Appendix 1
Action Plan
Issue
Actions
Timescale
Progress to date
1 Improvement in communication
with all that have an interest in
the enforcement service
Adoption of the enforcement plan
as supported by the NPPF.
Consider how best to
communicate/engage with
interested parties including
Parish Councils. Produce
monthly reports to Councillors.
Implement meetings with parish
council representatives.
Conduct councillor training on
enforcement. Consider how best
to communicate our enforcement
approach/plan with our hard to
reach customers.
Enforcement plan adoption by
September 2012. Councillor
training on enforcement - Spring
2013
Enforcement plan in draft.
Reviewed in light of comments
from the task and finish group.
To be reported to Management
team. Letters to complainants
now set out timescales for visits
etc. Enforcement monthly
reports are now sent out, will
continue to review this to look for
improvements. Several
meetings with parish councils
have recently taken place.
Enforcement training will take
place in the next six/nine months
2 Electronic delivery of the
enforcement service
Review the Acolaid system to
ensure that it is fit for purpose.
Review and explore information
readily available for third parties
on the team's work.
By 31 December 2012
List of ongoing enforcement
cases reviewed and now sent out
to councillors on monthly basis.
We will continue to review the
format of the document.
3 Information on Council website
Review current information on
By 31 December 2012
the website in line with the
corporate web project. To set
out improvements in line with the
Council's adopted guidelines.
Enforcement Register is now
available online.
Appendix 1
4 Benchmarking performance
Develop a number of
performance indicators to
benchmark against other
identified similar authorities and
publish on the website.
By 31 March 2013
5 Timescales for enforcement
Develop an escalation procedure Done
for complex cases.
Implemented. The operation of
the escalation procedure will be
reviewed - including timescales.
The review will form part of the
Spring Srutiny report.
6 Better use of technology
Consider whether there is
improved cost effective mobile
technology to assist with the
service.
Explore with IT colleagues - links
to corporate automation project.
7 Customer surveys
Consider ways of seeking views By 31 December 2012
from our customers
Officers have considered
expanding previous surveys to
include those the subject of
investigations. A new survey will
be sent out in January 2013.
8 Management, commitment and
clear leadership
Introduce clear 'chain of
Ongoing
command' in the enforcement
team. Improved report and
monitoring systems for the team.
Improve the process of issuing
notices
New team leader appointed.
Taken on the role of overseeing
cases and providing 1:1 case
direction. Enforcement
Officers now responsible for
drafting and issuing notices.
By March 2013
Recent bench marking with 16
councils has taken place. It is
proposed to continue bench
marking every two years.
Appendix 2
Draft enforcement plan
1. Introduction
Our vision for planning enforcement
1.1
The planning system operates to regulate development and the use of land in
the community’s interest having regard to the development plan and other
material planning considerations. The effective and proper enforcement of
planning control is essential to community confidence in the planning system.
It is important that the local environment is protected, as are the interests of
residents, visitors and businesses of the borough from the harmful effects of
unauthorised development.
1.2
The Council has a duty to investigate alleged breaches of planning control
and has powers to remedy proven breaches. We view breaches of planning
control very seriously. It is our policy to exercise powers appropriately and
rigorously so that development takes place in accordance with the
appropriate legislation or the planning conditions and limitations imposed on
any planning permission through the development control process.
1.3
However, the planning enforcement system does not exist to simply punish
those responsible for a breach of planning control. It is an important principle
of the planning system that the use of formal planning enforcement action is a
discretionary power of the Council.
1.4
The integrity of the development control process depends on the Council’s
readiness to take effective enforcement action when it is justifiable. The
community’s confidence of the planning process is quickly undermined if
unauthorised development is allowed to proceed without any apparent
attempt by the Council to intervene.
1.5
The purpose of this document is to set out the Council’s specific policy for the
enforcement of planning control. This policy will ensure that councillors and
officers, external agencies and the community are aware of our general
approach to planning enforcement.
Principles of Good Enforcement
1.6
Proportionality – Officers will consider the full range of powers when
conducting investigations (this includes appropriate negotiations and
retrospective planning applications) and where appropriate take immediate
action.
1.7
We will minimise the costs of compliance by ensuring that any action we
require is proportionate to the risks. As far as the law allows, we will take
account of the circumstances of the case and the attitude of the operator
when considering the expediency of taking action.
1
Appendix 2
1.8
We will take particular care to work with small businesses and voluntary and
community organisations so that they can meet their legal obligations without
unnecessary expense, where practicable.
1.9
Generally we will prosecute individuals or organisations who do not comply
with any formal notice served on them, and when appropriate will take direct
action, having regard to degree of harm and public safety.
1.10
Consistency – We will carry out our duties in a fair, equitable and consistent
manner. While staff are expected to exercise judgement in individual cases,
we have arrangements in place to promote consistency including effective
arrangements for liaison with other authorities and enforcement bodies
through schemes such as those operated by the Local Authorities Coordinating Body on Regulatory Services (LACORS).
1.11
We will consider each individual matter on its merits. There will be a
consistent approach to enforcement action against breaches of similar nature
and circumstance.
1.12
Standards – We will draw up clear standards, setting out the level of service
and performance that customers can expect to receive. We will review
performance regularly and publish results on a quarterly basis.
1.13
The enforcement plan will be subject to review at least every three years, but
the plan may be reviewed on a more regular basis if circumstances dictate.
The standards will be available on our web site.
1.14
Openness – Information and advice will be provided in plain language on the
rules that we apply and we will publish this as widely as possible.
1.15
We will discuss general issues, specific compliance failures or other problems
with anyone with an interest with our service, subject to it not being covered
by privacy and protection policies.
1.16
Helpfulness – We believe that prevention is better than cure and that we
should work with customers to advise and assist with compliance.
1.17
Officers will provide a courteous, prompt and efficient service and letters will
provide a contact point and telephone number for customers to contact when
seeking advice and information.
1.18
We will ensure that services are effectively co-ordinated to minimise
unnecessary overlaps and time delays.
1.19
Officers will not tolerate abusive language or behaviour either in person or in
correspondence.
1.20
Complaints about the service – We will provide well publicised, effective and
timely complaints procedures easily accessible to business, the public,
employees and consumer groups. In cases where disputes cannot be
resolved, any right of complaint or appeal will be explained, with details of the
process and the likely time-scales involved.
2
Appendix 2
2
Breaches of planning control
Legislative background
2.1
The primary legislation for planning enforcement is set out in Part VII of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990, which includes amendments set out in the Planning
and Compensation Act 1991 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Hereafter these are collectively referred to as the Town and Country Planning Act (as
amended).
2.2
The Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) sets out that planning permission
is required for development. Section 55 defines development as:
“the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or
under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other
land.”
2.3
A breach of planning control is defined at Section 171A as “the carrying out of a
development without the required planning permission, or failing to comply with any
condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted”.
What is a breach of planning control?
2.4
The majority of planning enforcement investigations therefore involve one of the
following alleged breaches:
development (either operational or a material change in use of land) has taken
place without planning permission
development has not been carried out in accordance with an approved planning
permission
failure to comply with a condition or legal agreement attached to a planning
permission.
2.5
Other matters which also fall under the scope of planning control are:
demolition taking place in conservation areas, without conservation consent,
when it is required
works carried out to a listed building which affect the historic character or setting,
without listed building consent being granted
removal of, or works carried out, to protected trees and hedgerows without
consent being granted or proper notification given
advertisements, which require consent under the advertisement regulations,
which are displayed without express consent
failure to comply with the requirements of a planning notice, e.g. enforcement,
discontinuance, stop notice, breach of condition notice, or other statutory notice
2.6
The basic principle of planning law is that it is not an offence to carry out works
without planning permission. Whilst such development is unauthorised, councils
must consider the expediency of taking formal action. This is important to remember
as members of the public often refer to illegal development or works. This is
3
Appendix 2
incorrect as development may well be unauthorised. It will not be illegal unless a
statutory notice has first been issued and the owner or occupier has failed to comply.
What is not a breach of planning control?
2.7
We often receive complaints regarding matters that are not breaches of planning
control. Often this is where other legislation covers and controls the matter. The
following are examples of what we cannot become involved in through our planning
enforcement service:
neighbour nuisance/boundary and land ownership disputes – these are civil
matters that the Council can not get involved in. Further advice on these matters
should be obtained from a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau
use of/or development on the highway, footway or verge that is covered by
highway legislation – please contact Surrey County Council on 03456 009 009
dangerous structure – please contact our Building Control section on 01483
444545
fly tipping
any matter covered by other substantive legislation such as noise and smell
Priorities
2.8
To make the most effective use of resources, all reports of suspected breaches of
planning control will be investigated and progressed in accordance with the priority
rating below. This is not an exhaustive list.
High priority
Any unauthorised development or non-compliance with a planning condition or
legal agreement which is causing immediate and irreparable harm to the
environment or public safety
Any breach of planning control causing serious loss of residential amenity
Demolition or alterations to a listed building
Demolition in a conservation area that is causing immediate and irreparable harm
Works to trees subject to a tree preservation order or within a conservation area
Unauthorised development that has gone undetected and the statutory time limit
for taking enforcement action will expire within the next six months
Medium priority
Breaches that are contrary to well established planning policies such as Green
Belt
Unsightly buildings or untidy land that is causing serious harm to the amenity of
neighbours
Development that causes serious harm to the amenities of neighbours or are
contrary to significant policies in the Development Plan. For example extensions
to buildings which cause a serious loss of light or overlooking of neighbouring
dwellings.
