Agenda item

To consider the revised Corporate Enforcement Policy and recommend to the Executive Committee that it be approved.

25.1          The Head of Corporate Services introduced the Manager of the Counter Fraud Unit of which the Council was a Member. It was explained that the unit undertook a lot of policy work around governance for the Council and those Members that sat on the Audit and Governance Committee would be aware of the good work undertaken by it which included policies on Whistleblowing, Anti-Fraud and Corruption and the report now before the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the Corporate Enforcement Policy. The latter policy was operated across several Councils with a few tweaks to make it work locally. It was an umbrella policy with a number of operational enforcement policies sitting below it.

25.2          The Chair welcomed the Manager of the Counter Fraud Unit to the meeting and in presenting the report, circulated at Pages No. 31-38 which detailed the policy, she explained that it was relatively legislative but was an overarching policy that had been prepared in partnership with One Legal to deliver a prosecution policy. The policy did not go into great detail with regard to each service area although each service lead had been consulted as they had specific enforcement policies which were much more detailed for their particular service area. However, if a member of the public was looking at what the Council could enforce, this explanatory document would cover this off as well as explaining that the Counter Fraud Unit was part of the Council and, if there was a fraud offence against the Council, prosecution could fall under this policy if it was not a service specific matter.

25.3          During the discussion which ensued, a Member asked on how many occasions enforcement action had been undertaken under this policy and broadly in relation to what matters. The Manager of the Counter Fraud Unit indicated that any criminal enforcement which would go through the criminal process would be covered by this policy which was why it referenced all the different service areas such as environmental crime, revenues and benefits fraud etc. The policy was about considering the Public Interest Test and the Evidential Test with regard to any enforcement action which may go through the Courts to be considered as a criminal offence. The Member indicated that he was curious to know whether the policy had been used over the last 10 years and whether it was something frequently made use of as he had not heard a lot about action being taken on criminal prosecutions under the services listed in the policy. The Head of Community Services referred Members to the Tewkesbury Waste Aware website which was a website specifically dedicated to enforcement and detailed all Environmental Enforcement Action that had been undertaken over the last 18 months and, whilst he did not have the specific numbers to hand, it was certainly in the 10s, 20s or even 30s. From the point of view of Environmental Services, enforcement was proactively undertaken, and it was very much in the public domain; more recently action in relation to COVID-19 had also been undertaken. A Member raised specific questions around planning enforcement and complaints raised concerning breaches that went back several years with no apparent action being taken. He questioned whether this was a matter that would be dealt with under this policy and the Manager of the Counter Fraud Unit clarified that if it was a complaint then this would be dealt with under the Council’s complaints procedure, if it was a planning enforcement matter i.e. breach of Enforcement Notice, then it would be dealt with by the Planning Service - it would only be at the point that the service wished to pursue a criminal action because of, for example, a breach of Enforcement Notice or work on a Listed Building which was not subject to Listed Building Consent, that the evidence would be referred to the Counter Fraud Unit which would look at that and decide whether an interview under caution could be undertaken and a file prepared for prosecution consideration. The starting point for a Planning Enforcement matter was with the Planning Department who would look at the case and if, for instance, an Enforcement Notice had been breached and it was felt that there was a sufficient case to move towards pursuing a prosecution then the matter could be referred to the Counter Fraud Unit which would provide support in dealing with the evidential base. The policy before Members was about prosecution and how people were prosecuted for criminal offences and this policy was not relevant until the point that a prosecution was being considered in relation to any matter; it could, for example, be a parking offence, false representation or a housing application. At the point that a prosecution was to be pursed this policy would be used to ensure the right steps had been followed. The Head of Development Services indicated that an Enforcement Seminar had been arranged for all Members on Tuesday 10 November and this would cover the whole process of enforcement law as well as giving examples and looking at when criminal prosecutions were appropriate and how matters were taken forward. Hopefully the issues raised by the Member would be covered as part of the seminar but equally she was happy to meet with the Member outside of the meeting to discuss the specific case that he had raised.

25.4          A Member referred to the fact that this policy was to be presented for adoption across multiple Councils within Gloucestershire and West Oxfordshire and she questioned whether any of those Councils had made any amendments to the policy which would have an impact on the Council. The Manager of the Counter Fraud Unit indicated that Tewkesbury was the last of the five partner Councils to consider the policy and therefore the final version approved by the other Councils was being presented at today’s meeting. Subsequently, it was

RESOLVED          That it be RECOMMENDED TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

1.       That the Corporate Enforcement Policy, as attached to the report at Appendix 1, be APPROVED.

2.       That the Head of Corporate Services be authorised, in consultation with the Counter Fraud Unit Manager, One Legal and the Lead Member for Corporate Governance, to approve future minor amendments.