000			01720cam a2200253 4500
001			ABS67280
008			031125n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u124457
100			_aHawker, S.
245		2	_aA window of opportunity
260			_c2003
490			_aHouse Builder _v62(9) October 2003, 41-43(3)
520			_aExamines how the recent CA decision in "R v London Underground Ltd ex p Prokopp" ([2003] EWCA Civ 961, [2003] PLSCS 166) has provided a way out when a planning permission has been lost through expiry. Outlines the reasons why expiration is a common problem. Describes what developers normally do to keep permissions alive and the rare exceptions to the principle that if all conditions precedent to commencement are not complied with before construction work begins, implementation will be unlawful and, if close to the expiry date, the permission will be lost. In "Prokopp" the CA decision ruled that a s106 agreement entered into by London Underground, the developer, and Tower Hamlets LBC, the local planning authority, was implicitly upheld. The permission was no longer alive but enforcement action could not be taken because it would be irrational in the circumstances as the condition could not be complied with at the time it was drafted in 1997.
590			_aABS
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S106
650			_aPLANNING PERMISSIONS
650			_aCONDITIONS PRECEDENT
650			_aHENRY BOOT HOMES LTD V BASSETLAW DC
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S106
650			_aR V LONDON UNDERGROUND LTD EX P PROKOPP
650			_aLEISURE GREAT BRITAIN PLC V ISLE OF WIGHT CC
690			_aPlanning and development _96259
942			_n0
999			_c73847 _d73847