Prokopp, R (on the application of) v London Underground Ltd & Ors

Prokopp, R (on the application of) v London Underground Ltd & Ors

The decisions of the local planning authorities not to take enforcement action cannot stand as they were made before all appropriate conditions under section 106 were in place; however, substantial compliance with the Directive has occurred, and the authorities may lawfully decide not to enforce without a further EIA, provided all conditions are properly considered.

Parties
Claimant: R(Prokopp); First Defendant: London Underground Limited; Second Defendant: London Borough of Hackney; Third Defendant: London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment With Orders and Costs
Outcome
Decisions of the local planning authorities quashed; interim injunction against London Underground continued; leave to appeal granted; costs awarded to claimant at 50% with London Underground to pay 90% and boroughs 10%.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, Directive 85/337/eec, Town and Country Planning Act, Enforcement Action, Substantial Compliance, Costs
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law European Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Listed Building Consent Directive 85/337/eec +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R(Prokopp)

Claimant

London Underground Limited

First Defendant

London Borough of Hackney

Second Defendant

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment With Orders and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a decision not to take enforcement action constitutes a 'development consent' under Directive 85/337/EEC
  2. 2 Whether substantial compliance with the Directive and Regulations obviates the need for a new Environmental Impact Assessment
  3. 3 Whether demolition of Bishopsgate Goods Yard requires fresh planning permission and EIA

Ratio Decidendi

The decisions of the local planning authorities not to take enforcement action cannot stand as they were made before all appropriate conditions under section 106 were in place; however, substantial compliance with the Directive has occurred, and the authorities may lawfully decide not to enforce without a further EIA, provided all conditions are properly considered.

Court Disposition

Decisions of the local planning authorities quashed; interim injunction against London Underground continued; leave to appeal granted; costs awarded to claimant at 50% with London Underground to pay 90% and boroughs 10%.

Orders

  • Quashing orders against London Borough of Hackney and London Borough of Tower Hamlets' decisions not to enforce
  • Interim injunction against London Underground Limited continued until authorities decide enforcement