Agenda item

Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability to explain to members the issue of expediency with regard to appraising formal planning enforcement action.

The Committee noted the report on the issue of expediency with regard to appraising formal planning enforcement action, and were asked to consider a number of anonymous case-studies where enforcement action had been considered not expedient for discussion of the issues.

The following points were raised during discussion:

• In all cases, it was necessary to balance the harm caused against proceeding with enforcement action.
• Surveys undertaken in 2004 and 2008 for the Tower Garden Estate had provided baseline data against which breaches could be identified as immune from enforcement action or not, which had led to greater efficiency in prosecution and obtaining compliance.
• The Committee expressed concern that there was a risk that smaller developments were more likely to be penalised for exceeding approved measurements than larger developments, and that it was important that the system was seen to be consistent and fair. It was acknowledged, however, that in assessing harm caused by a breach, there was greater potential for harm as a result of overdevelopment on a smaller site.
• In response to the Committee’s concerns regarding sites not complying with measurements stipulated by the Planning Sub Committee, it was reported that where any such breaches were reported these would be looked into, but in assessing whether enforcement action should be taken there was an obligation to consider the issue of harm arising.
• It was suggested that simple illustrated leaflets setting out what was expected in respect of development in certain areas, for example a Conservation Area, might be a cost-effective way of reducing the likelihood of enforcement action being necessary. Mr Joyce reported that such guidance had been issued in the past, and that consideration would be given to areas where such an approach might be beneficial with a view to revisiting this.
• The Committee expressed concern regarding the size of the Planning Enforcement team, in light of the caseload; it was reported that administrative support had now been engaged, and that the enforcement officer resource would be increased by 1. A bid had been submitted for a further dedicated resource in respect of HMO licensing and Article 4 directions.
• Concern was expressed regarding setting out examples of issues where enforcement action was unlikely to be taken, as this might lead to people undertaking breaches and taking the chance that these were not likely to be enforced, on the basis of what the Council had set out.
• It was confirmed that, since the large backlog of cases had mostly been cleared in 2008/09, it had been possible to take a more proactive approach. The aim was to continue to reduce the number of cases considered not expedient.
• In response to a suggestion that ward councillors might be consulted on cases proposed for closure as not expedient to enforce, the efficacy of such a measure was questioned, as it was likely that Councillors would prefer that enforcement action be taken in  the majority of cases.

RESOLVED

That the content of the report be noted.