McLean Bookmakers and North West Bookmakers’ Applications
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Treacy J |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] NIQB 32 |
| Date | 10 March 2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2014 |
1
Neutral Citation No [2014] NIQB 32
Ref:
TRE9205
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
10/03/2014
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
McLean Bookmakers and North West Bookmakers’ Applications [2014] NIQB 32
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY McLEAN BOOKMAKERS
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY NORTH WEST BOOKMAKERS
LTD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND
IN THE MATTER OF DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT PLANNING SERVICE
________
TREACY J
Introduction
[1] The applicants in this combined judicial review challenge decisions made by
the Department of Environment Planning Service (“the respondent”) whereby
planning permission was granted to Toal’s Bookmakers (“the High Street
application”) and Sean Graham Bookmakers (“the Castle Street application”) to
allow them to extend their premises onto High Street, Belfast and Castle Street,
Belfast respectively. Both applications raise common issues.
[2] The High Street Application concerns a change of use from a passport office
to a bookmaking office to allow extension of the existing office, together with the
construction of a new flat roof over an existing internal courtyard. The Castle Street
Application relates to a change of use and extension of the existing retail unit to a
bookmaking office, to facilitate the extension of the existing bookmaking office.
[3] The applicants in the High Street application are McLean Bookmakers and
North West Bookmakers Ltd. The single applicant in the Castle Street application is
2
North West Bookmakers Ltd. Toal’s Bookmakers and Sean Graham Bookmakers are
Notice Parties to the proceedings.
[4] Mr McGleenan QC and Mr McQuitty appeared for the applicants,
Mr McLaughlin QC appeared for the respondent and Mr Humphreys QC and
Mr Lunney appeared for the Notice Party Sean Graham Bookmakers.
Background
[5] Both development proposals involve existing bookmaker’s offices, located
within Belfast City Centre Conservation Area. In both cases, the existing offices have
ground level frontage onto the public street. Both bookmakers wish to convert
nearby ground floor premises located on a different street and also a rear courtyard,
which will facilitate internal connection between the two offices. The result will be
an extended bookmaker’s office, with double frontage onto two public streets. In
both cases, the development site lies within the draft boundaries of the Primary
Retail Core (as defined by the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan - “BMAP”), but
outside the proposed area of Primary Retail Frontage.
[6] In the case of the High Street application, the existing bookmaker’s office
fronts onto Pottinger’s Entry. It is proposed to extend the bookmakers into the
former passport office. Permission has been granted for a change of use to a
bookmaker’s office and also to construct a new flat roof over an existing internal
courtyard, which will provide a connection and a larger office. The development
will not involve any external alteration to the street view or to the facades of the
building. All proposed construction works are internal and will not be visible to
public view.
[7] In the case of the Castle Street application, the existing bookmaker’s office
fronts onto King Street. It is proposed to convert a small retail unit with frontage
onto Castle Street (formerly used as a hair salon). The two premises will be
connected by the enclosure of an existing storage area to the rear of the Castle Street
premises. Again, no alteration to the existing frontages will take place and the new
construction works will not be visible to public view.
[8] In both cases, planning permission has been granted for a change of use to a
bookmaker’s office and also for the building works to the internal courtyards.
Signage was not included within either permission. This is regulated by a separate
application process under the Planning (Control of Advertisements) (NI)
Regulations 1992 and PPS 17 Control of Outdoor Advertisements.
Grounds of Challenge
[9] In summary the applicants contend that the impugned decision of 16th May
2012 was unlawful and ought to be quashed. The main thrust of both cases relates to
the respondent’s failure to have regard to the licensing issues (Ground 2) and to the
To continue reading
Request your trial