| answer text |
<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>It is quite wrong to say that the High Court ruled that the Government discriminated
against travellers by automatically banning them from pitching camps in the Green
Belt. The Court’s Judgment is around a technical matter, namely how policy relating
to the recovery of appeals for Ministerial decision was operated with regard to traveller
appeal cases in the Green Belt. The Judgment did not criticise the Government’s policy
stating that traveller sites in the Green Belt are inappropriate development in any
way.</p><p> </p><p>Indeed, there have been a number of recent legal cases where the
courts have upheld the planning appeal decisions of the Secretary of State in relation
to traveller development in the Green Belt, dismissed the claims, and awarded costs
in favour of DCLG, including:</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>
|
|
