Agenda item

Report number PLA980 by the Development Management Service Manager.       (Enclosure)

The Development Management Service Manager presented report number PLA980 on the draft planning enforcement policy. Previous guidance on planning enforcement had been superseded on the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework, which encouraged authorities to publish local schemes. An enforcement policy was a useful tool for demonstrating robust decision-making processes during ombudsman complaints, court cases and appeals. All alleged breaches would be considered in the context of the policy and their harm which would be assessed using the criteria attached at appendix 1 to the report.

Members spoke in support of the document but discussion ensued on anonymous complaints. Anonymity was part of the proposed framework which would assess the priority of alleged breaches and whether they warranted investigation. If a complaint was considered sufficiently serious it would be investigated whether or not the complainant was anonymous. If complaints were anonymous, officers would be unable to follow up with or feedback to the complainant. The Development Management Service Manager assured councillors that if someone reported a breach in planning control (giving their name at the time of reporting) and requested their identity be withheld, this would be respected.

A number of amendments were suggested to the draft policy:

·         Clarify the position in respect of anonymity

·         Revisions to the scoring framework in the harm assessment (p.17)

o   Stable (amended from 0 points to 1 point), worsening (amended from 1 point to 2 points)

o   Anonymous complaints – amend from 0 points to 1 point

o   Breach of planning condition or Article 4 Direction – should be weighted depending upon severity

o   Complaints in respect of sensitive sites should be weighted to reflect the severity of the breach

·         Text in respect of advertisements should be strengthened

·         If a breach causes a safety concern it should automatically be treated as a matter of priority

Some concern was expressed about the fee quoted in the report for enforcement against high hedges. Complainants were charged a fee of £360 for the investigation of their complaint: this was based on cost-recovery principles. Councillors felt that in cases found in the favour of the complainant the charge should be levied against the antagonist. This raised concerns about enforcement action having a detrimental effect on wildlife by inadvertently encouraging people to breach the Wildlife and Countryside Act. A further amendment to the draft policy was suggested:

·         A phrase should be added to one of the introductory sections: “The Council will work in conjunction with other agencies to use the most effective means of enforcement and in taking action it will not encourage people to breach other legislation either advertently or inadvertently.

·         The Wildlife and Countryside Act should be added to the list of national guidelines (p.16)

Recommendation:

1.    Subject to the amendments suggested during discussion at its meeting on 7 March 2013, the Communities PDG endorses the draft planning enforcement policy

2.    In the instance a breach is found in respect of high hedges costs should be borne by the subject of the complaint and not the complainant