Interview 10.00 am – Julian Hawley, Principal Planning Enforcement Officer.
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer to the Environmental/Planning Enforcement service review interview.
The Chair explained that the following questions had been submitted to the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer prior to the meeting:
The Principal Planning Enforcement Officer presented his responses as follows:
1. How do the Planning and Environmental enforcement teams work together on environmental enforcement cases?
There are a range of different frameworks set out in legislation that the Council’s various enforcement teams work within.
- As the law surrounding environmental enforcement is considerable and very broad, it is not possible for one team to know everything to do with all aspects of
- We each have our own specialism, knowledge and expertise
- We each have our own support network for help and guidance e.g. planning officers to discuss planning merits.
Planning law prescribes circumstances where local planning authorities are required to consult specified bodies prior to a decision being made on an application.
The decision maker (e.g. planning officer), decides who to consult.
Similarly, the planning enforcement officer will decide who to consult, seek advice and help from, where there is a breach of planning control.
Officers understand what can be taken into account in planning and what cannot. If it’s something planning cannot take into account then it may be best dealt with by another team.
We carry out some initial investigations at this point we may know
• Is it a Rykneld property? Is there a tenant?
• Is it Council property, rented, sub-let?
• Information on Council tax records, business rates?
• EPR register, are the owners dangerous etc.?
The allegation determines who we get involved and when
• Use of land involving noise, burning etc. then we will ask EH.
• Use of buildings involving breeding dogs then we ask Licencing.
Share evidence and information on investigations, write witness statements etc.
Make an assessment of urgency, how quickly something needs to be dealt with or stopped.
Planning isn’t necessarily a quick fix, but can have lasting effects for controlling development.
Set up the Corporate Enforcement Group (CEG) where we discuss high profile/priority cases and increase information sharing between Council departments.
• Conscious of the customer – rather have a single point of contact however reports could be made either via email or through the ‘report it’ function on the Council’s website.
• Some of this is information has to be asked through formal channels with internal sharing agreements GDPR – taken time to implement.
• Other cases we can go to individual officers
• Officers may have given comments on a particular development
• We’ve recently allowed access to our spatial mapping data.
• We’re uploading more information to our mapping system and making that available.
• Some cases morph from strictly planning issues into something much more serious.
• Our actions can jeopardise criminal investigations
2. How do the Planning and Environmental enforcement teams work with outside agencies on environmental enforcement cases?
Planning authorities are required to consult specified bodies prior to a decision being made.
Officers understand which agency to consult based on any breach of planning control.
• Guidance is given in the PPG
• Officers know through experience
• Overlap in planning functions between County and District – abuse of process to get this wrong.
We make a planning judgement which issues we need to involve external agencies in.
There are prescribed timescales for responses in planning process which don’t apply to enforcement. If we don’t receive any help or advice, then we may need to act without that advice.
3. What do you think is best practice?
Officers exercise judgement to see if and when help and advice is needed – minimises the burden on partner agencies.
• Understand that if we’re seeking advice then the situation warrants it
• Robust in deciding where another agency needs to lead
• could be complications from being a landowner
• Easier and more appropriate powers
Making contact with the owner/developer as soon as possible.
CEG group.
ASB meetings with Police.
Carry out joint site visits where possible, Information sharing protocols.
Complicated high priority issue is multi-agency working.
4. Is the Council working with partners effectively?
Yes, but once partners are engaged. Internal working (e.g. EH and EP) is excellent.
Each partner will have its own priorities –
• Have their own caseload, which they no doubt prioritise,
• What might be important to us, might not be for them. We can’t influence that.
• Have their own threshold for action.
• We may want a particular partner to progress something, but they’re not willing to because it’s not expedient.
• Might be part of a wider issue, too narrowly focused.
• Not required to give advice, unlike the Planning Application process. Means we may need to progress without key stakeholder involvement.
• Ombudsman Case.
5. Which partners are the most difficult to contact?
Each partner has a different preference for being contacted
• Private utility companies – ones which the Council has no control over.
• EA is the most difficult because it’s a national contact centre. Can sometimes take several months to receive a reply – brief is so broad that most district level matters aren’t a priority
• Processes may have been introduced to deal with volume of emails and enquiries
• All agencies and partners are dealing with increased caseloads.
• Whether we have an ‘in’ – a personal basis/relationship works best.
• Key strengths is working well with individuals – because we filter out issues that aren’t relevant.