Development not in accordance with the plans during the build process
4
Appendix 2
Low priority
Advertisements causing harm to amenity
Businesses being operated from home
Any alleged breaches of planning control causing a limited degree of disturbance
to local residents or the environment. For example extensions to buildings which
appear unsightly, but do not cause any loss of light or overlooking issues.
Untidy land, except where it causes serious harm to the amenity of neighbours
High hedge complaints
2.9
Individual cases may be re-prioritised as the investigation progresses and as new
evidence comes to light.
3
Investigation of suspected breaches of planning
control
Receipt of complaint
3.1
To start a planning enforcement investigation, complaints from the community should
normally be made in the following ways:
by email at [email protected]
filling out the standard form on our web site
http://www.guildford.gov.uk/article/6756/Planning-enforcement---onlinecomplaint-form
over the phone on (01483) 444 627
by letter to Planning Enforcement, Guildford Borough Council, Millmead House,
Millmead, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 4BB
or in person at the planning reception area at the Council Offices, opening hours
are 08:30 – 17:00 Monday to Thursday, 08:30 – 16:30 Friday
3.2
When a complaint is received it is recorded on our database so it is important that we
have the following information:
name and contact details of complainant
full address of the alleged breach of planning control
nature of the breach and the harm it may be causing
3.3
All enforcement complaints are logged onto our computer system with a unique
reference number so that each complaint can be monitored and the complainant
updated on progress.
3.4
To avoid the unnecessary use of resources, anonymous reports of suspected
breaches of planning control will not normally be pursued unless other evidence
suggests that the breach is causing serious harm to the environment or the amenities
of residents.
3.5
Confidentiality of a complaint’s identity will be safeguarded unless it is necessary for
the complainant to give evidence at an appeal.
5
Appendix 2
Time frame for site visit
3.6
A site visit will be required to establish whether or not a breach of planning control
has occurred. Although there will need to be some research around the case prior to
a site visit.
3.7
The initial site visit (where necessary) will be conducted within the following
timescales. There will be exceptions to this, particularly in very urgent matters.
High priority cases – within two working days
Medium priority cases – within ten working days
Low priority cases – within fifteen working days
3.8
These targets allow officers to carry out the required level of research before visiting
a site. If carrying out the initial site visit within these time frames is problematic on a
specific case the officer will notify the complainant.
3.9
On completion of the initial site visit, the findings will be assessed and a view taken
as to how the investigation will proceed. This may include taking legal advice about
the case.
If no breach of planning control is established
3.10
A significant number of investigations are closed as there is no breach of planning
control established. This can occur for a number of reasons, for example:
there is no evidence of the allegation
development has taken place but planning permission is not required, usually as
it benefits from planning permission granted under the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended)
the development already benefits from planning permission granted by the
Council
3.11
It may also be the case that whilst a technical breach of planning control has been
found the breach is so minor that it has no or very little impact on amenity, for
example a domestic television aerial. Such a breach would be considered deminimus in planning terms and no formal action could be taken in this respect.
3.12
Where this is the case the person reporting the suspected breach of control will be
notified either verbally or in writing within 10 working days of the initial site visit that
no further action will be taken. The complainant will be provided with an explanation
of our reason(s).
Where further investigation is required
3.13
There are cases where the initial site visit does not provide sufficient evidence to
prove whether a breach of planning control has taken place. Examples of these can
include:
business operated from home and whether this constitutes a material change of
use. This will often depend on the level of intensity and this may not be
immediately apparent from the initial site visit
6
Appendix 2
alleged breaches of working hours conditions. If the operator denies the activity
further investigations will be required
building works are taking place but the owner claims it is to repair a previously
existing structure. The officer will need to establish what, if anything, previously
existed
3.14
In these cases the person reporting the suspected breach of control will be notified
within 10 working days of the initial site visit that further investigation is required.
Further investigation may involve additional site visits, documentary research,
seeking advice from other services or agencies, seeking information from the person
reporting the suspected breach of control, or the owner or other persons responsible
for the land or building.
3.15
In some cases, we may ask the person reporting the suspected breach for further
details. If the person reporting the suspected breach of planning control is unwilling to
assist, this may result in the Council not being able to pursue the investigation due to
insufficient evidence.
3.16
We will also consider serving a Planning Contravention Notice to obtain information
relating to the suspected breach. Drafting such a notice correctly can take time.
Equally a person on whom it is served has 21 days to respond. Therefore it may be
several weeks until the appropriate evidence can be collected.
Where there is a breach of planning control
3.17
Where a breach of planning control is established, the first step is to consider
whether it would be expedient to take formal enforcement action. Expediency is a
test of whether the unauthorised activities are causing serious harm having regard to
the Development Plan policies and other material planning considerations. The
planning enforcement officer investigating the case will consider this in conjunction
with the principal planning enforcement officer. The outcome of this consideration
will generally inform the course of the investigation. Taking formal enforcement
action is only one option with other courses open to the Council. Most planning
enforcement investigations will involve one of the following courses of action.
Retrospective planning applications
3.18
Where officers consider that planning permission is likely to be granted for an
unauthorised development, or that the imposition of conditions could reduce the harm
to amenity, a retrospective planning application will be requested for the
development. Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) sets
out the provisions for dealing with retrospective applications.
3.19
In determining retrospective planning applications the Council can not refuse an
application simply because the development has already been carried out. Many
breaches of planning control occur because the applicant simply did not realise
permission was required. A retrospective planning application enables the Council to
regularise acceptable development without arbitrarily penalising the applicant. We
receive between 130 and 160 retrospective applications per year out of
approximately 2500 applications. This demonstrates the important role retrospective
applications play in resolving breaches.
7
Appendix 2
3.20
Generally we will not seek a retrospective planning application if we feel the
development is unacceptable. However, there are cases where it is initially unclear
as to whether a development is acceptable in planning terms. An example is where
a development is in the early stages of construction. In these cases an application
may be necessary to obtain full details of the intended development. Once this
information is received it would allow for a full assessment of the planning merits.
3.21
The recent Localism Act 2011 has introduced an additional power to the Council in
respect of retrospective planning applications where an enforcement notice has
already been issued. Section 70C to the Town and Country Planning Act (as
amended) now specifies:
‘a local planning authority in England may decline to determine an application for
planning permission for the development of any land if granting planning permission
for the development would involve granting, whether in relation to the whole or any
part of the land to which a pre-existing enforcement notice relates, planning
permission in respect of the whole or any part of the matters specified in the
enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control.’
3.22
We will use these powers where appropriate to prevent delays in cases where
enforcement action is being taken. However, we will also have regard to each
specific case and consider whether granting permission for part of the development
would result in an acceptable resolution.
Not expedient to pursue formal action
3.23
While it is clearly unsatisfactory for anyone to carry out development without first
obtaining the required planning permission, an enforcement notice should not
normally be issued solely to regularise development which is acceptable on its
planning merits, but for which permission has not been sought.
In such
circumstances the Council will seek to persuade an owner or occupier to seek
permission. This could include using a planning contravention notice. However, it is
generally regarded as unreasonable for a council to issue an enforcement notice
solely to remedy the absence of a valid planning permission if there is no significant
planning objection to the breach of planning control.
3.24
Where this is considered to be the case the officer will produce an expediency report
to clearly setting out that no planning harm is caused by the development. As part of
this process a planning contravention notice may be served to ensure we have all
relevant information. Where officers conclude that it is not expedient to take action
the case will be closed in accordance with the scheme of delegated powers as set
out in the Council’s Constitution. If the case in question has been designated as High
or Medium Priority (as defined in paragraph 2.8 above) then the decision to close the
case will be taken in consultation with the relevant ward councillor(s) under the usual
7 day notification system.
3.25
Another criteria of expediency is to ensure that any action is proportionate to the
breach. We investigate many technical breaches of planning control. Common
examples of these include the construction of a fence or the construction of an out
building in a residential curtilage slightly higher than allowed under permitted
development regulations. In these cases it would clearly not be proportionate to
require the removal of an entire building or fence where a slightly lower structure
could be constructed without permission. As such the expediency test for taking
8
Appendix 2
action would not be met. We will work with owners to regularise or remedy the works
but ultimately it is highly unlikely that formal action could be warranted in the case of
a technical breach of planning control.
Negotiation
3.26
Where it is considered that the breach of planning control is unacceptable, officers
will initially attempt to negotiate a solution without recourse to formal enforcement
action, unless the breach is causing irreparable harm to amenity. Negotiations may
involve the reduction or cessation of an unauthorised use or activity, or the
modification or removal of unauthorised operational development.
3.27
In carrying out negotiations officers will have regard to the specific circumstances of
the individual case. For example where there is an unauthorised business activity
officers will consider whether relocation is possible and if so will seek to put a
reasonable timescale in place.
3.28
Where initial attempts at negotiation fail, formal action will be considered to prevent a
protracted process. We will also consider using temporary stop notices to prevent
the breach becoming more severe.
3.29
Where we are unable to negotiate an acceptable solution within a reasonable
timescale, or it is clear at the outset that the breach is not capable of being remedied
through negotiation, we will proceed with formal enforcement action where it is
expedient to do so.
4.
Taking formal enforcement action
4.1
Once the decision to take formal action has been made we will tell the complainant
either verbally or in writing within 10 working days from the date on which the
decision to take action was made. We will consider the full range of powers available
to ensure the most proportionate and expedient resolution. We will also consider
whether any other public authority is better able to take remedial action. For example
Surrey County Council, Environment Agency.
4.2
A full planning enforcement toolkit is available to officers when taking formal action,
the use of these can vary depending on the nature of the breach and the level of
harm caused.
