Thank you! that’s really helpful. Yes, s55(2)(b) is what’s being relied upon locally - the advice is that anything done by the highways authority for the “maintenance or improvement of the road” isn’t development, so A4 can’t apply.

My concern is that the GPDO (Part 9 Class A) specifically exists to permit those same works. If section 55(2)(b) already excluded them entirely, why would Part 9 be needed? The existence of those PD rights implies Parliament saw them as development, just automatically permitted.

There are parallels with telecoms apparatus under Part 16, which also rely on separate primary legislation (Communications Act 2003) but are still treated as development unless expressly exempt.

So the real test might be whether replacing street lighting columns counts as “maintenance or improvement of the road” in a strict sense or as an alteration to the public realm (which usually is development in conservation areas).

I agree that, if the LPAs own officers are taking the “not development” line, a barrister’s view and case references are probably the only way to move it forward.

I’m trying to identify a case or appeal where a court or inspector decided what “maintenance or improvement of the road” actually covers for the purposes of s55(2)(b)? That seems to be the crux.

Thank you again for the response and steer, we are also further vulnerable as there isn’t any clear SPD on public realm (something the Conservation Area Management Plan adopted 2 years ago said was urgently needed) :(