Prokopp, R (on the application of) v London Underground Ltd & Ors [2003] EWHC 960 (Admin) (2 May 2003)

Prokopp, R (on the application of) v London Underground Ltd & Ors [2003] EWHC 960 (Admin) (2 May 2003)

The decisions of the local planning authorities not to take enforcement action were unlawful because they were made before all appropriate conditions, particularly those relating to the listed Braithwaite Viaduct and section 106 obligations, were in place. While a decision not to enforce can constitute a 'development consent' under the Directive, in this case there had been substantial compliance with the Directive and a new EIA was not strictly required. However, the authorities failed to consider all relevant conditions before making their decisions, rendering those decisions unlawful and requiring them to be quashed and reconsidered.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 960 (Admin)
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 and Relief Hearing
Outcome
Decisions of the local planning authorities quashed; interim injunction against London Underground Limited continued until lawful decisions are made; declaration refused as unnecessary.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Enforcement Action, Environmental Impact Assessment, Listed Buildings, Directive 85/337/eec, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Transport and Works Act 1992, Section 106 Agreements
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law European Union Law Planning Permission Enforcement Action Environmental Impact Assessment Listed Buildings +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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 and Relief Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decisions of the local planning authorities not to take enforcement action against demolition at Bishopsgate Goods Yard were lawful
  2. 2 Whether a decision not to enforce constitutes a 'development consent' under Directive 85/337/EEC
  3. 3 Whether a further Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was required before demolition could proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The decisions of the local planning authorities not to take enforcement action were unlawful because they were made before all appropriate conditions, particularly those relating to the listed Braithwaite Viaduct and section 106 obligations, were in place. While a decision not to enforce can constitute a 'development consent' under the Directive, in this case there had been substantial compliance with the Directive and a new EIA was not strictly required. However, the authorities failed to consider all relevant conditions before making their decisions, rendering those decisions unlawful and requiring them to be quashed and reconsidered.

Court Disposition

Decisions of the local planning authorities quashed; interim injunction against London Underground Limited continued until lawful decisions are made; declaration refused as unnecessary.

Orders

  • Quashing orders against the decisions of London Borough of Hackney and London Borough of Tower Hamlets not to take enforcement action
  • Interim injunction continued against London Underground Limited restraining demolition until lawful decisions are made by the authorities