Although the report had not been included on the Agenda the Chairman agreed to consider it as an urgent item, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972. Councillor Quick explained that as a Ward Councillor she regularly received complaints about enforcement. She had asked an officer to provide an explanation as it was often not as straightforward as residents hoped it would be.

Victoria Goldberg, Team Leader - Performance and Conservation explained that enforcement was an ever-evolving, complicated world. The council was inundated with people reporting issues. Some were beyond the council’s remit; others were within the remit but had to be prioritised because of the volume.

The Team Leader - Performance and Conservation explained that householders and businesses were allowed to undertake a certain amount of development without planning permission under national legislation, therefore the council had no powers in this respect. When considering enforcement, the council had to consider if the development required planning permission and was in line with government guidance. Officers were required to undertake an expediency assessment in this respect. The council could not take enforcement action simply on the basis a premises did not have planning permission; enforcement was a discretionary service.  The Town and Country Planning Act was clear that the planning system was pro-development therefore even if a development was unauthorised, the perpetrator always had the opportunity to regularise the situation in retrospect.

Reports often came in that a development was larger than the plans approved. The fall-back position was the need to identify if it was in the public interest to pursue enforcement, in term of resourcing if there was no evidence there was a benefit in planning terms of pursuing the action. There was often confusion between planning benefit and personal benefit.

Conditions were often imposed to make a development acceptable in planning terms. There were six legal tests that should be met to ensure the conditions robust and therefore were enforceable and legal. However, just because a condition existed, the council could not necessarily take action. The Enforcement team had no delegated authority to take action, authority had to be sought from a Development Management Panel. This could lead to a 6 week delay in action being taken. Enforcement action should always be the last resort. The council should look to work with the perpetrator wherever possible. Enforcement was therefore seen as a failure of the Local Planning Authority.

Councillor Quick commented that the six legal tests were not always known by the Panel Members. She therefore suggested they be added to the agenda or advised by officers. The Team Leader - Performance and Conservation explained that Member training in this area was being proposed.

Councillor Bowden asked how the council dealt with transport plans for large developments. The Team Leader - Performance and Conservation explained that if the application included a Construction Management Plan, her team could deal with enforcement in this respect. Highways officers would be involved to assess safety before and after development.

Richard Douglas referred to enforcement on a development in Bridgeman Drive. He commented that there was disconnect between what residents believed planning conditions and constraints meant and what the developer thought they meant. He believed that conditions had to be met before any development. The develop often saw it that if enforcement was unlikely, they would carry on anyway.

The Team Leader - Performance and Conservation explained that there were three potential criminal offences: works to a listed building, the display of advertisements without consent and failure to comply with enforcement notices. One prosecution had taken place in the previous month for the felling of trees. Breaches of condition were dealt with at the Magistrates Court however it was unlikely fines would be above £500. The tools and mechanisms were in place but often the penalty was not a disincentive for development. The Chairman commented that the problem was a legal one; the law did not have enough teeth. He asked how much discretion could be used in the expediency test and how could this potentially be tightened?

The Team Leader - Performance and Conservation explained that the adopted enforcement policy talked about the expediency test; expediency was a term set out in case law. The borough was unusual in that it had two large town centres including a historic core, major redevelopment and rural / Green Belt issues as well. Four officers in the team dealt with up to 40 complaints per day. It was impossible to deal with all as quickly as residents would wish. If there were less complaints the council could be more pro-active. On average it took over one year for an Enforcement appeal to be determined and the council was unable to take action during this time.

Brian Rayner referred to an issue in the road he lived in. He had been in touch with the Head of Planning but residents felt they were being ignored. All residents in the road had signed a petition. Officers had told him he could not appeal but a hearing or review could take place but that had never happened. Residents had asked for a site meeting but it not happened. Mr Rayner was advised that any complaints could be escalated up to Russell O’Keefe, Executive Director.

Mr Williams asked, if all actions had to be referred to Panel for agreement, was the system sufficiently flexible? The Team Leader - Performance and Conservation responded that no, it was not sufficiently flexible. Provisions existed for officers to serve emergency notices but delays occurred because of the requirement to prepare and publish a report and for the meeting to take place. The Chairman suggested this issue be addressed in the upcoming Constitution Review, for example a delegation be given to the Chairmen of the three Panels. Councillor Bicknell suggested the Panels were involved because there was an element of interpretation. There were 28 days between each panel meeting therefore there should be some delegation for smaller scale decisions.