Powers available
Enforcement notice
4.3
Section 172 of The Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) allows the service
of an enforcement notice where unauthorised operational development or a change
of use has taken place and it is considered expedient to do so. We are required to
serve enforcement notices on the owner, occupier and any other person with an
interest in the land which is materially affected by the notice.
4.4
An enforcement notice shall specify the steps which we require to be taken, or the
activities which we require to cease, in order to achieve, wholly or partly, any of the
following purposes:
9
Appendix 2
remedying the breach by making any development comply with the terms
(including conditions and limitations) of any planning permission which has been
granted in respect of the land, by discontinuing any use of the land or by restoring
the land to its condition before the breach took place; or
remedying any injury to amenity which has been caused by the breach.
4.5
The notice will specify time periods for compliance for each of the steps from the date
on which the notice comes into effect. A notice comes into effect after a minimum
period of 28 days following service. There is a statutory right of appeal against the
notice during this period to the Planning Inspectorate. Once the Planning
Inspectorate has received a valid appeal, the enforcement notice has no effect until
the appeal has been determined.
4.6
There are seven grounds of appeal against an enforcement notice. Any appeal may
include one or all of these grounds:
(a) that, in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by the
matters stated in the notice, planning permission ought to be granted or, as the
case may be, the condition or limitation concerned ought to be discharged
(b) that those matters have not occurred
(c) that those matters (if they occurred) do not constitute a breach of planning
control
(d) that, at the date when the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be
taken in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by
those matters
(e) that copies of the enforcement notice were not served as required by section 172
(f) that the steps required by the notice to be taken, or the activities required by the
notice to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning
control which may be constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to
remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach
(g) that any period specified in the notice in accordance with section 173(9) falls
short of what should reasonably be allowed.
4.7
Given these rights of appeal it is important that all relevant matters are taken into
account before serving an enforcement notice. This includes being clear in respect
of; the specific breach of planning control; the steps required to remedy the breach;
and the time required for compliance. An enforcement report will be produced by
officers specifically to consider these issues. As with an appeal against a planning
application costs can be applied for in cases where the other party has acted
unreasonably.
4.8
If the breach of planning control relates to a listed building, or unauthorised
demolition within a conservation area, we will consider the expediency of serving a
listed building enforcement notice or a conservation area enforcement notice and
where appropriate, commence a prosecution in the Courts. The enforcement notice
will specify the reason(s) for its service, the steps required to remedy the breach, the
date that it takes effect and the time period for compliance.
4.9
All enforcement notices are placed on the Council’s enforcement register which is
available to view on the Council’s website
http://www.guildford.gov.uk/enforcementregister.
10
Appendix 2
Planning contravention notice (PCN)
4.10
Section 171C of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) provides the
power to issue a PCN. This can be served on the owner or occupier of the land in
question or a person who is carrying out operations in, on, over or under the land or
is using it for any purpose and where a suspected breach of planning is believed to
exist. The PCN will require the recipient to provide the information requested within
21 days relating to the breach of planning control alleged. Failure to comply with any
aspect of the PCN is an offence for which the recipient can be prosecuted with the
maximum fine of £1,000. To knowingly provide false information on a PCN can result
in a fine of up to £5,000.
4.11
A PCN will be served in most cases as a precursor to an enforcement notice to
ensure all relevant information has been obtained.
Other requisition for information notices
4.12
Under section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 the
Council can require the recipient of a requisition for information notice to supply in
writing details of their interest in a property and provide details of anyone else having
an interest in the property. A reply must be supplied within 14 days. A person who
fails to comply with the requirements of a notice or makes a false statement in a reply
is guilty of an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000.
4.13
Under section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Council can
require the recipient to state in writing the nature of their interest in a property and to
state in writing the name and address of any other person known to them as having
an interest in the property, as a freeholder, mortgagee, lessee or otherwise. Failure
to return the form or to provide a miss statement is an offence punishable by a fine
up to £1,000.
Breach of condition notice (BCN)
4.14
Section 187A of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) provides the
power to serve a Breach of Condition Notice (BCN) where a planning condition has
not been complied with. Consideration should be given to the type of condition and
the steps required to secure compliance with the condition. Once issued the notice
does not take effect for 28 days. There is no appeal against a BCN and therefore
can offer a more expedient course of action than issuing an enforcement notice. The
failure to comply with the notice is dealt with by a prosecution in the Magistrates
Court. The maximum fine has recently been increased to a level 4 fine (£2,500). The
BCN is ideal for matters where the steps to be taken are relatively simple and can be
readily achieved.
4.15
Where the breach of planning control relates to non-compliance with a condition on a
planning permission or a limitation on a deemed planning permission has been
exceeded, we will consider the expediency of serving a BCN. The breach of condition
notice will specify the steps required to comply with the condition(s) or limitation(s),
the date that it takes effect and the time period for compliance.
Stop notice
4.16
Section 183 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) provides for the
service of a stop notice. A stop notice must be served at the same time or after the
11
Appendix 2
service of an enforcement notice. We will consider serving a stop notice where
urgent action is necessary to bring about a cessation of a relevant activity before the
expiry of the period of compliance of the related enforcement notice.
4.17
The stop notice must refer to the enforcement notice, specify the activity or activities
that are required to cease and the date that it takes effect. Failure to comply with the
notice is an offence. The maximum fine on summary conviction is £20,000.
4.18
The Council must consider the use of stop notices carefully as they carry with them
significant statutory compensation provisions.
Temporary stop notice (TSN)
4.19
Section 171E of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) provides councils
with the power to serve a TSN. A TSN which can be issued without the need to issue
an enforcement notice and is designed to halt breaches of planning control for a
period of up to 28 days.
4.20
Whilst TSNs also carry some compensation provisions these are significantly lower
than with a stop notice and therefore the risk to the Council is reduced.
4.21
All stop notices are placed on the Council’s enforcement register.
Section 215 notice
4.22
In cases where the amenity of an area is adversely affected by the condition of land
or buildings, we will consider serving a notice under Section 215 of the Town and
Country Planning Act (as amended). The notice will specify the steps required to be
taken to remedy the condition of the land or buildings, the time period within which
the steps must be taken and the date that it takes effect.
4.23
A section 215 notice takes effect after 28 days service during which time an appeal
can be made in the Magistrates Court.
Time limits for taking formal action
4.24
Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) sets out time
limits for taking enforcement action. The Council cannot serve a notice after four
years where the breach of planning control involves building operations, for example
extensions to dwellings, new buildings and laying hardstandings; or the change of
use of any building to a single dwellinghouse, from the commencement of the
breach. Other unauthorised changes of use and breaches of conditions are subject
to a 10 year time limit.
4.25
After these periods the Council cannot take action and the use becomes lawful. The
landowner can apply for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development
(CLEUD) after this period and if the evidence is clear regularise the situation.
4.26
Serving an enforcement notice in respect of a particular development stops the clock
in relation to these time limits. Therefore where the Council feel a breach may be
close to the relevant time limit it may seek to take urgent enforcement action to
prevent a lawful development situation.
12
Appendix 2
4.27
The Localism Act has introduced a new enforcement power in relation to time limits.
This allows councils the possibility to take action against concealed breaches of
planning control even after the usual time limit for enforcement has expired (see
above).
4.28
The Council can, within six months of a breach coming to their attention, apply to the
magistrate’s court for a planning enforcement order. A planning enforcement order
would give us one year to then take enforcement action. In agreeing to a planning
enforcement order, the court need only be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities,
that the apparent breach, or any of the matters constituting the apparent breach, has
(to any extent) been deliberately concealed by any person or persons. In other
words:
concealment of only part of the breach is sufficient to render it all open to
enforcement
the deliberate concealment could be to an almost negligible extent
the concealment may be by anyone – it could have been by a past owner, it could
even have been by a third party.
Failure to comply with formal notices
4.29
Where a notice has been served and has not been complied with there are three
main options available to the Council to pursue to attempt to resolve the breach.
Prosecution
4.30
We will consider commencing a prosecution in the Courts against any person who
has failed to comply with the requirement(s) of any of the following notices where the
date for compliance has passed and the requirements have not been complied with:
enforcement notice
listed building enforcement notice
conservation area enforcement notice
planning contravention notice
breach of condition notice
section 215 notice
stop notice
4.31
Cases involving unauthorised works carried out to a Listed Building and unauthorised
demolition in a Conservation Area also constitutes an offence in their own rights. We
will consider whether it would be expedient to prosecute for these works rather than
issuing a notice on a case by case basis.
4.32
Before commencing any legal proceedings we need to be satisfied that there is
sufficient evidence to offer a realistic prospect of conviction and that the legal
proceedings are in the public interest.
Direct action
4.33
Where any steps required by an enforcement notice or section 215 notice have not
been taken within the compliance period (other than the discontinuance of the use of
land), we will consider whether it is expedient to exercise our powers under
section178 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) to:
13
Appendix 2
enter the land and take the steps to remedy the harm; and
recover from the person who is then the owner of the land any expenses
reasonably incurred by them in doing so.
4.34
In most cases the Council will seek to prosecute the failure to comply with a notice
before seeking to initiate direct action.
Injunction
4.35
Where an enforcement notice has not been complied with and, because of the
special circumstances of the case, either direct action or prosecution would not be an
effective remedy, we will consider applying to the Court for an Injunction under
section187B of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended).
4.36
An injunction can also be applied for where there is clear evidence that a breach of
planning control is anticipated but has not actually occurred. Such action will only be
considered if the breach, actual or anticipated, is particularly serious and is causing
or likely to cause exceptional harm.
