Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report arising from the work programme for the Select Committee for 2017/18.

The Committee considered a comprehensive report in regard to the scope of the enforcement activities undertaken as part of the current service portfolio of the Governance Directorate, which comprised corporate fraud and planning enforcement.

Corporate Fraud

It was reported that the main purpose of the Corporate Fraud Team was to provide independent and professional investigation of all aspects of fraud affecting the Council, in order to prevent fraud and abuse and take fair and consistent action against those committing fraudulent activities.

The Corporate Fraud Manager reported that, since its inception, the team had taken both proactive and reactive approaches to anti-fraud work and considered all fraud referrals with a view to risk assessment and, where appropriate, investigation. Members were advised that the team was robustly proactive in the prevention and investigation of fraud within a number of high-risk areas, particularly in relation to social housing, where fraud investigation activity had resulted in policy changes and revisions to internal processes.

The Committee noted that the Corporate Fraud Team was having significant effect in the area of Right to Buy (RTB) applications, where (working in conjunction with the Home Ownership Team) it now vetted all applications to provide assurance that tenancies were being operated correctly and that the RTB Scheme was not being used for money laundering purposes. The Corporate Fraud Manager reported that twenty RTB applications had been stopped and/or withdrawn since April 2016, a number of which had been identified as having significant funding concerns that had given rise to money laundering suspicions, saving approximately £1.5million of potential RTB discount. The Corporate Fraud Manager indicated that, as a result, the  twenty properties involved had continued to remain available as public assets providing future revenue streams (in the form of rent continuing to be paid) to the Council of approximately £1million. Members were advised that other investigations into suspected housing fraud had resulted in eleven Council properties being recovered in order that they could be re-let, resulting in a saving of approximately £200,000.

Members noted that the Corporate Fraud Team was also involved in a number of criminal prosecutions concerning fraud relating to the Local Council Tax Support Scheme, the illegal subletting of Council tenancies and various other offences. It was reported that some of these activities were subject to action under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for issues such as money laundering and the Corporate Fraud Manager indicated that the Council routinely pursued claims for compensation/confiscation under the Act. In addition, the Corporate Fraud Team also undertook staff-related investigations and standards and proceeds of crime investigations on behalf of other local authorities on a ‘paid-for’ basis. The Corporate Fraud Team had also recently begun an informal joint working arrangement with Chelmsford City Council for the sharing of anti-fraud resources and similar arrangements were currently being explored with other authorities

The Committee was advised that, although the public were encouraged to report fraud, due to the often complex nature of both criminal investigations and subsequent court action, it was important for members to understand that cases generally took significant time and resources to investigate.

Planning Enforcement

It was reported that the main purpose of the Planning Enforcement Team was to investigate alleged breaches of planning controls such as unauthorised buildings and uses and development that was not taking place in accordance with approved plans. Members were advised that the Planning Enforcement Team also assisted the Council’s Tree and Landscape Section in prosecutions for destruction and damage to protected trees and the Heritage Section with unauthorised works to listed buildings.

The Principal Planning Officer (Enforcement) reported that the role and responsibilities of the Enforcement Team were set out in the Council’s adopted Local Enforcement Plan, previously adopted by the former Planning Services Scrutiny Panel and that, since April 2016, almost seven-hundred complaints of alleged planning breaches at different sites had been investigated, resulting in the service of thirty-eight Enforcement Notices. Members were advised that during this period, nine Enforcement Notices appeals had been heard by the Planning Inspectorate, all of which had been dismissed and upheld in favour of the Council.

The Committee was advised that that prosecution for breaches of planning legislation was always a last resort, as the planning system required that the planning merits of a case always be considered retrospectively through the planning application process in the interest of fairness, unless the breach could not be resolved by conditions attached to the grant of planning permission. The Principal Planning Officer (Enforcement) indicated that if an enforcement case had been proved in the courts or in extreme cases before court action, the Council could take injunctive or direct action to ensure compliance and that, in the last year, the authority had mounted five prosecutions for the breach of an Enforcement Notice and three prosecutions for a breach of a Tree Preservation Order.

The Committee was advised that, due to the legislative background, enforcement cases could take considerable time to resolve and that, even in simple cases, a period of six to eight months from when a complaint was received was not uncommon. The Principal Planning Officer (Enforcement) indicated that, in complex and/or contested cases, it might take some years to gather appropriate evidence and that it was important for members and the public to understand that such cases generally took significant time and resources to resolve.

Members noted that the resources available to the Planning Enforcement Team compared favourably with other similar local authorities, but that the addition of a Breach Of Condition Officer position to the establishment of the Team would enable officer time to be focused exclusively on enforcement matters. The Principal Planning Officer (Enforcement) reported that the Team worked collaboratively with other services of the Council, as well as with external agencies such as the Corporation of London and the Environment Agency and had recently pioneered the introduction of a remotely piloted air system (known as a ‘drone’) for overt deployment on appropriate enforcement cases.

The Principal Planning Officer (Enforcement) reminded the Committee of the annual planning enforcement training session provided as part of the Council’s Member Development Programme, these next session of which was due to be held on 30 June 2017.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman thanked the Corporate Fraud Manager and the Principal Planning Officer (Enforcement) for their informative presentations.

RESOLVED:

(1)       That the scope of the enforcement activities of the Corporate Fraud and Planning Enforcement Teams, as part of the current service portfolio of the Governance Directorate, be noted;

(2)       That the content of the Council’s adopted Local Enforcement Plan, attached as an annex to these notes, be noted;

(3)       That the current ‘signposting’ of the Local Enforcement Plan on the Council’s website be reviewed, to ensure that it is easily accessible to visitors to the website; and

(4)       That investigation be made of the possible production and publication of an ‘easy-read’ version of the Local Enforcement Plan, for possible issue to local councils and members of the public in response to complaints concerning planning enforcement matters.