6. How are enforcement queries handled and what processes are in place to track them?
Alleged breach is recorded in the Council’s planning database – enquirers are attached to the breach.
Improved the reporting forms on the website and we’ve instructed customer contact centres to refer people on.
Telling people how they can expect enquiries to be dealt with –
• That we won’t normally contact them with updates until something is closed
• We will accept further information is that helps our investigations
• That we can be contacted if they’ve not had a response
• Updated email and website enquiry forms
Investigating enquiries within the priorities and timescales set out in the Local Enforcement Plan.
Keep a record of events on the system
• dates of communications
• substance of telephone conversations
• Progress of investigations
• Who we’ve contacted and the updates we’re waiting for
• Next steps
Carry out site visits based on Parish to minimise travel and maximise time and resources
Priorities are constantly being assessed and changing –
• Depends on the number of active cases.
• The severity of the breaches at any one time
Have regular case reviews and admin days.
• Might not know an application has been approved and that we can close a case.
• Help on deciding expediency – NE reports
• Investigations prove fruitless – decisions made on expediency
7. How quickly are queries dealt with?
The context of the overall workload - we have a significant backlog of cases:
• Now we have sifted through most of the historic cases, many are high priority and serious breaches which are very time consuming.
• Dealing with appeals
• Ombudsman investigations
• Saw an increase of 80% in reported cases in 2021/22.
• Perhaps a result of pandemic, but new case load has not reduced
• Enforcement notice register – significant admin task
• IT issues present set-backs
Depends on what’s alleged and its priority/urgency and whether a breach is found or not.
• If we find no breach then we may investigate and update the enquirer that day.
• If we find a breach, it may then take time to investigate fully and then even longer to see through to completion.
• E.g. a shed in a garden is relatively easy - some of the big housing developments are incredibly difficult to unpick
• Grounds of appeal
• Expediency – public interest test
• Appeals backlog – one appeal decision in the last 15 months.
• Not like a planning application – that assumes PP is required
• We must consider whether it’s development,
• What it is – if it’s a use, what are the uses?
• Is it Permitted Development – requires assessing guidance, case law appeal decisions
• Is it lawful? Evidence gathering, PCNs
• The planning history, previous lawful uses any planning permissions;
• Information is difficult to retrieve, planning history might not be complete
• Site visits have to be carried out. Difficulty accessing sites, contacting owner/developers
• Often dealing with people with terrible personal circumstances
• Enforcement action carries rights of appeal and these are picked over by Barristers
• Admin intensive –LB breaches for example are criminal offences - everything has to be saved and recorded. Have a 0.6 technician who does admin, but she has her own case load
We’re digitising the planning enforcement notices within the context of increased workloads.
Speed at which queries are dealt with depends on the
• Agency of the enquirer, knowledge, background etc.
• Everyone is now an expert on planning – google, availability of case law.
• Motivations of the enquirer.
How the party contravening planning rules engage with the Council –
• How easy it is to make contact with them
• How willing they are to resolve the issue
• Some issues may be finely balanced
• Make a planning application
• Whether they stop or carry on
The ‘what about them’ factor
• Government intending to introduce a range of planning targets relating to enforcement – case closed in 6 months, number of cases over 6 months
9. Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
A number of suggestions were put forward to Members which included reporting channels and mechanisms, proactive enforcement, training and Local Enforcement Plan amendments.
Members asked who could make the decision if there was an Enforcement offence on a highway. The Principal Planning Enforcement Officer explained that the decision would be made by him, since enforcement did not have a statutory committee overseeing its decisions
Members enquired if the digitised system in place was fit for purpose. The Principal Planning Enforcement Officer explained that the system could sometimes be difficult to use, but the service had a requirement to utilise it.
Members asked the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer what the service’s stance was on information sharing. Members were informed that Enforcement information sharing was tightly regulated.
Members enquired if the public were informed that Enforcement cases could take up to three years to be resolved. The Principal Planning Enforcement Officer explained that in these cases, people would be referred to the Enforcement Plan.
Members suggested that the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer could present reports to a Committee on the number of Enforcement cases.
Members enquired if the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer felt that the service was understaffed. Members were informed that the service was very busy and could use some help with administrative tasks, but the same was true of every service in the country.
Members enquired where the service reported to when Enforcement action had been taken. They were informed that in these cases, the Planning Committee was notified.
Members felt that there were occasions were Members had Enforcement issues to inform the service about but had not been successful. The Principal Planning Enforcement Officer explained that all issues Members had should be sent to him.
The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer for attending.