In the matter of an application by HM a minor by PM her father and next friend for Judicial Review
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Weatherup J |
| Judgment Date | 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] NIQB 85 |
| Year | 2004 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 20 December 2004 |
1
Neutral Citation no. [2004] NIQB 85 Ref:
WEAF5146
Judgment: approved by the C ourt for handing down Delivered:
20/12/2004
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
_________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY HM A MINOR BY PM HER
FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
________
WEATHERUP J
The application.
[1] This is an application for Judicial Review of a decision of the
Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland dated 15 August 2003
granting O2 UK Ltd (formerly BT Cellnet) planning permission to erect three
O2 equipment cabinets and three flagpoles concealing three mobile phone
antenna at offices at Forestview, Purdy’s Lane, Castlereagh, Belfast being a
location adjacent to the applicant’s home. The applicant is the eldest of four
children living with their parents at Newtownbreda, Belfast. The applicant
was represented by Ms Higgins BL. The respondent was represented by Ms
Loughran BL. The notice party, O2 UK Limited, was represented by Mr
Beattie BL.
The background.
[2] O2 applied for planning permission on 22 November 2002. The
application was advertised on 29 November 2002 and neighbour notices were
issued on 6 December 2002. The applicant’s father wrote a letter of objection
on 18 December 2002. The respondent’s development control group met in
January 2003 and further information was required from O2. Further
information was furnished by O2 and the application was re-advertised on 11
April 2003 with further neighbour notification on 9 April 2003. The
respondent’s development control group reconsidered the application at a
meeting on 15 May 2003. Objections to the development were considered to
fall into three principal categories namely, health concerns, visual amenity
2
and procedures. The development control group’s opinion was to approve
the application. At a meeting of Castlereagh Borough Council on 22 May
2003 a decision was deferred pending a site meeting. Further to a site meeting
on 20 June 2003 Castlereagh Borough Council furnished a letter to the
respondent expressing concern about the health implications of
telecommunications equipment in the area of occupied property. The
application was reconsidered by the respondent on 16 July 2003 and there
was no change in the opinion to approve the application. The application was
referred back to Castlereagh Borough Council, which at its meetings on 24
July 2003 expressed opposition to the proposed development. On 15 August
2003 Philip Arnold, Principal Planning Officer in the Divisional Planning
Office in Belfast made the final decision on behalf of the respondent to
approve the application for planning permission.
The applicant’s grounds for judicial review.
[3] The applicant’s grounds for judicial review are set out under six
headings in the applicant’s skeleton argument.
(i) Illegality of the application under the Planning (Northern
Ireland) Order 1991 Article 20, the Planning (General
Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 1993 Article 7 and
Planning Policy Statement 10 (Telecommunications).
(ii) Unlawful fettering of discretion and delegation of powers in
relation to the issue of public concern for health risks from
telecommunication equipment.
(iii) Account being taken of an irrelevant consideration, namely a
prior grant of planning permission for the site.
(iv) Failure to take adequate or any account of a number of relevant
considerations.
(v) Failure to take into account the Human Rights Act.
(vi) Irrationality of the decision.
[4] I shall refer to the respondent and the notice party together as the
respondent. The respondent raised three preliminary matters. First, the
applicant’s standing to bring the application. Second, the applicant’s delay.
Third, the alternative remedies available to the applicant.
Standing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
In the matter of an application by J S for Judicial Review
...have a sufficient interest in the proceedings and the child may secure legal aid and apply for judicial review. In Murphy’s Application [2004] NIQB 85 a child applicant was objecting to planning permission for telecommunication masts outside her home. The issues raised by the judicial revie......
-
Jane Stevens v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another
...they are an inherent, integral, and important, part of that exercise. As Weatherup J said in In re an Application by HM (A Minor) [2004] NIQB 85 at [47] : "… [T]he type of balancing exercise that is required to satisfy Article 8 it is an inherent part of the planning process in which the pl......
-
Registrar of Vehicles v Komoco Motors Pte Ltd
...Pte Ltd v Singapore Tourist Promotion Board [1997] 1 SLR (R) 52; [1997] 2 SLR 584 (distd) Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625 (refd) Murphy, Re [2004] NIQB 85 (refd) Patterson v District Commissioner of Accra [1948] AC 341 (refd) Regina v Amber Valley District Council,ex parte Jackson [1985] 1 WL......
-
Conway (Brendan) and Hutchinson’s (Eamon) Application
...to legal aid and whether a proposed applicant represents an abuse of the legal aid system – see Re Murphy (a minor)’s Application [2004] NIQB 85 [Unreported, Weatherup J, 20 December 2004] at para 7; Re JS’ Application [2006] NIQB 40 [Unreported, Weatherup J, 16 May 2006]; and Re M’s Applic......
Request a trial to view additional results