Agenda item

The report of the Executive Manager – Communities is attached.

The Service Manager – Communities, Planning and Growth delivered a presentation on Planning Enforcement, which accompanied the report already circulated with the agenda.

In the presentation, the Service Manager – Communities, Planning and Growth and N Cox, Principal Planning Officer provided details on the following issues:

·         the Council’s Corporate Enforcement Policy, which had been adopted in March 2010 and last revised in June 2017;

·         what constituted a breach of planning control and the range of ways to tackle them;

·         timescales involved for taking enforcement action;

·         the various enforcement tools available to the Council;

·         the appeals process against the serving of an Enforcement Notice;

·         the different enforcement tools available to the Council;

·         categories of enforcement enquiries received by the Council from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020;

·         the outcome of investigations in 2019/20;

·         the number of notices served by regional councils since 2014;

·         the team structure;

·         the number of planning submissions received from 2010 to 2020; and

·         various case studies.

At the invitation of the Group, Councillors had been asked to submit written submissions on their experiences of planning enforcement.  The Group had received submissions from a number of Councillors and those had been considered by the Executive Manager for Communities and the Service Manager – Communities, Planning and Growth.  The report and presentation had provided responses to some of the questions raised by the Councillors, and a Question and Answer document would be produced following the meeting to address any remaining issues and points raised during the meeting.

Following the last Council meeting, the Chairman of the Growth and Development Scrutiny Group had invited Councillor Jones to attend this meeting to provide his thoughts on the Council’s planning enforcement process.

Councillor Jones stated that following a conversation with Planning Officers earlier this year, he had become concerned that current staffing levels were insufficient to cope with the volume of work, especially given the growth in the number of applications and the scale and complexity of large developments.  He was aware of instances where specific environmental protection measures had not been undertaken by developers as specified as part of the planning permission.  There needed to be more emphasis on proactively ensuring that work was being undertaken and conditions were being complied with.

The Service Manager – Communities, Planning and Growth advised that there was no definitive definition of what constituted ‘harm’, it was subjective and a matter of scale and degree.

Councillor Thomas reiterated the comments made by Councillor Jones and queried if developers were notifying officers when trigger points where met, which required work to be undertaken.  That was particularly important when developments where passed over to management companies and residents, who might be charged if works were not completed.  Although the proactive monitoring of developments over 50 dwellings was welcomed, it would be helpful if that 50 dwellings limit could be reduced.

The Service Manager – Communities, Planning and Growth confirmed that with the exception of two sites, all of the new larger developments coming forward where for over 50 dwellings.  As part of a Section 106 Agreement, a developer had to notify officers that development was commencing and that acted as a trigger to monitor sights.

The Chairman referred to the case study submitted by Councillor Phillips, questioned in that instance if officers had known that there would be substantial engineering operations involved and if officers should have anticipated the problems, and taken appropriate mitigation measures.  The possibility of imposing conditions to pre-empt any problems should be considered.  It should be noted that members of the public always perceived such issues to be the Council’s responsibility and it would be helpful to try to ensure that such problems did not occur.

The Service Manager – Communities, Planning and Growth stated that in general, Building Control would cover substantial engineering works.  Such issues would also be included in a Construction Management Plan or a Construction Methods Statement, if they had been requested as part of planning conditions.  Such issues were also site dependent, with some elements not known when planning permission was sought and a Construction Methods Statement covered those points.  Planning Officers worked with Environmental Health Officers to ensure that best working practices were adhered to and it was possible to control hours of work by conditions.

The Vice Chairman stated that given the recent publication of the Government White Paper, “Planning for the Future for consultation” and the likelihood that in the future developers would have increased freedom, the Council would need to become more proactive when working with developers and it was likely that more enforcement would be required.  It was essential that the Council had enough resources and staff to deal with any increased workloads.

