Ex-MLA wins right to challenge housing site plans
A FORMER Stormont minister has won the legal right to challenge a decision to give planning approval for social housing apartments beside his home.
Dermot Nesbitt was granted leave to seek a High Court judicial review of Newry, Mourne and Down District Council’s decision to approve the development in Crossgar.
Mr Nesbitt, who is mounting the challenge as a self-litigant, served as Environment Minister in 2002.
During his period in office he determined a number of major planning applications in Northern Ireland.
He claims outline permission for development on the site at Downpatrick Road was given in breach of planning policy.
The former Ulster Unionist MLA also argued there had been a failure to consider concerns that it would set an undesirable precedent.
Proceedings were commenced after the council’s planning committee gave the go-ahead to developer Choice Housing Ireland Ltd in June.
The proposed scheme involves building a single storey block of four two-bedroom apartments destined for social housing, together with access and parking, on a currently unoccupied site in a state of “extreme disrepair”.
It forms part of a line of detached residential properties and adjoins Mr Nesbitt’s home.
Ruling on a preliminary stage in the challenge, Mr Justice McCloskey rejected contentions on the issue of setting an undesirable precedent.
“The assertion that this factor was disregarded is bare, unsubstantiated assertion, evidentially untenable,” the judge said.
However, he held that Mr Nesbitt — MLA for South Down from 1998 to 2007 — had established an arguable case on alleged failures to consider the pattern and form of the proposed development, in contravention of planning policy.
“I am satisfied that this ground of challenge overcomes the leave threshold,” he confirmed.
The case will now proceed to a full hearing in February next year.
Mr Nesbitt also sought a protective costs order to limit the bill he could face if he ultimately loses, stressing the environmental consequences of the planning decision.
But, rejecting that application, the judge said: “The assertion of major impact on the environment is manifestly without foundation.”
Outside court, Mr Nesbitt stressed his reasons for taking legal action.
“It’s not a matter of opposing apartments and social housing per se,” he said.
“It was that the apartment development did not comply with planning policy in the area.”