Agenda item

Objective : To pre-scrutinise and contribute to the draft local enforcement plan prior to Cabinet

Chris Gomm, (Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance)

Tracey Birkenshaw, (Director of Planning)

Councillor Mike Collins, (Cabinet Member for Planning and Building Control)

The Chair welcomed the opportunity to pre-scrutinise and contribute to the draft Local Enforcement Plan before it was considered by Cabinet, saying she hoped this proactive approach would be used more going forward.  She was pleased that members of Audit, Compliance and Governance Committee were also present to share in the discussion.

The Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance introduced the report and draft Local Enforcement Plan, which was designed to set out the overall approach to planning enforcement for councillors, members of the public and developers.  This is a completely new document rather than an updated version of the 2014 plan, and included what could or couldn’t be investigated, priorities, target timescales, and the overall approach on how to resolve established breaches, as summarised in Paragraph 3.4 of the report.

The Director of Communities and Economic Development added that it should be noted that although enforcement is a discretionary service, it is taken very seriously by the council and clear messages need to be sent in appropriate ways, by updating and formalising its current position.

Members made the following comments:

-       whilst respecting planning officers and committee members who do a difficult and often thankless task, the planning compliance function should be a potent deterrent and the threat of action significant enough to protect our beloved town.  Unfortunately, the paper is ill-thought through and self-defeating, with the damage amplified by it being shared publicly;

-       it doesn’t cover the responsibility of owners of Cheltenham’s 2,600 listed buildings to maintain their properties, or the council to monitor this and ensure that our cultural inheritance is passed to the next generation; lack of staff should not be the basis for setting strategy;

-       the report talks about managing planning enforcement proactively but seems to depend on waiting for breaches to be reported; a proactive approach would be to actively look for infringements, perhaps through an annual tour of the town;

-       it is surprising to learn that planning enforcement in discretionary;

-       the decision as to whether or not it is expedient to act seems to rest entirely with officers – Members are not involved.

In response, officers confirmed that:

-       a case could be made for planning enforcement officers to be more proactive in identifying breaches but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of reports of breaches are from third parties.  When the team is fully-staffed, there will be an opportunity to be more proactive in monitoring conditional compliance and S106 compliance on key issues;

-       patrolling the town looking for infringements would be very difficult and not really worthwhile with regard to the resources it would take and the fact that most identifiable breaches are reported by the public. This not something that other councils do;

-       the decision whether or not to take action is delegated to officers, and is perhaps something Members might like to consider under the scheme of delegation;

-        the neighbourhood team, housing officers, environmental health officers and others all act as the eyes and ears of the council on the street and help to identify infringements, and queries from neighbours, businesses and visitors all feed into the workflow;

-       when planning committee members want to add conditions to a permission, these must be enforceable; officers and members work together on these to ensure that they are, and there has been extensive work reviewing planning conditions to ensure these are tightened;

-       the recent Member engagement session on planning enforcement was positive, but the issues with resourcing is a national problem, not specific to Cheltenham.  It is a hard specialism to recruit to.

A Member understood the logic of retrospective applications after negotiation, but suggested that this was cost intensive and perhaps the developer should bear that cost via a small fine or contractual agreement.  The Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance said that planning enforcement tends to be remedial rather than punitive, and retrospective planning applications are invited where the harm caused by the breach is not problematic, although some are refused.  It is in the applicant’s interest to apply for retrospective permission as unauthorised development often shows up during a property sale.  In addition, the council has no authority to levy a fine on a developer of person who has carried out work without planning permission; only later in the process, following non-conformity with an enforcement notice, is there any option to prosecute.

A Member made the following observations:

-       the wording of planning conditions needs to be very carefully considered to ensure that they are carried out to the full;

-       there must be equity to ensure all neighbours receive fair consideration and treatment;

-       conservation areas outside the town centre must be protected;

-       S215 notices on derelict land must be followed up to ensure areas aren’t left to fly-tippers, and it must be clear that the policy is set by Members and will be enforced by officers without fear or favour – everyone will be treated in the same way;

-       there is also the matter of derelict properties as a result of anti-social behaviour or arson, and no mention of compulsory purchase as a final outcome. 

The Director of Communities and Economic Development said that a lot of today’s discussion comes into the public interest test and how that is applied.  It might be useful to add a section to the policy about this, as cases will be tested within that context if they end up in court.  She will discuss this with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Building Control and it can be added to the report for further clarity.

A Member echoed the concerns about empty properties which can deteriorate significantly and be subject to exploitation and criminal behaviour.  She wondered if, in view of the under-resourced planning team, law enforcement or other agencies could be included as part of the strategy. 

Officers confirmed that the paper and plan were on a journey to Cabinet, and a summary of points raised today will be added, in particular wording about the public interest test touched on by Members in their various reflections. 

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Building Control thanked officers for their report, welcomed the new plan, and said that points raised today would be incorporated.