The 2012 NPPF: A Digest of Decisions

Section 5 – Supporting high quality communications infrastructure

NPPF 42-46

NPPF 46

Infocus Public Networks Ltd [2013] EWHC 4622 (Admin), Hickinbottom J

“34. Of course, by refusing the Claimant’s appeal, it may mean that, in fact, the telecommunications code system operators who already have a telephone box in the area will have or may have a commercial advantage over the Claimant who will not have a kiosk in that area. However, that is not to the point. The Inspector was here simply and quite properly commenting on matters of siting and an appearance as planning considerations, which was his central remit. He made clear, as I have indicated, that the need for a further kiosk in the area was not contentious (paragraph 7 of his letter). However, as Miss Thornton submitted, the Inspector was bound to decide the appeal on planning grounds (see, e.g., the first sentence of paragraph 46 of the NPPF); and, by doing so, he did not infringe the NPPF by in fact restricting competition. He did not “seek to prevent competition between different operators”, for the purposes of paragraph 46 of the NPPF.”

Telephone kiosks fell within Part 5 of the NPPF [36]-[37].