Agenda item

To receive a verbal presentation on the council’s Planning Enforcement service and to consider any further actions.

The Committee received a presentation from Mr Peter Hockney, Planning Development Manager and Mr Stephen Baughen, Head of Planning Services. The presentation set out details of how planning enforcement was undertaken by the Council.

Debate included:

·         The service applied a proportionate approach to enforcement. The scale of the individual breaches within a ‘planning unit’, the cumulative scale of the breaches and the overall impact of those breaches on the community would be taken in to account when accessing a case.

·         The weight given to a particular factor would be based on the planning considerations rather than who made the representation.

·         The Council maintained close working relationships with the town and parish council who often were first aware of issues.

·         A high number of enforcement cases were determined with no further action. Training for Parishes was provided but it was not for parishes to predetermine whether action would be taken.

·         The most common reports of breaches were that building with permission were not being built in accordance with the plans and, secondly, that neighbours were undertaking work without permission.

·         Victim surcharges were paid to the court.

·         The Local Enforcement Plan 2010 was due to be updated and its publicization may contribute to reduce the number of erroneous complaints.

·         The services was about to receive an internal audit the findings from which would be taken into account in revising the Local Enforcement Plan.

·         The Council had less than three full-time equivalent enforcement officers. Whilst a greater resource would enable more enforcement work, senior officers believed the balance was right. The team was responsive and able to take action where necessary. Support from planning officers was also available.

·         Resources were constantly monitored to ensure they remained as efficient as possible and undertaking the most appropriate work. Enforcement accounted for 11 per cent of the Planning budget.

·         The Council was only able to recover its legal costs in pursuing a case in court. Enforcement officer time was not recovered unless there was a proceeds of crime element in the conviction. In such cases a third went to the Crown, a third to the Court and a third to the investigating authority.

·         The enforcement decision-making process would include an initial investigation of both the specific complaint and the wider context. If regularisation through a planning application could be achieved such an invitation is made. If a planning application was not submitted the enforcement officer would compile a dossier of evidence and make a recommendation whether it was expedient to pursue. The decision would be made by the manager or principal planning officer (the same authority level as for delegated planning decisions). Approximately 10-20 of 350 cases are determined to be not expedient. Most cases resulted in a planning application being submitted.

·         Mid Kent Legal Services represented the Council in court.

·         Mid Kent Legal Services also reviewed any Enforcement Notices to be issued. This was an additional stage used at Tunbridge Wells which ensured the robustness of the process.

·         Non-compliance with an Enforcement Notice was a criminal matter.

·         Decisions to prosecute were made on the merits of the case rather than budget considerations. Legal costs were recoverable on successful cases.

·         The Council had recently reallocated resources to monitor the trigger points for the payment of section 106 agreements and was now more proactive in collecting due funds.

·         People who complained did receive an explanation for the perceived lack of enforcement action where there was no breach and the complaints procedure existed for those who disagreed with the decision. Officers signposted the complaints procedure and were often quoted as recommending such action when a complaint was received.

·         Greater explanation could be provided through the Local Enforcement Plan but it would be difficult to provide a comprehensive list of potential scenarios whilst maintaining a user friendly document.

·         The Local Enforcement Plan would be reviewed internally and was expected to be achieved within existing resources. A draft would be consulted through the Planning Policy Working Group ahead of approval by Portfolio Holder Decision.

·         The Plan must be compatible with national planning policy but reflected the unique approach and priorities in Tunbridge Wells.

RESOLVED – That the presentation be noted.