Agenda item

Report number DLS24 by the Corporate Manager, Democratic & Legal Services.                                                                                            (Enclosure)

DECISION:

(1)   The following functions be added to the Development Control Committees’ remit:-

“Functions relating to high hedges pursuant to Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.”

(2) The following powers be delegated to the Development Control Services Manager:-

(i)                 to deal with all complaints in relation to high hedges made pursuant to Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and any regulations issued thereunder;

(ii)               to authorise persons to exercise the power of entry pursuant to Section 74 and 77 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.

(3)   That a member panel of not less than three members be created to determine complaints requiring a hearing pursuant to Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.  The member panel to be drawn from members of the Development Control Committee.

(4)   That the Council recommends to the Cabinet that it determines the maximum fee for dealing with High Hedge complaints under Section 68 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.

In his report number DLS24, the Corporate Manager, Democratic & Legal Services set out the new statutory duty imposed upon the District Council in relation to complaints about high hedges and the requirement to put in place the necessary procedures, fees, delegations and authorisations in order to implement the requirements when brought into force.  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had indicated that this was likely to be within the next few months.  The Corporate Manager stated that the Development Control Committee was generally supportive of the regime and the proposed delegation of powers to that committee would sit with the committee’s quasi-judicial role.

Discussion began by a member expressing concern that the Government had passed this responsibility to local authorities without any financial support.  Whilst he welcomed legislation to empower the Council to act where trees and hedges were blighting the life of people living nearby, he urged caution in the wording of the recommendations before the meeting.  He questioned the need for qualifications to decide if trees are a problem and proposed that the requirement for a member panel to be drawn from the Development Control Committee either be deleted or amended to refer to people who have had planning training. 

The member went on to refer to the recommendation that the maximum fees to apply be in line with planning application fees. He regarded this as a punitive charge and proposed that a charge of £50 be made which could be returned to the complainant if the complaint was judged to be justified.

An amendment was then moved and seconded to accept the recommendations as presented.

A number of members spoke on this issue, commenting on the need for the panel to be politically balanced, the delegation to the Development Control Committee, and the appropriate level of fee.

The Corporate Manager responded to these points.  He stated that the panel would not be politically balanced and stressed the fact that it would be carrying out a quasi-judicial function.  Members would be stepping into the realm of neighbour disputes and would therefore have to approach these matters with a quasi-judicial mindset.  Appropriate training would be a necessary pre-requisite.  For these reasons he urged the Council to think very carefully about the proposal that this matter is dealt other than by the Development Control Committee.  Furthermore, he warned that there would be no short cut in these procedures; it was likely to be considerably expensive in terms of member and officer time.

On the basis of the advice given, with the consent of his seconder, the proposer of the original motion agreed to withdraw his amendment to delete the reference to a member panel from the Development  Control Committee.

A vote was taken on the amendment to agree the recommendations as printed which was lost.  A vote was then taken on the original motion (as subsequently amended) and carried.