| 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.
This is particularly the case in light of the long-term growth of both judicial review
and the growing creep of European Union directives, regulations and case law.</p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Yet to place the Department’s spending in context, 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>The proposed application for a sizeable solar farm development
in Suffolk was refused by Waveney District Council. That decision was appealed by
the developer, was recovered for Ministerial decision, and that appeal was refused
by the Secretary of State. The decision letter outlines the reasons, but particular
issues included the effect upon the character and appearance of the countryside.</p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The appellant, Lark Energy, challenged the decision in the
High Court; four of the five grounds of challenge were rejected by the Court. The
challenge however succeeded on just one ground – a technical point of law on the application
of the statutory test for appeals under the relevant planning legislation. The Department
spent £6,596 (ex VAT) in defending this challenge. The appeal is now back with the
Department for re-determination.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Equally, I would observe
that a week later, the High Court upheld the decision of the Secretary of State in
a recovered appeal to refuse a proposed six turbine wind farm on the Somerset Levels,
following its initial refusal by Sedgemoor District Council. The applicants, Ecotricity,
were ordered to pay the Department’s costs (which may be in the region of £9,000).</p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>All decisions on recovered appeals are taken by the Secretary
of State on their merits, following due process and after careful consideration of
both the public inquiry evidence and the independent Inspector’s recommendation.</p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p>
|
|