5.
Special controls
Advertisements
5.1
Unlike most spheres of planning control the display of advertisements without
consent is an offence. Therefore we have the power to initiate prosecutions without
the need to issue a notice. Where it has been considered that an advertisement
should be removed an offender will normally be given one written opportunity to
remove the advertisement voluntarily. Failure to do so will normally result in further
action being taken without further correspondence.
5.2
Section 225 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) provides powers to
remove or obliterate posters and placards. We will consider using these powers as
appropriate as an alternative or in conjuncture with prosecution action.
5.3
The recent Localism Act has introduced several new provisions in respect of dealing
with advertisements. These are Removal Notices, Action Notices and the powers to
remedy the defacement of property. Each provision includes rights of appeal to the
Magistrates Court.
Removal notices
5.4
This provides the power to seek removal of any structure used to display and
advertisement. Where the notice is not complied with we may undertake the works in
default and recover the expenses for doing so.
Action notices
5.5
Where there is a persistent problem with unauthorised advertisements an action
notice can be issued specifying measures to prevent or reduce the frequency of the
display of advertisements on the surface. Again where the notice is not complied
with we may undertaken the works in default and recover the expenses for doing so.
14
Appendix 2
Power to remedy defacement of premises
5.6
Where a sign has been placed on a surface that is readily visible from somewhere
the public have access, and is considered by us to be detrimental to the amenity of
the area or offensive, a notice may be issued requiring the removal or obliteration of
the sign. As with the above provisions failure to comply with the notice will allow us
to undertake the works in default and recover costs (costs can not be recovered
where the sign is on a flat or house or within the cartilage of a house)
Trees
5.7
Legislation protects trees which are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)
or are within a Conservation Area from felling or other works unless appropriate
consent is first obtained. As with advertisements such works are an offence and
therefore prosecution can be sought without the requirement to issue a notice.
However, such action would not remedy the harm caused.
5.8
Section 207 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) provides for a
replacement notice to be issued. This will require an appropriate replacement tree to
be planted where a tree covered by a TPO has been removed.
6.
Other powers
High hedges
6.1
From the 1 June 2005 councils have had the power, under Part 8 of the Anti Social
Behaviour Act 2003, to adjudicate on disputes over high hedges. In cases where we
find in favour of the complainant we will ensure, through enforcement action if
necessary, that any specified schedule of remedial works is carried out.
Entry onto land
6.2
Under the provisions of Section 196A the Town and Country Planning Act (as
amended) officers have the right of entry onto land and buildings land when pursuing
effective planning control for the following purposes:
(a) to ascertain whether there is or has been any breach of planning control on the
land or any other land;
(b) to determine whether any of the powers conferred on a local planning authorit y
should be exercised in relation to the land or any other land;
(c) to determine how any such power should be exercised in relation to the land or
any other land;
(d) to ascertain whether there has been compliance with any requirement imposed
as a result of any such power having been exercised in relation to the land or
any other land;
and to determined whether an enforcement notice should be served on that or any
other land.
6.3
Twenty four hours notice must be given for access to a residential property. If access
is denied or the matter is urgent a warrant can be applied for from the Magistrates
15
Appendix 2
Court. Officers will exercise these powers where appropriate particularly where their
use is essential to the collection of evidence relating to an alleged breach of planning
control. An obstruction of these powers is an offence which is subject to prosecution.
7.
Legislation/guidance
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – This forms the current primary legislation
The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004 – these two Acts are secondary legislations which amend and
add to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Where
specific sections from these Acts are referenced in the enforcement plan they are
collectively referred to as the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended)
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Localism Act 2011
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Circular 3/09 – Cost awards in appeals and other planning proceedings
Circular 1/95 - Use of conditions in planning permission
Circular 10/97 - Enforcing Planning Control
The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)
(England) Order 2010
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
(as amended)
The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1995 (as amended)
The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England)
Regulations 2007
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
16
Appendix 3
Escalation procedure
All enforcement cases are dealt with on a day to day basis by the planning
enforcement officers under the guidance of the Principal Planning Enforcement
Officer.
Should an impasse be reached and in any event not later than six months from the
original service request, the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer will refer any
cases that meet these criteria to the Development Control Manager for further
guidance and direction.
In particularly complex or controversial cases this will include the Head of Planning
and /or Strategic Director.
The escalation discussion will focus on:
o the way forward
o set out positive actions
o establish a timeframe for resolution
o set out a communication plan for interested parties including councillors.
Appendix 4
01/04/2010 31/03/2011
Team structure
Aylesbury
Vale
East Dorset
Elmbridge
No. of cases received
Total no. of cases per
officer
No. of cases closed
No. of cases closed due to
negotiated solution
1 team leader, 3
Enforcement Officers, 1
Admin Officer
673
325 per EO
759
187 ceased, 76 consent
granted.
1 Senior Planning Officer, 1
Enforcement Officer, 1
Assistant Enforcement
Officer (0.77 fte)
356
Data not available
283
Data not available
Enforcement Manager,
Compliance Officer, 2
Investigations Officers and
1 Infrastructure Monitoring
Officer
Guildford
1 Principal Enforcement
Officer, 1 Senior
Enforcement Officer, 3
Enforcement Officers, 1
Technician (p/t), 1
Compliance/Plan Check
Officer (p/t)
Mole Valley
1 Enforcement Officer
New Forest
Team leader (pt), Senior
Planning officer, planning
officer, enforcement officer
(pt), assistant planning
officer (pt), enforcement
technician (pt)
854
626
917
Data not collected average 40-60 at any given
time
912
No data held
125 cases per office on
average
559
546
365
344
negotiated for closure 344
Ft officers 99, 126 and 95 Pt officers 119, 72 and 4
734
No and type of Notices
served
No. of injunctions served
No. of cases where direct
action has been taken
11 Enforcement notices, 9
PCN, 3 TSN
3
0
1IH, 2 PI
57 PCN, 7 Stop Notices, 41
Enforcement Notices, 6
BOC, 1 S.215
0
0
11 Public Inquiries, 3 IH, 7
written representations
0
13 appeals - all on
enforcement notices,
comprising 10 written
of the remaining 8 appeals
representations and 3
(all written
Public Inquiries. Of the 13
representations), 6 were
appeals, 5 were withdrawn
upheld and 2 were
(including 2 written
quashed.
representations and 3
public inquiries)
No. of cases closed within 6
weeks (target of 60%).
Data collected for this
period shows that 62%
were closed in the 6 week
period.
3 public enquiries, 2
hearings, 3 written
representations
2
Category A Major - 6
months, Category B Medium - 4 months,
Category C - 2 months. The
categories have been
established locally but are
common to the approach
adopted at other local
authorities. The overall
target is that 80% of cases
in each category should be
closed within the
established timeframe.
complainant contacted
within 5 working days and
site visit within 10 working
days.
14 Enforcement Notices, 1
Temporary Stop Notice, 25
PCNs and 6 BCN
0
No. and type of
enforcement appeals
No. of enforcement
appeals upheld
Performance indicators
used - details
7 determined, 2 allowed
Time to site visit, time for
decision on action, time to
close householder
complaints.
6
n/a
8 Enforcement Notices, 1
PCN, 1 S.215, 1 Stop notice
0
1
PCN 0 use S330 5, TSN 0,
EN or SN 0
0
0
0
0
not available
32 enforecement notices, 3
BCN, 13 PCN, 2 S.125
0
0
27
2
0
0
4 written representations
1
0
6 appeals in total - 5 Enf
and 1 High Hedge
Poole
1 Enforcement Manager, 3
Enforcement Officers
950
238
893
386
33 Enforcement Notices, 3
Planning contraventions,
31 Breach of condition
notices, 1 temporary stop
notice, 14 tree
replacement notices
Reigate and
Banstead
1 Senior Enforcement
Officer, 2 Enforcement
Officers and one Town
Planner on secondment to
learn enforcement
548
Senior 96 cases, Enf. Officer
199, Enf. Officer 152 and
Planner 101
588
551
Enf. Notice 17, LBEN 3, CAN
1, S.125 3, TSN 2, BCN 2,
High Hedges 2, PCN 22
4 dismissed, 1 split
1 upheld, remainder
dismissed
Category A = 1st response
within 2 working days.
Category B + 1st response
within 5 working days,
Category C = 1st response
within 30 days
Yes various as set out in
Enforcement Charter
1
Appendix 4
Runnymede
1 Enforcement Team
Leader, 2 Enforcement
Officers (1 temporary) plus
additional resources from
DC Officer for 2 days pw
varied
PCNs 53, Ens 7, BoC EN 1
South Oxon
7 officers
423
78
Spelthorne
2 officers (same grade
report to Head of DM)
336
168
Surrey Heath
1 Senior Enforcement
Officer, 1 Enforcement
Officer, reporting to
Principal Planning Officer
(0.5 fte)
257
103 (annual)
299
1041
625
550
155
466
2 monitoring, 194 breach 5 PCN, 7 Enforcement
resolved, 80 no further notices, 2 stop notices, 1
action, 235 no breach
breach of condition notices
409
390
3 operational
development, 3 change of
use, 7 breach of condition
notice, 1 planning
contravention notice
99
20 Enforcement notices, 17
planning contravention
notices, 6 stop notices
(including temporary), 3
breach of conditions
Vale of White
3 officers
Hourse
450
231 (54%)
currently unable to provide currently unable to provide
a reliable figure due to
a reliable figure due to
software problem.
software problem.
