| answer text |
<p>Planning casework is a quasi-judicial function of the Department, and as was the
case under the last Administration, it attracts a high volume of legal challenges
which end up in the courts. This is particularly the case in light of the long-term
growth of judicial review and the growing creep of European Union directives, regulations
and case law; equality law and human rights law.</p><p> </p><p>Costs to date in these
two claims are £68,825 excluding VAT.</p><p> </p><p>The Government makes no apologies
for seeking to safeguard Green Belt protection and trying to bring a sense of fair
play to the planning system. The Government’s planning policy is clear that both temporary
and permanent traveller sites are inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The
judgment does not question that principle.</p><p> </p><p>Indeed, there have been a
number of recent legal cases where the planning appeal decisions of the Secretary
of State have succeeded in relation to traveller development in the Green Belt and
awarded costs in favour of DCLG, including:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Mulvenna
v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government</li><li>Barney-Smith v Secretary
of State for Communities and Local Government</li><li>Dear v Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government</li><li>Connors, Connors, Sines, Lee, and Doran v
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – five separate claims heard
together.</li></ul><p> </p><p>Hence, any payment of costs in Moore vs Coates needs
to be seen in this context as my Department has successfully defended the eight claims
above and costs are due to my Department.</p><p> </p><p>To place the Department’s
spending in context more broadly, I would observe that the Department spent £1.7 million
in external lawyers’ fees in 2009-10 (excluding Treasury Solicitors), in 2013-14,
the figure had fallen to £699,000.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
|
|
