Agenda item

A briefing note is attached. A senior planning officer (Mark Reynolds) will attend to answer questions.

Mark Reynolds (Senior Planning Officer) introduced this item and gave a presentation on the enforcement process. He explained what the Enforcement team can and can’t deal with and said that the policy was based on consistency, proportionality and openness. Enforcement action is a discretionary power of the Council and is seen as a last resort where the department is unable to resolve a breach with the offender. The officer informed the meeting that the Council dealt with 700-800 enforcement enquiries every year, but that the vast majority are dealt with informally with no further action needed.

Councillor Tim Warren (Mendip Ward) expressed concern about the time taken to deal with enforcement actions and the lack of response from the department – it was very frustrating for parishes. The officer replied that their policy is to respond quickly with an email. However, just because the parish hasn’t heard anything, it doesn’t mean that nothing is happening. The department only informs interested parties when progress has been made. A representative from Saltford stated that it was B&NES practice to only correspond with the initiator of the enquiry about enforcement actions, but it would be helpful if the clerk to the parish council could also be informed. The officer replied that they were happy to keep the clerks informed if the parish council is not the initiator of the complaint.

Councillor Geoff Ward (Bathavon North Ward) said that the work of the department was appreciated, but asked why the number of enforcement actions was reducing. The officer replied that they were trying to effectively negotiate and manage the enforcement notices so that fewer actions were necessary. David Trigwell added that there had been no change of policy during the past two years; the reduction was due to the nature of the cases.

A representative of Dunkerton Parish Council commented that their council had raised several planning matters with the department which turned out to be permitted development and asked if the parish councils could be advised of these so that they did not waste time contacting the enforcement team.

David Trigwell (Divisional Director, Planning and Transport) replied that most planning applications were a private process so there was no requirement for parish councils to be kept informed. The department did encourage developers to inform their neighbours and the parish councils, but they had no power to force them to do so.

A representative of South Stoke Parish Council expressed concern about the tendency towards delay in the planning process, which meant that investigations which lasted more than 4 years were closed as they had run out of time. The officer replied that he was well aware of the 4-year rule, but that if an enforcement notice is served, it effectively ‘stops the clock’, especially where a development is getting close to its time limit. The Localism Bill is proposing to plug this gap with improved powers.

A representative of Clutton Parish Council asked whether all the enforcement notices issued in 2010-2011 had been resolved. He pointed out that less than 5% of cases were subject to enforcement notices, so that meant that 95% were resolved amicably and further asked how many of the complainants were satisfied with that outcome. To the first question, the officer replied that it varied – some would have been subject to enforcement and some remain unclosed. In response to the second question, the officer said that he could not give that information as one would need to ask the individuals involved.

Councillor Gerry Curran commented that it would be interesting to look at the age profile of cases and that he would ask the planning department to produce some figures on that issue. He pointed out that bringing a case to the stage of prosecution could be seen as a failure.

A representative of Newton St Loe Parish Council asked how rapidly the department could issue a temporary stop notice. The officer replied that they were only used when there had been a serious breach e.g. a highway safety issue. They could be drafted and served within a matter of days. If the breach related to a tree that was subject to a Tree Preservation Order being cut down without permission, then the offender could be subject to a fine of up to £20K.

Frequently, the department only became involved after the breach had been committed.

A representative from Combe Hay Parish Council commented that it seemed that some investigations were closed because it was not expedient to go further.  The officer replied that sometimes the department only took enforcement action when it was expedient to do so – they did not want to favour those people who didn’t apply for consent.

Councillor Gerry Curran commented that the development management process depended on the legislative framework. It needed to be based on the principle of ‘harm done’, so if the department went down the enforcement route and were unsuccessful, it could be seen as a waste of public money and affect the Council’s reputation.

A representative from South Stoke Parish Council asked how many cases had been closed because they had run out of time. Councillor Curran said that he would forward that information to parishes, but that performance had improved significantly over recent times.