Mawbey, R (On the Application Of) v Lewisham Council [2018] EWHC 263 (Admin) (16 February 2018)

Mawbey, R (On the Application Of) v Lewisham Council [2018] EWHC 263 (Admin) (16 February 2018)

The central support poles installed on the building are 'masts' within the meaning of the GPDO, as they are structures supporting antennae transmitting and receiving radio waves. The defendant's interpretation to the contrary was irrational and contrary to the statutory purpose and wording of the GPDO. Therefore, the installation was not permitted development under Part 16, and the defendant's decision was unlawful.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 263 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Nigel Mawbey; Defendant: Lewisham Council; Interested Party: Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim for judicial review granted
Legal Topics
Permitted Development, Telecommunications Infrastructure, Interpretation of Planning Legislation, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Permitted Development Telecommunications Infrastructure Interpretation of Planning Legislation Judicial Review

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Mawbey

Claimant

Lewisham Council

Defendant

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited

Interested Party

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the central support poles installed on the building constitute 'masts' under Part 16 of the GPDO 2015 and are thus excluded from permitted development rights under paragraph A.1(2)(c).

Ratio Decidendi

The central support poles installed on the building are 'masts' within the meaning of the GPDO, as they are structures supporting antennae transmitting and receiving radio waves. The defendant's interpretation to the contrary was irrational and contrary to the statutory purpose and wording of the GPDO. Therefore, the installation was not permitted development under Part 16, and the defendant's decision was unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review granted

Orders

  • The defendant's decision of 9 June 2017 is quashed.