Agenda item

To endorse the comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and to approve the draft Planning Enforcement Plan for public consultation.

That the comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be ENDORSED and that the draft Planning Enforcement Plan, as attached at Appendix 2 to the report, be APPROVED, for public consultation, subject to the following amendments:

·            The addition of clarification and some examples under the heading ‘expediency’ to explain the meaning of the phrase ‘not expedient to pursue’.

·            The amendment of the first bullet point under the heading ‘Fairness and Equality’ to read ‘All persons are treated equally regardless of their ‘status’.’

·            An amendment to the flowchart at Annex 1 to add a link from the box ‘Is it expedient to take enforcement action’ to show that if the answer was ‘no’ there would be no further action taken and the case would be closed.

90.1           The report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 28-56, set out a proposed Planning Enforcement Plan which the Committee was asked to approve for the purposes of public consultation. 

90.2           Members were advised that the Plan, which was part of a wider planning services review, had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the comments of that Committee were attached at Appendix 1 to the report. The Planning Enforcement Plan set out the Council’s approach to delivery of the service and provided clear information to customers about the level of service they could expect to receive. During the past six months, a full review of the service had been undertaken and a number of operational changes had been identified which included: the need for a structured framework within which all decisions were made; greater use of accessible IT to enable interested parties to find out more about the service or individual cases; a need for greater reporting and publicity for the work (and achievements) of the service; better record keeping; better and more use of the formal and legal powers available; and additional support for Enforcement Officers to achieve all of these items.

90.3           The Head of Development Services explained that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the Plan and recommended it to the Executive Committee for approval, for the purposes of consultation, subject to changes which included: it being made clear that the Council, as the enforcing body, assisted, but did not give advice, to those that were the subject of an investigation - independent support should be sought in those cases; and that the breach of condition, and failure to build the approved plans, was not acceptable so the Planning Enforcement Plan needed to identify how such matters were brought to the Council’s attention, dealt with and followed up. The Committee also felt the Plan may not have been easy for members of the public to follow so a flowchart had been created to explain how enforcement cases were handled and what formal action was taken. In terms of general comments about the Planning Enforcement Team, Overview and Scrutiny Committee Members had raised concerns about performance, including response times and communication, and the possibility of introducing performance indicators. Members had been advised that the Planning Enforcement Plan and Officer Protocol should address such issues by introducing changes to working practices that included a requirement to respond and update within set time periods. In addition, monthly performance reporting to Planning Committee would take place and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would scrutinise the effectiveness of the Plan once it had been in place for a 12 month period. If the Executive Committee approved the Plan for consultation, it would be subject to a six week consultation period before a final draft was submitted to the Executive Committee for consideration and recommendation to Council.

90.4           Referring to Paragraph 12.0 of the Plan, Fairness and Equality, a Member questioned what was meant by ‘status’ in the first bullet point. In response, it was accepted that this was unnecessary and that the point should be amended to read ‘All persons are treated equally, regardless of their ‘status’’. Another Member questioned how members of the public would be made aware of the document and she was advised that it would be on the Council’s website, promoted through the Council’s usual communication methods and, when any breaches were reported, a weblink, or hard copy, as appropriate would be sent out. In was intended that as many people as possible would be made aware of it through all appropriate channels. A Member expressed the view that Councillors had suffered greatly in the past from the Enforcement Team not meeting the expectations of residents and she questioned how the document would help that situation. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that the document was clearly laid out and consistent and explained the processes that would be followed. The Plan itself aimed to be the first point of contact as soon as the Council knew there was an issue and, as long as it was followed, people should be fully aware of what to expect; it was intended this would help to manage expectations of the service. The Member was concerned that the document would be expensive to print and would not save time for the team which was what she felt was necessary. The Head of Development Services reiterated that the Plan explained the process to the persons against whom breaches were alleged as well as the person who had reported the breach so each could clearly understand what would happen. She was not sure how else the process could be sped up or made easier. A Member suggested that, once the final Plan was approved, it would be helpful to circulate a Member update and also for an article to be included in the Borough News.

90.5           A Member indicated that one of the main issues she found with planning enforcement was when people were told a breach was ‘not expedient to pursue’. People did not understand what this meant and there did not seem to be any clear explanation of it. In response, the Committee was advised that the main issues people had appeared to stem from a lack of communication. There were a number of reasons why something may not be expedient to pursue but, until now, people had not been told why and it was intended this would be one of the changes made. There was concern expressed that the government needed to ensure planning enforcement had more ‘teeth’ so that, when breaches were investigated, decisive action could be taken which was backed up by legislation; he felt the appeals system had previously let the Council down and this was not a helpful message to send out to residents. The Head of Development Services indicated that there had been cases which had aggrieved her as well; however, the Council could only work within its powers and was trying to ensure it used those to the best of its ability. It was intended that the Plan would help stop issues getting too far in future and also help to identify genuine mistakes versus deliberate breaches. The case officer was not on site everyday so it was important that people reported breaches and understood how to do that. The document sought to hold the Council to account as well as to ensure it was going through all of its processes and that all means and methods had been explored before formal action was taken. A Member questioned whether a Stop Notice could be issued, or prosecution undertaken, if an offence had been committed. In response, the Borough Solicitor explained that the first thing to note was that breaches of planning control were not a criminal offence; this was the main problem as people thought they were. The authority could, where appropriate, issue a Stop Notice but there were risks to the Council of compensation being payable in certain circumstances.  Unfortunately, the Council did not have the powers to address the enormous public distress that could be caused by breaches of planning control.

90.6           Referring to Annex 1 to the report, which set out the flowchart to be followed when breaches were suspected, a Member suggested that there should be an answer ‘No’ to the question ‘is it expedient to take enforcement action’. In addition, she expressed the view that the planning portal was not informative in respect of enforcement; she felt further information in respect of the plans etc. would be helpful. She was advised that Officers had been looking at the website information and, whilst they needed to be careful about what was put on the website, the team was working with One Legal to improve the information available. The Planning Enforcement Register was now online and included details of all the Notices served which it was felt was a step forward. The Deputy Chief Executive suggested that Members could receive an informal Executive briefing about the information on the website etc. which may help with their understanding of the issues.

90.7           Having considered the information provided, and views expressed, it was