Issue - meetings

Report of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rowena Hay

RESOLVED THAT:

1.    the Corporate Enforcement Policy attached to this report is approved and adopted;

2.    authority is delegated to the Chief Executive to approve future minor amendments to the Policy in consultation with the Leader of the Council, Head of Service Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit, Lead Enforcement Officers and One Legal.   

The Leader introduced the report which sets out the legislative framework and principles the council will abide by when undertaking investigations to mitigate the risk of legal challenge in Court.

She explained that subsequent to the publication of the report, a couple of minor amendments are required within the policy for which authority is delegated to the Chief Executive to approve, in consultation with herself as Leader, the Head of Service Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit, Lead Enforcement Officers and One Legal. 

For completeness, the amendments are included below, with additional text highlighted in yellow:

10.5. The decision to prosecute must be taken by Officers, independently of Councillors, subject to financial implications which may require a formal Council decision.  The decision will take into account the criteria set down in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, issued by the Crown Prosecution Service.  Both stages of the ‘Full Code Test’ as set out in the Code for Crown prosecutors will be applied as set out below:

16.1.4 Some development including domestic extensions, regardless of impact on neighbours, may either be immune from planning enforcement action due to elapse of time elapsed of time or because if the works fall within permitted development rights there will not be a breach of planning control.  Any work commenced within the standard three year life of the permission, and built as approved are beyond further control. No action is possibleEnforcement notices cannot be issued in respect of anticipated breaches, however the use of injunctions is possible where there is strong evidence that such breaches will occur and an injunction is necessary where it is considered necessary or expedient for an apprehended breach of planning control to be restrained by injunction. For example, where unauthorised development would cause irreparable damage to protected assets or serious harm to the public there is a serious issue where damages are unlikely to be an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience is in favour of granting an injunction. Otherwise, action for breaches in respect of anticipated breaches.  Action can only be taken once an unauthorised development has commenced.

16.8.3

·         The Bribery Act 2010 (with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Serious Fraud Office).

RESOLVED THAT:

1.    the Corporate Enforcement Policy (as amended) is approved and adopted;

2.    authority is delegated to the Chief Executive to approve future minor amendments to the Policy in consultation with the Leader of the Council, Head of Service Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit, Lead Enforcement Officers and One Legal.