior Approval Procedure Permitted Development Planning Enforcement Advertisement Control

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Infocus Public Networks Limited

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Mayor and Commonality of the Citizens of London

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When is a prior approval application validly received for purposes of the 56-day determination period?
  2. 2 Is the presence of advertising material on telephone kiosks a material consideration in prior approval decisions?

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in treating advertising material on the kiosks as a material consideration for prior approval, as advertisement control is governed by separate regulations; the predominant reason for refusal in appeals A, C, E, F, and G was advertising, so those appeals must be allowed. The applications were validly received when the fee was received, and the planning authority was in time for appeals B and D, where siting was the main issue.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeals allowed in relation to appeals A, C, E, F, and G (planning permission granted)
  • Appeals dismissed in relation to appeals B and D (planning permission refused)