The Executive Manager – Communities advised that the current Planning Enforcement Policy was in place to strengthen planning enforcement under the current legislation.  Any changes to the legislation could result in amendments being required to that Policy.  The enforcement of planning control was discretionary and the Council did not have the ability to recover any costs. The service was also particularly emotive for complainants who wanted significant action, which was not always possible.  As previously referred to, the number of applications received was often not an accurate reflection of workloads, given that each application was different in scale and complexity.  The Council now had a dedicated CIL Officer and a consultant was currently reviewing Planning Services and looking at staffing and resource issues.  The Group was asked to consider if the Planning Enforcement Policy was resilient enough and if it was being implemented correctly.   

The Chairman referred to the potentially difficult situation going forward, if the Council was to lose income from the submission of planning applications, whilst having to deal with more enforcement matters.

Councillor J Stockwood referred to the steps taken to consult with the public and to the Council’s policy, its Statement of Community Involvement, which considered how the Council engaged with the public before planning permission was granted.  Given that the Planning Enforcement Policy related to post development issues, it would be helpful if both policies used similar terms to ensure consistency.  The Statement of Community Involvement was very clear and well formatted and it would be useful to follow that template.  In respect of scale of development, it should be noted that the Statement of Community Involvement defined ‘Major’ and ‘Minor’ applications based on 10 dwellings and the scale of retail development, and again it would be helpful to use the same definitions to ensure clarity across policies.  It would be helpful to divide the Policy into clear processes to cover how to make a complaint, or what happens when a complaint is made about someone, and the step-by-step process for each scenario.  In relation to matters that were not breaches of planning control, it would be helpful if the Policy directed people to other Council services or agencies who could assist them, perhaps through Customer Services.  It would also be appropriate to refer to the additional support offered to groups that are more vulnerable.

The Vice Chairman welcomed the Policy and reiterated the importance of having sufficient resources to deliver and enact the Policy, and it would be appropriate to make it clear that those resources were available before it was finalised and agreed.

The Chairman referred to the Government White Paper and asked officers if it would be possible to pre-empt those changes and the likelihood of increased development taking place without having to apply for planning permission.  It would be appropriate to have a plan in place to increase resources, to allow a more proactive approach when working with developers, as it was always more prudent to prevent a problem, rather than solving a problem.  By being proactive, the Council should be able to reduce the resources required.

The Executive Manager – Communities confirmed that a report to consider minor revisions to the Statement of Community Involvement was being submitted to Cabinet on 8 September 2020.  In respect of resources, it was reiterated that a resource review of Planning Services was taking place with an external consultant and it was hoped to bring feedback back to the Group at its meeting on 14 October 2020.  The previous staffing issue in Enforcement had been due to sickness, and an interim officer had been brought in on a temporary basis to cover that period.  There were now two Enforcement Officers in post again.  In relation to the “Planning for the Future” consultation paper, Member Briefing sessions had been arranged for September 2020.

Councillor Thomas welcomed the emphasis on being proactive and suggested that approach should be built more into the Policy.  In respect of resources, it was noted that there was a large positive variance on income for planning application fees, and the possibility of using those resources for additional staff should be considered.  In respect of the Policy, it was suggested that a two stage prioritisation criteria would be appropriate, to cover an initial assessment and a proactive monitoring stage.   

The Service Manager – Communities, Planning and Growth confirmed that the issue of prioritisation was being reviewed and would be brought back to the Group to discuss at its meeting on 14 October 2020. 

The Chairman referred to the range of breaches that occurred and questioned the scope and legal powers the Council had to set its own priorities. 

The Service Manager – Communities, Planning and Growth advised that there was no national legislation in respect of setting priorities, and it was for the Council to determine its own, whilst ensuring that expectations were not set too high and could not be achieved.  The Planning Enforcement Policy would also be submitted to Cabinet for consideration and go out for public consultation before being submitted to Council for adoption.  

It was RESOLVED that:

a)    the presentation on Planning Enforcement be noted;

b)    the comments and amendments suggested by the Group be considered by officers and the Policy amended accordingly;

c)    the comments from the Group on resources be considered by officers and an update submitted to the Group at its meeting on 14 October 2020;

d)    a Question and Answer session document incorporating the comments made in the Councillor submissions be circulated to the Group for comment, in advance of the next meeting on 14 October 2020; and

e)    a further draft of the Policy be submitted to the Group for consideration at the next meeting on 14 October 2020.