Legal challenge to Newry Mourne and Down District Council over proposed civic hub in Newry
Planning chiefs allegedly failed to properly consider any potentially more environmentally-friendly alternative sites for a new multi-million pound civic centre in Newry, the High Court has heard.
Counsel for a local resident claimed the decision to approve the hub being built close to the city’s Cathedral breached climate change legislation.
Ronan Lavery KC argued: “There is a duty to choose the least intensive carbon emission option.”
Newry Mourne and Down District Council (NMDDC) is facing a legal challenge for giving the green light to the proposed civic hub.
The development is part of a wider regeneration project which includes a park, a theatre and road bypass.
Despite a petition signed by parishioners opposed to the scheme and 2,600 recorded objections, planning approval was granted in August 2025.
At that stage the civic centre was reported to be costing £17m.
Newry resident Paul Lennon is seeking a judicial review of the Council’s decision, alleging a failure to fully comply with the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022.
The legislation sets a series of targets and obligations on government departments to reduce carbon emissions.
According to Mr Lennon’s case, there is also an implied duty on local councils to take into account climate change mitigation as a material consideration when assessing planning applications for major developments.
His lawyers contend they are required to prepare reports setting out steps taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr Lavery alleged failures to properly demonstrate a meaningful assessment of carbon emissions associated with the Civic Centre and compliance with net zero targets.
Any potentially feasible vacant and existing premises in Newry which could be retrofitted as an alternative site were not fully considered, it was claimed.
Counsel argued there is significant public interest in the case, with a record number of objections received by the Council demonstrating the level of opposition within the local area.
Stressing how climate change has been identified as an emergency issue on a wider scale, Mr Lavery added: “We will be looking back on this debate in ten years time, wondering how anyone could think otherwise.”
During exchanges Mr Justice McLaughlin pressed him to define a legislative policy to support the case.
“I want to know what the legal framework is governing climate change as a material consideration,” the judge asked.
Mr Lavery replied: “A policy might not exist, but on the facts it must be a material consideration. That is all we are asking the court to decide.”
The hearing continues.