Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Select Committee received a report from the Service Director (Planning Services) regarding a review of the Local Enforcement Plan. He advised that the Council formally adopted the Local Enforcement Plan (LEP) on 16 October 2013 with an addendum on 11 December 2013. This was in accordance with the suggestion under Section 207 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that such a plan should be adopted by Councils.

The LEP clarified the authority’s policy for taking effective action when justified on the evidence gathered by Officers. The Plan sets out the principles of good enforcement and investigation, it explained what would and what would not be investigated. The Plan sets out the priorities for responses to complaints and clarified the timescales for response by Officers. The Planning Enforcement Team receive a high number of allegations of breaches of planning control, and it was impossible to investigate all of these allegations with equal priority. Resources were limited, therefore the LEP made clear what breaches were and the prioritisation involved.

A review of the LEP was scheduled for 2018, five years after its adoption, there had been no significant change to planning legislation (in respect of enforcement).

All District Councillors, Town and Parish Councils were consulted as part of the review process. Comments were received from Theydon Bois and Nazeing Parish Councils, their comments are summarised below.

Theydon Bois

Paragraph 2.8

The Parish Council noted paragraph 2.8 of the LEP stated that ‘a site visit should be carried out within 14 working days’ and asked if it would not be more reasonable for a visit to occur within 7 days rather than 14 days as building works could advance significantly in 2 weeks.

Paragraph 3.13

The Parish Council noted paragraph 3.13 of the LEP and asked if there were requests consistently made for formal applications for Certificates for Lawful Development (CLD). A number of examples of building works have not had a CLD made. How then was an assessment made, and by whom, as to whether the development was lawful.

The Parish Council also questioned whether the review period for the LEP should be every 3 years.

Nazeing

Paragraphs 2.8, 3.7, 3.8 and 3,1

The Parish Council stated that paragraphs 2.8 and 3.7 set out timescales for site visits. Paragraph 3.8 provided that if these timescales could not be met then the Officer would notify the complainant. This was completely open ended and was not satisfactory. Provision should be made to extend the timescale by e.g. 7 days.

Paragraph 3.1 provided that enforcement action would be taken if an acceptable solution was not negotiated within a reasonable time. The question would arise as to what was reasonable and accordingly a maximum time should be specified.

i) – Time limits for visits. Officers currently visit 99% of all sites well within the time limits laid out in the LEP Those sites where there are ongoing building works are already prioritised by officers for visits for the reasons laid out by Theydon Bois PC. Regarding the Nazeing PC point some sites may take longer to gain access and to set a maximum time for a site visit would not be practical in such cases, and could constrain the ability of officers to engage with site owners and occupiers efficiently.

ii) – Requirement for CLDs to be made. In cases where a CLD was required the Enforcement Section request such an application by email or letter. However, if no such application was forthcoming (and there was no mechanism in the Planning legislation to force a person to make such an application), the Officers examine the available evidence (which may include speaking to the Parish Council) and if that proves on the balance of probabilities that the use/building was lawful then no further action would be taken. If the evidence does not exist then the relevant enforcement action will be commenced.

iii) – Maximum time limit to take enforcement action. This was not practical. Each case was unique and some are closed within days and others can continue for years. We have to act in a proportionate and expedient manner in investigating breaches of planning and to work to an inflexible laid down time table would leave us vulnerable to challenges at both Court and in appeals with a significant risk of awards of costs against us.

iv) – Review Period. Due to the relative stability of the enforcement regime and legislation it was considered that a five-year period was realistic and proportionate. Should major changes to the legislation occur then a review could be brought forward as required. 

It was considered that the comments of the two Parish Councils should be noted but did not need to be incorporated into the revised LEP for reasons as set out above.

Councillor Sartin asked if Certificates of Lawful Development were of any benefit to the homeowner/developer of the property.

The Planning Service Director advised that Certificates of Lawful Development were of benefit, although they could not be enforced, when the property was sold the certificate showed that the work had been undertaken and completed lawfully.

Members suggested minor amendments to the LED. The Chairman asked how the Committee would like to proceed with a further draft, should it come back to the next meeting of this Select Committee or be emailed to Members. Members agreed that it should be emailed.

The Service Director (Governance and Member Services) advised that retrospective planning applications should reflect the change to the planning delegation for officers whereby members now had the right to request officers to consider enforcement action on sites where they had refused a retrospective planning application.

Councillor Philip advised that that adoption of the Local Plan would impact on the Council’s enforcement policy and recommended that the Local Enforcement Plan be reviewed every 5 years. Members agreed that the LED should be reviewed every 5 years.

            RESOLVED:

(1)             That the Local Enforcement Plan be adopted subject to amendments made to the document and circulated to Members of the Select Committee;

(2)             That Members now had the right to ask officers to consider enforcement action on sites where they had refused retrospective planning applications; and

(3)             That the Local Enforcement Plan would be reviewed and updated every 5 years.