Agenda item

Scrutiny Committee is asked to consider the latest progress report of the new approach to planning enforcement (as set out in the Planning Enforcement Statement 2021) and provide any comments to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Development Management.

(Nb: The link to the 2021 statement above is an appendix document for this item, also mentioned on page 25 of the agenda pack. It has not been included as an attachment, so please access it via the link.)

Cabinet Member for Planning and Development Management introduced the Planning Enforcement update report. The Enforcement Team Leader and Head of Planning were present to answer questions.

The report sought Scrutiny Committee’s comments on the progress made in the last year in reducing the on-hand enforcement case work to enable improvement in the performance of timely responses to investigations.

It was explained that there was continued improvement in the service. The addition of two members of staff, now permanent, had created consistency in the on-hand reduction.

The report was for the period of September 2022 – September 2023. The team reduced open cases from 229 to 161. There were external factor complications (such as Covid backlog where staff couldn’t site visit). In April, two new staff were employed, creating a consistent 6-week reduction figure as a result.

The team had not achieved the target of having decisions made on 80% of new cases within a 6-week period from the initial application, but they were heading in the right direction.

Comments were as follows:

• Page 22 graph 1 – members asked about the difference between on-hand and open. Officers confirmed open is a new case.
• A member said they would have liked a last year’s comparison and costs. Officer added that triage deals with varying case difficulty. Lots of people complaining doesn’t mean a case was dealt with quicker – planning harm was the measure for triage.
• Officers confirmed that there is currently no national target for enforcement, but the planning reforms has proposed some; waiting for Govt confirmation. Other councils had contacted the enforcement team on what they were achieving and how, this was a testament to the improvements made.
• Members commended the team for producing a clear report.
• Stuck old cases – members asked officers to maintain pressure on those.
• Biodiversity net gain – chair asked officers if they could put the onus onto developers and landowners. Officers responded that they needed steer from government and that this would be a major piece of work in future, liaising with the climate team. Officers added that they had proactive working themes where they focus on a particular area of work for a period of time.
• In response to a question, officers confirmed that some planning officers from the wider team were viewing the enforcement cases and joint working / discussing.
• Parish questions on enforcement – officers confirmed that they’ve done a round of parish training on planning. Officers have not received any complaints about the process over the last 6 months. People are understanding that the enforcement team cannot provide updates during the investigation, but the team will update when the investigation has concluded.
• Members asked whether drainage was part of enforcement. Officers explained that drainage was not always a breach of planning control – but the team did work with the drainage team, Thames Water etc if the enforcement team were made aware of a drainage case.  Usually, County Council were alerted first because it tended to be a highways issue.
• Members were keen to see the success communicated – could a comms message be released?
• Discussed proactive work (noting lack of resource for now). Officers responded that not every reported breach required action – residents should talk to one another and consider whether it was worth taxpayer’s money to report, or can it be resolved by neighbourly discussion.

Resolved:

Committee noted the report and congratulated the enforcement team on the report and on the ongoing improvements.

Comments to Cabinet:

1. Committee were conscious of the on-hand caseload, and they wanted to see a downward curve in cases still open.

2. Committee would like the enforcement team to challenge on KPIs, to reach beyond their current success.

3. Committee discussed biodiversity net gain and would like to see this highlighted in enforcement work.

4. Committee would like to see a communication on improvements to the service  - to inform residents and improve public image of enforcement.