Duff, Re Application for Judicial Review

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a judicial review concerning the approval of a planning application for two dwellings on an infill site located between 26 and 30 Magheraconluce Road, Hillsborough. The original planning consent was granted on 16 August 2022 under planning reference LA05/2018/0862/F. The planning permission was subsequently quashed by the High Court with the consent of the Respondent and Notice Party, on the basis of a failure to comply with section 43 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. The planning application was remitted back to the Respondent for reconsideration and further determination. The Appellant, acting as a litigant in person, sought leave to apply for judicial review and appealed the quashing order, challenging the basis of the decision and its implications for similar cases.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the quashing of the planning permission on the ground of non-compliance with section 43 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 was appropriate.
2. Whether there was any purpose or utility in the appeal given that the planning application was to be reconsidered by the Planning Committee.
3. Whether the court should re-examine the decision despite the Respondent’s consent to quash the planning permission.
4. Whether any broader legal issues relating to infill development or alleged procedural improprieties require determination by the Court of Appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant requested the Court to examine the case notwithstanding the Respondent’s consent to quash the planning permission, aiming to expose flawed decision-making.
• The Appellant sought correction of previous legal decisions and intended to influence other pending cases concerning similar types of development.
• The Appellant submitted comprehensive written submissions including technical arguments and concerns about procedural fairness, such as potential bias, duty of candour, improper motive, and conflict of interest involving the Notice Party.
• He expressed a preference that the planning permission should not be quashed but was willing to amend his Order 53 statement if the Court found quashing appropriate.

Respondent and Notice Party's Position

• The Respondent and Notice Party consented to the quashing of the planning permission and supported the remittance of the application for reconsideration.
• They agreed that the Appellant would be allowed to make representations to the Planning Committee upon reconsideration of the application.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court assessed the procedural history and the conduct of the parties, finding the process at first instance to be unimpeachable. The Court noted that the Appellant was given opportunities to make representations and to amend his pleadings. The quashing order was made on the ground of failure to comply with statutory requirements under section 43 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, a matter properly within the judge’s discretion.

The Court considered the Appellant’s additional submissions and technical arguments but found them unpersuasive, emphasizing that the planning application was to be reconsidered afresh by the Planning Committee. The Court rejected speculative allegations concerning bias, improper motive, and conflict of interest as beyond its remit in the current appeal context.

The Court highlighted the importance of legal certainty and the overriding objective of the court process, concluding that reopening the basis for the quashing order would be unproductive and an abuse of process. It further observed that the Appellant’s complaints about infill development had been addressed in other cases and did not raise novel issues requiring appellate determination.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED LEAVE to appeal and DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect is that the quashing order of the planning permission stands, and the planning application will be reconsidered by the Respondent’s Planning Committee. The Court indicated a provisional intention to order costs against the Appellant given the nature of the appeal, but allowed the Appellant an opportunity to make further submissions on costs. The Notice Party will bear its own costs, and the no-costs order at first instance remains unchanged.

No new legal precedent was established by this decision; rather, it affirms the proper exercise of judicial discretion in quashing planning permissions where statutory compliance is lacking and underscores the court’s reluctance to entertain appeals lacking substantive purpose once a matter is to be reconsidered.