The court held that the councils’ decision to allow the development to continue by way of the section 106 agreement did not itself constitute “development consent” for the purposes of the relevant EC Directive, and that a further EIA would not therefore be required.
It seems that the House of Lords agree with the decision: the lords have refused Prokopp’s application for permission to appeal: see
Related item: for more information on the earlier High Court decision, read the planning note by Martin Edwards and John Martin entitled
Q Is it possible to renew a lapsed planning permission without following the normal procedure of applying to vary the time condition under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990?
A It would seem so, according to the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (on the application of Prokopp) v London Underground Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 961; [2003] PLSCS 166. In this case, a section 73 application would have meant restarting a lengthy and already-completed consultation process, including an environmental impact assessment (EIA). Instead, the developer and the local authorities entered into an agreement under section 106 of the 1990 Act, by which the developer voluntarily assumed the planning obligations imposed originally by the permission, and the local authorities declined to commence injunctive or enforcement proceedings.
The court held that the councils’ decision to allow the development to continue by way of the section 106 agreement did not itself constitute “development consent” for the purposes of the relevant EC Directive, and that a further EIA would not therefore be required.
It seems that the House of Lords agree with the decision: the lords have refused Prokopp’s application for permission to appeal: see Law lords back Bishopsgate goods yard ruling EGi Legal News 15 July 2003.
Related item: for more information on the earlier High Court decision, read the planning note by Martin Edwards and John Martin entitled Check out the impact Estates Gazette 7 June 2003, p132.