16 PCN, 1 TSN
11
207 from current year, but
494 cases closed in total
exact figure not available PCN 8, TSN 1, SN 1, EN 15,
which includes a number of
but estimated at 50%
BCN 0
backlog/historic cases
Waverley
1 Team leader, 1 Senior
Enforcement Officer, 3
Enforcement officers, 1
Enforcement technician
Woking
2 Planning Enforcement
Officers (1 Senior Planning
Enforcement Officer 1
Planning Enforcement
Officer)
414
288 Senior Enforcement
Officer, 126 Planning
Enforcement Officer
Wycombe
10 - in addition to the
dedicated Compliance
Officers (3.9fte), the
Development Management
Officers deal with all
householder complaints.
455
45.5
493
01/04/2011 31/10/2011
Team structure
No. of cases received
Total no. of cases per
officer
No. of cases closed
Aylesbury
Vale
1 team leader, 3
enforcement officers, 1
admin officer
409
136 per EO
375
No. of cases closed due to No and type of Notices
negotiated solution
served
91 ceased, 43 consent
granted
10 Enforcement notices, 1
TSN
0
0
3 operational
development, 2 material
change of use, 2 part
upheld (same site), 1
withdrawn
8 in total, 5 operational
development, 3 material
change of use
Site visit within 5 working
days of letter
acknowledging request to
18 dismissed, 1 withdrawn investigate. Course of
enforcement action to be
determined within 10
weeks on 70% of cases.
0
0
22
0
0
3 lodged and 5 determined
0
0
3 unauthorised change of
use, 7 operational
development
0
0
1
2
No. of injunctions served
7 (2 hearing, 1 inquiry, 4
written reps)
0
1 operational development
upheld (ground d)
None
2
15
No. of cases where direct No. and type of
action has been taken enforcement appeals
0
no
Site visit within 10 working
days
2 written representations,
2 public inquiry, 1 hearing
0
3
1 PI, 13 WR (7 for same
site)
% investigated within 8
weeks and % resolved
within 8 weeks.
3 upheld, 1 allowed in part,
1 allowed
5.5 dismissed
No indicators monitored at
present
No. of enforcement
appeals upheld
Performance indicators
used - details
6 determined, 0 allowed
time to visit site, time for
decision on action, to to
close householder
complaints.
2
Appendix 4
East Dorset
1 Senior Planning Officer, 1
Enforcement Officer, 1
Assistant Enforcement
Officer (0.77 fte)
241
data not available
294
data not available
46 PCN, 1 Stop notice, 16
Enforcement notices, 3
BOC, 1 S.215
0
1
2 Public Inquiries, 1 IH, 2
written representations
All awaiting decision
No. of cases closed in 6
weeks (target 60%). Data
collected for this period
shows that 62% were
closed in the 6 week
period. New indicators are
being prepared to monitor
new service standards set
out in newly adopted
Planning Enforcement
Charter.
5 Enforcement Notices and
13 PCNs
0
7 Enforcement notices, 9
PCNs, 3 TSN, 1 Article 4,
1BCN
0
0
1 public inquiry, 2 hearings,
1 written representation
2
Same as in 01/04/10 to
31/03/11 but changing in
2012.
0
0
0
0
complainant contacted
within 5 working days and
site visit within 10 working
days.
0
0
Elmbridge
459
Data not collected, average
40 at any given time
513
No data held
Guildford
1 Principal Officer, 1 Senior
Officer, 3 Enforcement
Officers, 1 Technician (pt),
1 Compliance/Plan Check
Officer (pt)
462
92 cases on average per
officer
240
233
Mole Valley
1 Enforcement Officer
280 to date
265
negotiated for closure 265
New Forest
Team leader, Senior
planning officer, planning
officer, enforcement
officer, enforcement officer
(pt), assistant planning
officer (pt) enforcement
technician (pt)
FT officers 119, 92 and 66 Pt officers 88, 50 and 37
558
Not available
7 enforecement notices, 1
BCN, 7 PCN, 2 S.330
0
0
2 hearings, 2 public
inquiries, 3 written
representations, 1 fast
track
0
3 appeals all Enforcement
Notices (written
representations)
5
Poole
1 Enforcement Manager, 2
Enforcement Officers
586
194
576
207
12 Enforcement Notices, 2
planning contraventions,
11 Breach of condition
notices, 14 tree
replacement notices
Reigate and
Banstead
1 Senior Enforcement
Officer, 2 Enforcement
Officers and one Town
Planner on secondment to
learn enforcement
310
Senior 78, Enf. Officer `06,
Enf. Officer 74 and Planner
52
265
249
Enf. Notice 7, TSN 4, BCN 2,
High Hedges 1, S.330 1 and
PCN 19
0
0
5 appeals in total (all
enforcement notice
appeals)
Runnymede
1 Enforcement Team
Leader, 2 Enforcement
Officers (1 temporary) plus
additional resources from
DC as and when including 1
DC Officer for 2 days pw
47 PCNs, 3 ENS, 1 330 EN, 1
TSN
0
0
2 to date on same site, 1
operational development ,
1 material change of use
Varied
n/a
No specific cases where
direct action has been
taken. However have
carried out direct action
project on estate agents
boards in the Borough in
September 2011
Enforcement Manager,
Compliance Officer, 2
Investigations Officers and
1 Infrastructure Monitoring
Officer
558
4
2 dismissed, 1 allowed in
part
0
Category A = 1st response
within 2 working days.
Category B + 1st response
within 5 working days,
Category C = 1st response
within 30 days
0 - all were dismissed
yes various as set out in the
Enforcement Charter and
Enforcement Strategy.
Both notices upheld (one
corrected)
3
Appendix 4
South Oxon
8 shared officers
217
215
194
114 (59%)
Spelthorne
2 officers (same grade
report to Head of DM)
214
107
Unable to provide reliable
figure due to softeware
problem
Unable to provide reliable
figure due to softeware
problem
Surrey Heath
1 Senior Enforcement
Officer, 1 Enforcement
Officer reporting to
Principal Planning Officer
(0.5 fte)
181
207 (annualised)
243 including some historic
cases
Exact figure not available PCN 16, TSN 1, SN 0, EN 4,
but estimated at 50%
BCN 0
Vale of White
8 shared officers
Horse
137
215
681
3 PCN
14
2 PCN, 1 TSN
Waverley
1 team leader, 1 senior
enforcement officer, 3
enforcement officers, 1
enforcement technicians
322
94.2
236
Woking
2 Planning Enforcement
Officers (1 Senior Planning
Enforcement Officer 1
Planning Enforcement
Officer)
198
142 Senior Enforcement
Officer, 56 Planning
Enforcement Officer
202
196
2 operational
development, 2 breach of
condition notice,1 planning
contravention notice
38
5 enforcement notices, 7
planning contravention
notices, 2 stop notices
(including temporary), 4
breach of condition
1
Wycombe
14
315
22.5
2 monitoring, 102 breach 6 PCN, 5 enforcement
resolved, 32 no further notices, 1 stop notices, 0
action, 168 no breach
breach of conditions
0
0
29
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 unauthorised change of
use, 1 operational
development
0
0
no
1 operational development
None, currently under
upheld (ground a) 2
review
appeals outstanding
Site visit within 7 working
days of letter
acknowledging request to
investigate. Course of
enforcement action to be
determined within 10
weeks on 70% of all cases.
6 (3 hearing, 2 written reps,
1 inquiry)
1 written representation
0
site visit within 7 working
days of letter
acknowledging request to
17 dismissed, 5 withdrawn investigate. Course if
enforcement action to be
determined within 10
weeks on 70% of all cases.
5
3
% resolved within 12
weeks.
1 allowed
3 dismissed.
4
Appendix 5
Case 1
Planning Enforcement Task Group – Case 1
Premises Address
Date of Complaint
Nature of Complaint
Chronology of events
The Long Barn, High Barn Road, Effingham RH5 6SU. EN/11/00452.
12 September 2011.
Demolition has started (10/P/01279), large vehicles damaging road, trees,
hedgerow.
Following a site visit in September 2011 areas of potential unauthorised
development were identified.
16/09/2011 – Site visit conducted.
19/09/2011 – Telephone call from Agent regarding excavations on site
and new access.
19/09/2011 – Complainant updated.
03/11/2011 – Site visit conducted and it was confirmed by the
Construction Director that the structural void was not a basement.
04/11/2011 – Telephone call from Agent regarding lack of information
provided in relation to the ‘void’ or to discharge pre-commencement
conditions.
04/11/2011 – Telephone call from Agent regarding submission of
further information required.
07/11/2011 – Email from Agent regarding submission of details for
outstanding conditions.
07/11/2011 – Update new complainant with current situation regarding
the development.
08/11/2011 – Email from Agent in response to earlier telephone
conversation regarding development and possible submission of
application for a basement.
08/11/2011 – Email to Agent regarding possible application for a
basement.
08/11/2011 – Telephone call from Agent regarding that the ‘void’
remain as such and that a basement would not be considered.
08/11/2011 – Email from Agent that development would be built to the
approved scheme.
15/11/2011 - Email from Agent with further requested information.
15/11/2011 – Email to Agent seeking clarification of information
provided.
21/11/2011 – Complainant updated.
23/11/2011 – Site inspection and ‘void was under construction.
29/11/2011 – Email to Agent as further complaint received regarding
out of hours working.
30/11/2011 – Email from Agent in response to out of hours working.
05/12/2011 – Complainant updated.
06/12/2011 – Email from Complainant with photographs showing
unauthorised work to the land at the rear of the site. Reply sent.
