Agenda item

PLANNING ENFORCEMENT UPDATE

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report informing Members of the current situation regarding the enforcement caseload, the tools that are used and how the service could be moved forward.

 

The Council’s Head of Planning and Development, Shawn Fleet took Members through the steps to enforcement action, outlined on page 16 of the agenda.  Shawn Fleet explained that there were occasions where people were unaware that they had breached planning regulations, and some would approach the situation in a positive manner by addressing the problems that had been created.  Sometimes, a retrospective planning application had to be submitted which ran the risk of being rejected and therefore the unauthorised works having to be put back, which could be costly. Failure to put the works back could result in an Enforcement Notice being issued or going as far as full demolition.  People also ran the risk of a fine or imprisonment.

 

A common enforcement notice was a Section 215 or a ‘Tidy up Notice’ which required people with untidy gardens to get them tidied up.  

 

Shawn Fleet stated that one major issue was the timeliness of appeals. Members’ attention was drawn to the chart on page 17.

 

This year had seen an increase in the number of neighbours reporting the same case.  This was as a result of people working from home or being at home through furlough. However, new problems had not risen by many.

 

New staff were being brought into the Planning Department, one had started this week and a further member of staff would start in the new year.  These officers would start to target enforcement work.

 

The Council’s enforcement work was self-monitored, checking its own targets and performance indicators.  It had become apparent how difficult it was to get hold of national data to do a comparison with but, in the new year, benchmarking across the country would be looked at to try and establish a set of benchmarks to enable the Authority to track its progress and how it compared to similar Authorities.

 

The Chair referenced paragraph 3.4 of the report regarding the Technical Support team and being more checkbox based, allowing for an appraisal to be undertaken. Was this something this actively beginning to be undertaken?

 

Shawn Fleet confirmed that this was the case.  It was currently being worked on, looking at the forms.  Upon receipt of an application or enquiry, officers had looked at a longer assessment, checking compliance with all of the details.  The aim was to rationalise this down – looking at the key facts and deciding if it needed to be pursued or whether it required no further action. 

 

The Chair referred to paragraph 5.1 regarding benchmarking and process efficiency.  Were these being progressed?

 

Shawn Fleet confirmed that his team were working with officers within the Council to   discuss some of the questions and which other authorities could help to compare.

 

Councillor Panter asked for clarification that the service was not a compulsorily provided one but could be provided as and when necessary.

 

Shawn Fleet confirmed that it was a discretionary service. The Local Government Ombudsman does keep an eye on how the Council performed on this and a number of authorities had been criticised because of neglect or under-enforcement.  Every case, therefore needs to be investigated and the expediency test used to assess severity of the harm.

 

Resolved:     That the information be received and the comments noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: