BY AUSTIN LYNCH
The controversial ban on building homes in rural areas, known as Planning Policy Statement 14 (or PPS 14), which was introduced in March last year by direct rule Minister for Regional Development Lord Rooker, has been found by a High Court judge in Belfast to be 'unlawful'.
High Court Judge Mr Justice John Gillen overturned the decision by Lord Rooker to bring in the piece of legislation, finding that it had been 'unlawfully introduced'.
He made his ruling following a legal challenge taken up by a number of District Councils, including Omagh, Armagh, Strabane and Cookstown.
However, the ban on rural housing, as featured in PPS 14, is still in place at the moment after the judge gave the Assembly, and particularly the Department of Environment (DOE), a week-long period to consider the judgement and its implications.
Mr Justice Gillen agreed that PPS14 was introduced by the wrong department (Department for Regional Development) and should have been within the remit of the Department of the Environment.
However, he did not go into the contents of the policy statement, stating instead, 'This court will not go into the question of whether the contents of PPS 14 represent good planning policy or not'.
This effectively means that Mr Justice Gillen hasn't overturned, or quashed the policy itself but, rather what he has found fault with is the way PPS14 was introduced (without a proper period of public consultation) and by whom.
And it is this fact that could prove crucial when the Department of Environment look at what will replace the now beleaguered PPS14.
Arlene Foster, the Minister of the Environment, has noted the judgement of the High Court that the Department for Regional Development did not have the power to prepare PPS14. She stated that her understanding, despite some Press reports to the contrary, was that the judge has yet to decide whether or not to quash PPS 14.
The Court has given the parties a week to consider the issue of remedies before finalising the judgement, and the Minister has promised she will ensure that the two Departments will liaise in respect of remedies.
However, until the issue of remedies has been determined, Arlene Foster has made it clear Planning Service will still take draft PPS14 into account when it is deciding applications. She also added that she is currently participating with other Ministers in an Executive Subcommittee which is looking at the whole policy of single dwellings in the countryside.
Inevitably, there have been calls for applications for one-off rural dwellings, submitted since March 2006, to be reconsidered. But, it appears that any such move will entirely depend on the policy which is brought in by the Department of Environment in the coming weeks.
Despite the lack of clarity at present, the High Court ruling has been welcomed by politicians and rural affairs groups.
Responding to the High Court ruling, the President of the Ulster Farmers Union, Kenneth Sharkey said his members were pleased that PPS 14 was to be removed.
"The onus is now on the Assembly to replace it as quickly as possible with a balanced rural planning policy which will have the flexibility to allow development in rural areas in appropriate circumstances."
"We certainly do not support a planning free-for-all", he insisted, "but PPS14 was fundamentally flawed and ill conceived because it was effectively an outright ban on any new development in rural areas. This would, for example, have excluded young families from living and working in their rural communities and this would have been disastrous for the long-term well-being of these communities," he added.
There is a new twist in the parameters surrounding the controversial Planning Service directive known as PPS14.
From March 2006 a site with outline planning permission had a three year stipulation attached to it, which meant if nothing was done with the site within three years the permission would lapse. And beyond this if permission was applied for again in relation to the same site permission would be turned down.
Last week, the Department of the Environment stated that any site (with outline permission) granted over three years ago but within five years (on 16th March 2006) can now apply for approval. Consideration will be given to these sites, and they may be approved.
Welcoming this news, Tommy Gallagher, SDLP MLA welcomed this clarification of the situation. He said it was important for people who have applications for rural houses but who didn't move on the initial period of the permission.