06/12/2011 – Email sent to Agent requesting that work on the land at
the rear of the site stop.
06/12/2011 – Email from Local Councillor requesting that urgent action
be taken. Reply sent.
06/12/2011 – Complainant updated.
07/12/2011 – Telephone call from Agent confirming that work on land
to the rear of the site had been stopped.
07/12/2011 – Temporary Stop Notice prepared.
08/12/2011 – Temporary Stop Notice served and copy placed on site.
Appendix 5
Case 1
Enforcement Action
issued
Outcome (if
applicable)
Date Resolved (if
applicable)
Lessons Learnt/
Way Forward (if
applicable)
09/12/2011 - Telephone call from Applicants Legal Representative to
arrange meeting regarding the site .
13/12/2011 – Meeting arranged for 20/12/2011 at Millmead.
14/12/2011 – Site visited buit unable to gain access to site.
15/12/2011 – Enforcement Report prepared.
16/12/2011 – Email from further complainant regarding the
development. Reply sent.
19/12/2011 – Email received from Local Councillor giving details of
meeting between residents and contractors.
19/12/2011 – Telephone call from complainant requesting update.
20/12/2011 – Meeting held with Applicants representatives.
21/12/2011 – Work stopped on site following site being made safe.
23/12/2011 – Site meeting arranged for 03/01/2012 to check slab levels
with Principal Planning Officer and Contractors.
03/01/2012 – Site visit conducted and slab levels agreed.
04/01/2012 – Conditions discharged as agreed at previous meeting.
05/01/2012 – Work on new dwelling resumed. Work on land to rear of
site still suspended, as agreed.
Temporary Stop Notice served on 08/12/2011.
Work on new dwelling continuing as approved. Awaiting draft Section 106
Agreements for use of ‘void’ and reinstatement of land at the rear of the site.
This will also be dependent on an acceptable proposal being received
regarding the reinstatement of the land to as near to its original condition, as
possible.
Ongoing.
Appendix 5
Case 2
Planning Enforcement Task Group – Case 2
Premises Address
Date of Complaint
Nature of Complaint
Chronology of events
Monkshatch Garden Farm, Compton
There were multiple complaints about this site – it appears that they
commenced in 1999
Unauthorised building works
Planning permission granted 17 August 1999 for a
conversion/refurbishment of existing buildings to form a dwelling on
site. Ref – 98/P/01437
Mr Hunt bought the property around March 2001 and commenced the
implementation of this permission
Came to our attention that one building had been demolished therefore
the terms of the 1999 permission couldn’t be honoured
Once we had advised Mr Hunt of this he ceased works therefore no
need for planning enforcement action on that part of the proposal
Mr Hunt bought the property with that permission. Instead of
negotiating and discussing alternatives it seems likely that he covertly
started work on the Hay Barn to convert it to a dwelling
Whilst we were advised of other building works on the site and
investigated them, there does not appear to be specific reference from
neighbours or the PC re the conversion of the Hay Barn. Indeed it
would have been extremely difficult to see these works from any public
vantage point
o For example – email from Malcolm Airey dated 28 October
2004 relates to the erection of a large building on site
o A site visit and investigation was undertaken
o Response to Malcolm Airey 16 November 2004 dealt with
summer house and decked area
o Importantly, no follow up from Malcolm to say that we had got
the wrong development and refer us to the Barn
The files show that there are undeniably occasions where enforcement
action should have been followed up
o Reference letter from Dave Barton – 8 April 2002. This letter
deals with the unauthorised works to build a dwelling around
the permission 98/P/1437 – works stopped on the dwelling and
therefore no further action on that matter was needed.
However the letter also referred to
 Works to garage building – not pursued
 Metal gates and piers – not pursued
 Walls and dovecote – rebuilding would have been repair
– still in state of disrepair
Appendix 5
Case 2
 Retaining wall – subsequently pd
 Storage containers – subsequently removed – 30/8/02
At this time the files show that the majority of work and enforcement
effort was around the significant excavation of the land to form a large
lake
We had served an enforcement notice and stop notice relating to this
matter on 19 October 2001
The appeal decision that upheld our decision was dated 18 April 2002
The appeal documentation from the Inspectorate was not entirely clear
as to how the hole was to be filled in. Mr Hunt at the appeal had
alleged that the excavated soil had been spread on the land.
Subsequently Mr Hunt admitted that he had lied at the appeal.
o We had difficulties with compliance due to ownership problems
 Previous owner still showing on land register
 Bankruptcy issues around Mr Hunt
 Overseas company involved
o All of which were problems in bringing any successful
prosecution
We spent a lot of time negotiating with the owner, County and the EA
over this matter. In hindsight probably too much time
In an attempt to move this forward we sought advice on how much it
would cost to take direct action - approx £70k
Executive 14 July 2005 – agreed CPO of the land but this again was
not progressed due to the difficulties around the ownership issues and
the fact that we would then still have to pay for the land to be restored
We considered prosecution but again the ownership difficulties meant
that we were not satisfied that we would be successful – of course
prosecuting is no guarantee that there will be compliance with the
notice
Through negotiation the hole was filled in in 2007, at no cost to the
Council in respect of direct or CPO action – whilst this is a
considerable time period from the appeal decision the difficulties
around the legal aspects of taking action were many fold
Whilst officers did go on site from time to time it would not have been
obviously evident that the barn had been converted, as there were no
windows on the farmyard side – a fact that the appeal inspector notes
in the a more recent certificate appeal. There does not appear to be
Appendix 5
Case 2
any direct mention of the conversion until a conversation with officers
in 2006. Most letters from interested parties deal with new
building/structures or activities and did not specifically draw attention
to the hay barn
The first certificate of lawfulness was submitted in December 2007 decision was issued in May 2008. We should have determined this
application much swifter and then pursued enforcement action as a
priority. We might still have been too late though
A second and third certificate followed shortly after each refusal
Owners appealed the certificate and appeal was allowed as owners
could prove the 4 year rule - 28/06/2010
2010 – VW repair business at the top of Monkshatch site. Enforcement
notice issued May 2011. Planning permission refused in July 2011
Planning appeal submitted – awaiting outcome
Enforcement Action
issued
Outcome (if
applicable)
Date Resolved (if
applicable)
Lessons Learnt/
Way Forward (if
applicable)
Enforcement notice and stop notice 2001 - lake
Enforcement notice re vehicle repairs - 2011
Awaiting decision
Lake resolved in 2007
Barn conversion resolved in 2010
VW repair business – awaiting outcome
Always do a comprehensive site visit on complex, controversial sites
o
o
o
o
o
Have an inquisitive mind
Question everything – even if it might not be the matter that you
have come to site for – this includes planning officers who may
be on a site for another reason
Take comprehensive notes/records
Take date stamped photos and record the position they were
taken from
Identify buildings or with labels such as barn A, piece of land Z
and note these on a plan
Sites that generate multiple complaints from multiple complainants will
require the establishment of a small action team – to include legal
officers, Enforcement and DC officers. A senior officer will manage the
team. The role of the team will be to share the case and seek advice
on progress (set a timetable), procedure and action – including keeping
complainants informed. The team could run a datalog/timeline setting
out actions, correspondence, site visits etc. This team to be an early
warning system for senior management.
Watch out for smoke screens – diversion tactics – by aware of other
like cases or like sites and connections.
Appendix 5
Case 2
Inject additional pace into dealing with formal enforcement notices and
applications that have arisen from an enforcement case or an
application that might lead to enforcement action. We can always
withdraw notices if necessary, serving a notice will stop time running
while we investigate further and when serving we can reserve our
position.
Set up a template for reports
Everything to be recorded onto the Acolaid system including
appropriate, important and relevant verbal conversations. Where
officers do not have access to the system then emails to be sent so
that they can be attached to the record.
Use the full range of our powers – there were occasions that we could
not get on site – have a locksmith on standby where necessary.
Greater use of planning contravention notices as a prelude to
enforcement action.
PINS now choose the appeal type but where we consider that the
appeal ought to be heard by hearing or Public Inquiry, for reasons of
cross examination, then a case needs to be made.
Set up a system of appeal learning on a regular basis – what have we
learnt that could be used in other cases?
Consider carefully with senior officers whether or not to invite planning
applications or certificates of lawfulness where we know we are likely to
refuse planning permission or we have the necessary evidence such
that the 4/10 year rule can’t be proved.
Always respond to complainants in good time throughout the life of the
case.
Consider issuing a press release on controversial cases at relevant
points in the time line of the case – even if this isn’t used by the press
then we will have the information in place so that we can respond to a
press inquiry more quickly. It can always go on our web site.
o
o
o
Service of notice
Appeal date
Following receipt of decision
Appendix 5
Case 3
Planning Enforcement Task Group – Case 3
Premises Address
Date of Complaint
Nature of Complaint
Chronology of events
Guildford Golf Club, Grove Road, Guildford, GU1 2HL
3 October 2011
Creating of ‘Pitch and putt’ area without planning permission
Complaint received alleging that unauthorised works had occurred at
the site.
Temporary Stop Notice served on 4 October 2011 requiring all works
relating to the unauthorised development to cease. The Notice would
expire on 31 October 2011.
Valid planning application (11/P/01826) received on 13 October 2011
(application to be presented to Committee on 10 January 2012).
Letter received on 7 November 2011 from the Chairman of Golf Club
confirming that no further works (other than the re-seeding of the land
which was agreed with Head of Planning Services) shall continue until
all the necessary permissions are in place.
