Duff's (Gordon) Application (Re Glassdrumman Road, Ballynahinch) and in the matter of a decision Newry, Mourne and Down District Council
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Scoffield J |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NIQB 37 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 24 May 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NIQB 37
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: SCO11856
ICOS No: 21/055065/01
Delivered: 24/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
___________
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION BY GORDON DUFF
(RE GLASSDRUMMAN ROAD, BALLYNAHINCH) FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN
DISTRICT COUNCIL
___________
The applicant, Mr Duff, appeared in person
Philip McAteer (instructed by Belfast City Council Legal Services Department) appeared
for the respondent
William Orbinson QC and Fionnuala Connolly (instructed by O’Hare Solicitors)
appeared for the notice party, Mr Carlin
Stewart Beattie QC and Philip McEvoy (instructed by Cleaver Fulton Rankin, Solicitors)
appeared and intervened (by written submissions only) for Lisburn and Castlereagh City
Council
___________
SCOFFIELD J
Introduction
[1] In these proceedings the applicant, Mr Gordon Duff, challenges the decision
of Newry, Mourne and Down District Council (“the Council”) to grant outline
planning permission (reference LA07/2020/1292/O) on 9 April 2021 for two
detached ‘infill’ dwellings and garages at lands located between Nos 2 and
10 Glassdrumman Road, Ballynahinch.
[2] Mr Duff appeared as a litigant in person. Mr McAteer appeared for the
respondent. Mr Orbinson QC appeared with Ms Connolly for the notice party,
Mr Carlin. (Unusually, the notice party in this case seeking to defend the permission
was a planning consultant. However, I understand that his participation was on
behalf of his client, the relevant landowner and ultimate beneficiary of the
permission, Mrs Miskelly, who hopes to build houses on the application site for her
2
daughters to live in. No objection was made to Mr Carlin acting in this capacity.)
Mr Beattie QC also appeared, with Mr McEvoy, for Lisburn and Castlereagh City
Council (LCCC) as an intervener, whose interest in the proceedings arises by virtue
of the fact that the applicant has issued a range of judicial review challenges against
LCCC relating to the application of the same planning policy which is at the heart of
this case. I am grateful to all counsel for their written and oral submissions; and,
indeed, to Mr Duff for the way in which he politely and cogently put his case both
orally and in writing.
The applicant’s other judicial review challenges
[3] In his Order 53 statement, the applicant has described himself as someone
who “has consistently challenged the cumulative destruction [of the environment]
and classes himself as an environmental protector.” Other recent judgments of the
court have described a range of applications which have been brought by Mr Duff in
this regard, many of which focus on the policies contained within Planning Policy
Statement 21 (PPS21), entitled ‘Sustainable Development in the Countryside’, and, in
particular although not exclusively, Policy CTY8 within PPS21. By way of example,
see the court’s judgment in Re Burns’ and Duff’s Applications [2022] NIQB 10 (“Burns
and Duff”), at paras [3] and [36]; and Re Duff’s Application (East Road, Drumsurn)
[2022] NIQB 11, at para [52].
[4] The court granted the applicant leave to apply for judicial review in this case
on 30 October 2021. A number of other cases raising essentially the same issues but
against different planning authorities have been stayed pending the outcome of
these proceedings which have been treated as something of a ‘lead case’ on the
issues of interpretation of planning policy which lie at the heart of most of Mr Duff’s
challenges. Many of his applications for judicial review have been dealt with by way
of the orders following upon the court’s judgment (mentioned above) in Burns and
Duff, where the relevant planning applications are now being reconsidered by
LCCC; but there remains a range of cases which await the outcome of this
application (or, as may be the case, the decision on any appeal from this judgment).
Those cases include applications against the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC)
and a number of other district councils.
The applicant’s grounds of judicial review
[5] When leave to apply for judicial review was granted in this case, Mr Duff’s
pleaded grounds were significantly modified and ‘slimmed down’ by means of a
direction pursuant to RCJ Order 53, rule 3(4) that the applicant’s Order 53 statement
be amended. This was on the basis that the previously pleaded grounds were
unduly prolix and repetitious and, to some degree, simply repeated submissions or
factual assertions which had been made to the proposed respondent. The grounds
on which leave were granted were considered by the court to represent a synopsis of
the key issues raised by the applicant’s pleaded case which had surmounted the
leave threshold.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
(1) Lancaster (Anthony) (2) Rafferty (Sharon) and (3) McDonnell (Anthony) Application for Judicial Review and in the matter of decisions of The Police Service of Northern Ireland and The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...‘catch-all’ pleading that an impugned measure is “in breach of the rule of law” is rarely of assistance: see Re Finucane’s Application [2022] NIQB 37, at para [121]. So too a pleaded ground of irrationality, particularly where other grounds are relied upon (such as breach of Convention righ......