PACNI

Applicant	Main Issues	Position
Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL)	The validity of a request for a public local inquiry in respect of a fish culture licence - whether the application was for a new licence (DCAL's view) or an amended view WAC's view).	Declaration (against the WAC) that the application was for a new licence and that a public inquiry should be held.

Department of the Environment (NI) (2 cases)	Meaning of “complement” in Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS 5) Retailing in Town Centres – PAC interpretation flawed.	16 July 2002 Declaration sought – not granted.

James Stewart (High Court and Court of Appeal)	Reasoning for departing from retail policy in PPS 5. Fairness of informal hearing procedure and regard to rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Right to compensation.	Application (28 June 2002) and Appeal (31 January 2003) dismissed.

Gilford Mill Limited (Judicial Review)	Misinterpretation of PPS1 policy on prematurity, PPS5 retail policy regarding alternative sites, misconstruction of Category 13(a) of Schedule 2 of the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (NI) 1991; and procedural unfairness in permitting appeal to proceed.	2 April 2003 Application dismissed.

Equality Commission (Patrick Cox) (Claim for Damages)	Alleged distress, injury, etc, by reason of discrimination under the Fair Employment and Treatment (NI) Order 1998.	21 April 2003 Claim dismissed.

Patrick Green (Judicial Review)	Failure to pay compensation arising from breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR.	5 September 2003 Application dismissed.

Bridget Doherty (Judicial Review)	Failure to give reasonable consideration to personal circumstances under Policy HOU12 of the Rural Planning Strategy and breach of the ECHR (Article 14).	5 March 2004 Application dismissed at leave stage.

Department of the Environment (NI) (Judicial Review)	Admissibility of evidence on planning issues in a hearing about scheduled monument consent.	4 May 2004 Application dismissed.

Department of the Environment (NI)(Judicial Review)	That the Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal in respect of a submission notice on grounds that the development had permitted development rights.	7 September 2004 Declaration that there is no right of an appeal to the PAC on grounds other than those specified in Article 24(2) of the 1991 Planning Order.

James Stewart Moore (Judicial Review)	That there was apparent bias on the part of the appointed Commissioner through telephone contact with a Departmental witness and procedural unfairness.	7 September 2004 Declaration that there was no procedural unfairness but there was apparent bias. In exercising discretion decision was not quashed.