Enforcement Action
issued
Outcome (if
applicable)
Date Resolved (if
applicable)
Lessons Learnt/
Way Forward (if
applicable)
Temporary Stop Notice served 4 October 2011, ceased to be effective on 31
October 2011.
Planning application recommended for approval and to be presented to
Committee on 10 January 2012
N/A
Appendix 5
Case 4
Planning Enforcement Task Group – Case 4
Premises Address
Date of Complaint
Nature of Complaint
Chronology of
events
8 Ludlow Road, Guildford
February 2010
That the Council did not act quickly enough to issue enforcement
proceedings and how he was dealt with by officers
Concerns were raised in February 2010 that building works
had started on site and whether or not planning permission
was required.
Planning application 10/P/919 for single storey side and rear
extensions was received on 14 May 2010 (The plans
detailed a different scheme to the one that was being built
out on site)
Application 10/P/919 was referred to members of the
Planning Committee on 20 July 2010 with a recommendation
to approve.
No enforcement action was considered whilst officers were
recommending approval
The application recommendation was overturned and the
application was refused for two reasons. The decision notice
was issued on 27 July 2010. Councillors indicated that they
wanted officers to take enforcement action.
The complainant felt that we should have issued a STOP
notice or Temporary STOP notice immediately.
During August 2010, there was significant discussion about
whether or not it was expedient to take enforcement action
because of the permitted development fallback position and
the potential for a substantial costs award against the
Council.
The situation was compounded by the government issuing
comprehensive technical guidance at the beginning of
August that tried to clarify various aspects of permitted
development.
The appellants continued to build on site (without planning
permission) although what they built out was not what they
applied for and refused (10/P/919). They insisted that what
they were building out would be permitted development.
Following various discussions, site visits meetings with
councillors and complainant, an enforcement notice was
served on 2 September 2010.
Appendix 5
Case 4
There was general reluctance on behalf of officers to take
action, as what had been built out was close to permitted
development. There were also examples of similar single
storey extensions along Ludlow Road. Officers felt the case
for enforcement was weak. The pressure to take action was
great.
The appellants appealed both the refusal of planning
permission and the enforcement notice and tried to fast track
the planning appeal.
The appellants made serious defamatory statements in their
written representation about officers and councillors and the
Council asked that the appeal be subject to the normal
written representations procedure so that the Council could
make comments. We would not have been able to under the
fast track procedure.
A planning Inspector determined the appeal and advised
that neither the dormer window or the single storey
extensions built out were permitted development and
needed planning permission. He was satisfied with both
elements and granted planning permission for both.
The appellants submitted a cost appeal as well, and this was
dealt with separately by the Planning Inspector. The
Inspector felt that the reasons for refusal and reasons for
serving the enforcement notice were not strong enough to
warrant dismissing the appeal, but they were sound planning
reasons and the Council was justified in putting them
forward. He also made comment that it was not unusual for
councillors to go against an officer recommendation to
approve. The Inspector concluded that unreasonable
behaviour resulting in wasted expense had not been
demonstrated. No costs were awarded to the appellant.
Almost a year to the day (September 2011) the applicants
submitted a compensation claim against the Council for all
the hardship they had been through and experienced. This
was strongly refuted by senior officers and the applicant was
advised that they had sought costs through the correct
channels (the Inspectorate). They no longer appear to be
pursuing the claim
We have also received a very detailed complaint from the
next door neighbour who was most affected by the
development. He has made it clear that he is seeking
Appendix 5
Case 4
compensation for all the hardship and upset that he
experienced and will not let the matter drop. We have so far
responded to a detailed stage 1 and lengthy stage 2
complaints and it is very likely that he will write to our Chief
Executive with a stage 3 complaint in January 2012. His
intention is to take the matter all the way.
Enforcement Action
issued
Outcome
Date Resolved (if
applicable)
Lessons Learnt/
Way Forward (if
applicable)
Enforcement notice issued on 2 September 2010 requiring the
reduction in the width of the extension built out so that it fell within
the permitted development parameters (less than half the width of
the house) and to set back the dormer window so that it complied
with the permitted development criteria
Appeals allowed on 31 January 2011 and enforcement notice
quashed and costs appeal dismissed
Matter resolved by virtue of appeal decisions being allowed.
However stage 1 and stage 2 complaints received from the next
door neighbour very unhappy with the way in which the whole
matter was dealt with. Therefore ongoing
Looking back it was one of those cases whereby nobody was
happy…neighbour/complainant; applicant; councillors; planning
officer and enforcement officer
We still probably would have not served a temporary/STOP notice
as issues of compensation or costs would have been greatly
heightened /exacerbated.
Should we have resisted the pressure to take enforcement action?
Very difficult as the pressure from the neighbour and councillors
was significant.
It was one of those cases where officers never felt we were going to
win.
Appendix 5
Case 5
Planning Enforcement Task Group – Case 5
Premises Address
Date of Complaint
Nature of Complaint
Chronology of events
Enforcement Action
issued
Outcome (if
applicable)
Date Resolved (if
40, Nightingale Road, Guildford, Surrey GU1 1ER.
24 August 2010. EN/10/00402.
Unauthorised use of house for multiple occupancy.
08/09/2010 – Email to complainant advising that complaint is under
investigation.
15/09/2010 – Site visit conducted and owner was spoken to on the
telephone.
16/09/2010 – Email to Councillor Furniss is response to telephone call,
giving update.
16/09/2010 – Meeting arranged with Agent and Owner for 22/09/2010.
29/09/2010 – Email sent to Agent regarding the current use of the main
house and the unauthorised conversion of the coach house to
residential accommodation, for proposals to deal with the issues.
08/11/2010 – Email from Environmental Health Officer regarding HMO
licence.
14/01/2011 – Email from Agent stating that a Planning Consultant has
been appointed by his client to deal with planning application.
14/01/2011 – Email to Agent requesting time scale for submission of
planning application.
14/02/2011 – Invalid planning application submitted for the HMO. No
application yet submitted for coach house.
23/03/2011 – Telephone call from complainant, who was updated on
current situation.
13/04/2011 – Further site visit conducted with Planning Officer and
Owner. House has been changed since the original site visit and now
appears to meet HMO requirements.
24/05/2011 – Planning applications for conversion of the coach house
and HMO refused.
28/07/2011 – Email to Agent enquiring what action his client is
proposing to appeal against the refusals.
04/08/2011 – Revised planning applications being submitted.
04/08/2011 – Revised landscaping scheme being submitted.
02/11/2011 – Email sent to Agent requesting update on applicants
intended course of action to address refused planning applications.
02/11/2011 – Email from Agent that pre-application request will be
submitted for amended scheme, addressing the issues relating to the
site.
17/11/2011 – Email to Agent from Planning Officer in response to email
on 02/11/2011.
30/11/2011 – Email from Agent stating that revised application being
submitted to address the outstanding issues.
30/11/2011 – Email sent to Agent requesting that new applications be
submitted by 09/01/2012 or Enforcement action will be commenced.
06/01/2012 – To date no applications have been received. Meeting to
be arranged with Planning Officer to agree areas to be subject to
enforcement and recommendations.
Enforcement report to be submitted, following meeting with Planning Officer.
Ongoing.
N/A.
Appendix 5
Case 5
applicable)
Lessons Learnt/
Way Forward (if
applicable)
Enforcement Action should have been commenced following refusal of initial
planning applications.
Appendix 5
Case 6
Planning Enforcement Task Group – Case 6
Premises Address
Date of Complaint
Nature of Complaint
Chronology of events
Enforcement Action
issued
Outcome (if
applicable)
Date Resolved (if
applicable)
Lessons Learnt/
Way Forward (if
applicable)
Land to the rear of High Street, Ripley, Guildford, Surrey GU23
1 November 2007 – ENF/07/00796
Unauthorised Change of Use from agricultural use to use for the stationing of
residential mobile homes and unauthorised development including the
formation of hardstandings and drainage.
In November 2007 Gypsies/Travellers were reported to be settling
onto the site. Over the next few months several visits were made to
the site by Planning Enforcement Officers and the Environmental
Health Gypsy Liaison Officer who was at this time undertaking site
and welfare assessments.
In April 2008 a further site visit by these officers revealed that the
remaining Travellers indicated that they would be leaving the site as
they had accommodation elsewhere. The site was then vacated until
March 2009.
In March 2009 further Gypsies/Travellers moved onto the site.
A Planning application 09/P/01651 for a change of use of the site was
refused on 15 February 2010.
Following welfare and site assessments an Enforcement Notice was
served on the 22 March 2010 requiring; cease the use of the as a
caravan site; permanently remove all caravans and mobile homes
from the land. Remove all hard surfaces and the resulting materials
from the land with a compliance period of 3 months. The notice took
effect on the 30 April 2010.
An appeal was lodged against the Enf Notice on 17 June 2010.
In September 2010 reports received from Ripley Police that the
Travellers were vacating the site.
The appeal under ground (a) was withdrawn in August 2010 along
with an appeal against a refusal of planning permission (09/P/01651).
The remaining ground of appeal for an extension to the time period for
compliance was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on 28
February 2011 and the 3 month compliance period came into affect.
Emails exchanged with the agent with regard to the removal of the
hardstandings.
Notice issued 22 March 2010.
Letters sent to all appellants in March 2011 reminding them that the
compliance period had commenced and when it expired.
Discussions regarding the non compliance with the Enforcement Notice – no
responses from the owners of the land and no compliance. The only way
forward would be for GBC to take direct action but it is understood that there
is no budget for this action to be taken.
