Issue - meetings

Enforcement Update

 

 

Meeting: 22/11/2012 - Regulatory Committee (Item 71)

71 Planning Enforcement Update - half year report 1 April to 20 September 2012 pdf icon PDF 536 KB

To inform Members on Planning Enforcement’s progress in maintaining service delivery during the first half of 2012-13.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on planning enforcement’s progress in maintaining service delivery for the first half of 2012/13. Myles Joyce, Planning Enforcement Team Leader, advised that the report covered information up to the 30th September 2012, and that the number of open cases should read 394.

 

  • Mr Joyce advised that ‘minded to uphold’ with regards to an appeal meant that the applicant may receive planning permission on appeal, but would still be fined for breach of a planning enforcement notice.
  • Mr Joyce reported that the service was looking to undertake some analysis of appeal decisions, as there appeared to be some discrepancy between appeal decisions in different areas of the borough as well as for reasons of quality control.
  • It was reported that a POCA (Proceeds of Crime Act) case was heard and the Crown Court confiscated £141,000 from the defendants. A further POCA case is scheduled for next month. Another possible case may be in the pipeline, but was at an early stage. The Committee was pleased to note the use of POCA, and suggested that local ward councillors could be written to, to let them know when successful action had been taken in their area. It was also suggested that successes under POCA could be communicated at the landlords’ forum, or via social media sites such as Harringay Online, in order to spread the word when successful action had been taken.
  • Tony Michael, Legal Services, advised that the Council received 18.75% of the amount awarded, but that there was a cost implication in reaching the point at which a reward was made, and it also depended on the amount being recoverable from the defendant. It was also noted that defendant could opt for a prison term rather than  pay the amount awarded.  Although that would not extinguish the debt,  further legal action (and consequently delay) would be sustained to actually recover the award.