Ongoing
Appendix 5
Case 7
Planning Enforcement Task Group – Case 7
Premises Address
Date of Complaint
Nature of Complaint
Chronology of events
Deanlands, Guildford Road, Normandy, GU3 2AR
22 August 2011
Erection of stables and greenhouse
01/09/2011 Telephone call to owner to arrange site visit.
06/09/2011 Site visit, discussed the erection of both buildings and the area of
residential curtilage. The owner’s opinion is that the greenhouse is inside of
the residential curtilage. Officer agreed to investigate previous history and
aerial photographs.
20/09/2011 – Letter sent to owner confirming that it has been assessed that
both the greenhouse and stables require planning permission as outside of
residential curtilage.
21/10/2011 – Planning applications received:
11/P/01890 Stables
11/P/01892 Greenhouse.
22/12/2011 – Telephone call with agent discussed refusal of greenhouse and
arranged meeting with owner and agent for January to discuss way forward.
Enforcement Action
issued
Outcome (if
applicable)
Date Resolved (if
applicable)
Not applicable at current time.
Lessons Learnt/
Way Forward (if
applicable)
Not applicable at current time.
Not applicable as still outstanding issue of greenhouse.
Stables approved reference 11/P/01890
Greenhouse outstanding.
Appendix 6
QUESTIONNAIRE TO RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATIONS AND PARISH COUNCILS
Responses to the questionnaire were received from the following 18 Parish Councils and 14
Resident Associations:
Parish Councils
Compton
East Clandon
East Horsley
Effingham
Normandy
Ockham
Pirbright
Puttenham
Ripley
Seale and Sands
Send
Residents Associations
Abbotswood Residents Association
Abbotswood - NW Spur & Abbotswood Close
Clayton Drive Residents Association
CPRE Surrey, Guildford District
Merrow Residents Association
Ockham & Hatchford Residents Association
Pine Walk Residents Association
Queen Elizabeth Park (in Stoughton Ward)
*Seal, Sands, & Runfold Amenity Society.
The Ripley Society
Westborough Allotments Self Help Association
Westborough, Broadacres & District Residents
Association
Wood Street Village Association
Worrels Drive Association
Shackleford
Shalford
Shere
Tongham
Warnborough
West Horsley
Worplesdon
*- Most of their enforcement action carried out by Surrey CC; did not complete questionnaire
Some respondents ticked more than one box for some questions; some did not tick any.
1
Appendix 6
Q1. Making an enquiry to the Planning Enforcement Team
a) Did your organisation know who to contact regarding your enquiry?
Did your organisation know who to contact regarding your enquiry?
15
10
5
0
Yes
No
Some of us do, some
of us don't
Parish
11
4
1
RA
12
3
b) How would you make your initial enquiry?
How would you make your initial enquiry?
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Telephone (direct
line)
Telephone (via
switchboard)
E-mail
Via the Website
Parish
7
6
12
3
RA
7
4
8
3
Other - please
state below
2
*Other – please state below:
Visit to Council Planning Dept
Via our councillors
Other comments on Question 1b):
Prefer to contact Planning Enforcement via all methods except direct telephone to an
officer in order call is logged with the SERVICE, and not unregistered/lost by an
officer, which you only realise much later on.
If calling via switchboard, 99 times out of 100 greeted by voicemail which is often not
followed up.
Planning enquiry desk at Millmead is always helpful
We feel that a direct telephone call is the best route which should be followed up by a
return call or email to report progress within 10 days.
2
Appendix 6
Q2. Your experience with the Planning Enforcement service
a) Our complaints are dealt with in a timely fashion
Our complaints are dealt with in a timely fashion
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Parish
1
8
2
4
3
RA
1
4
5
2
3
b) We were kept informed of progress
We were kept informed of progress
8
6
4
2
0
Parish
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
1
6
3
3
5
4
3
6
3
RA
c) We feel that we are treated fairly and that out viewpoint was listened to
We feel that we are treated fairly and that our viewpoint was listened
to
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Parish
1
8
6
2
1
RA
1
6
4
2
2
3
Appendix 6
d) We understand the reason behind the actions taken by the Planning Enforcement Team
We understand the reason behind the actions taken by the Planning
Enforcement Team
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly agree
Parish
RA
1
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
8
8
1
6
4
1
Strongly
disagree
3
e) The outcome of the investigations matched our initial expectation
The outcome of the investigations matched our initial expectations
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Parish
3
11
2
RA
3
5
3
Strongly agree
Strongly
disagree
4
4
Appendix 6
Q3. Overall Satisfaction
Taking into account your answers to Question 2, please give us your opinion of the overall
service provided
Taking into account your answers to Question 2, please give
us your opinion of the overall service provided
10
8
6
4
2
0
Parish
RA
Excellent
1
Good
5
3
Satisfactory
2
2
Needs improvement
9
9
Parishes
31%
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
56%
Needs improvement
13%
Residents Associations
7%
20%
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
60%
13%
Needs improvement
5
Appendix 6
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
Responses broadly categorised as follows:
Parishes
5
RAs
Inadequate feedback (irregular, not enough information)
Lack of joint working/close working relationship between agencies (Legal, Env.
3
Health, Environment Agency etc.)
3
1
Lack of staff
4
Long delays in big cases (time lapse leading to consent by default)
3
1
No set time scales for resolution/taking it to next level
3
1
Parish councillors and residents have to chase/put pressure for response
2
Enforcement Team has reputation for having no clout/ability to enforce
2
2
Lack of feedback
1
1
Inconsistent Planning decisions*
1
4
Inconsistent quality of service
1
1
Lack of distinction between Enforcement and Building/Development Control
1
1
Lack of implementation/enforcement
2
Lack of action regarding allotments
* Outside scope of Task and Finish Group
Other comments
Would be useful to know whether enforcement is split by area parish.
Officers should maintain neutral distance from both complainants and offenders
We have seen improved performance over the last three months
The front office planning staff are always helpful and courteous in their dealings with
the public
There should be more rigorous checks earlier in the process to discourage
retrospective action.
Suggestions
GBC should run regular planning courses for parish councillors
Enforcement cases should be listed on the planning portal, rather than have to ring in
Information on enforcement notices should be sent to parish clear and councillor
dealing with planning as soon as possible in order to respond thoroughly
The majority of the Planning Committee should attend site visits, not just 1 or 2 out of
20
6
Appendix 6
Planning Enforcement – Scrutiny Task Group
Responses to other questions.
1. East Clandon Parish Council
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
Difficult to answer most questions because we have not contacted Enforcement
Service recently.
Officer comment: No comment
2. Compton Parish Council
Q1. Making an enquiry to the Planning Enforcement Team
For regular planning matter we would normally use the website and email / letter. For
enforcement we might seek clarification via telephone and use written
correspondence thereafter as there doesn’t appear to the an on-line facility. There is
no obvious route to enforcement on the website other than the mineral plan which
goes through SCC.
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
Despite errors that would in any other business be classifies as gross negligence and
warrant disciplinary action, GBC’s planning dept. are satisfied to ‘learn from the
mistakes’ and we are asked to accept this. It is also of great concern that at a recent
hearing (Wancom) and others we have heard about that GBC’s representation has
difficulty matching the very detailed and knowledgeable representations given on
behalf of appellant’s solicitors. Indeed GBC did not have a legal representative at the
last hearing we attended (Wancom) as far as I know and apart from Tony Rooth, no
senior representatives. Ie Mr Green (appellant’s solicitor) argued every single point
very strongly, giving case evidence to support his case / point of view). His appeals
were indeed heart-felt and his passion / belief in his ‘cause’ strengthened his case
against one based on ‘technicalities’ and without any senior representation from the
planning dept. We still hope that common sense will prevail, although sadly this
appears to have little stance in the planning world.
There is great concern that the need to carry out enforcement in a timely cost
effective way overrides the need for thoroughness and tenacity required to achieve
the appropriate result. The latter may well involve personal representation rather than
postal representation. It was agreed that personal representation at the Monks Hatch
Garden Farm (MHGF) property case might have led to a better result. Despite this,
written representations have been permitted yet again for a the current appeal
against enforcement notice at MHGF. Compton Parish Council was not consulted
(despite previous issues).
The review meeting with Sue Sturgeon, chaired by Cllr. Wickes was shortly after a
similar case in Hertfordshire involving Mr A Beesley where Herts Council continued
to object to the ‘hidden house’ and a supreme court in the end ruled that the house
should be demolished. When asked whether we too couldn’t appeal against the
Inspectorates decision we were informed that our case had ‘timed out’ despite having
never been informed of our rights to appeal or the time lines involved.
The letter sent to Compton Parish Council by Mr Hill, makes a number of points that
we fail to understand or agree with, but having had the review and a ‘we will
7
Appendix 6
endeavour to do better’ letter we have not responded as there seems little point.
Following the review, the question that still remains unanswered is as follows;
‘ do you feel that it s sufficient to simply review and learn from your mistakes without
taking any further action? If the answer is yes (i.e. you accept poor performance as
long as an apology is given) then please let us know in what cirmcumstances you
would seek further action and if the answer is no please state (in as far as you are
able) what action will take place’.
We would like an answer to this question. To simply state that disciplinary action
would follow matters relating to ‘gross misconduct’ is a blanket answer to a specific
question, which related to planning.
In direct comparison to the MHGF case where a barn can be converted to a house
and where a case officer then ‘missed’ the property in question and filed a report on
the summer house…we have a fairly straight forward application of a replacement
(smaller) extension where no less than 5 case officers micro-managed the project on
such a scale that the health of the (highly respected) owners was affected. (The
Grange). The people in question are very knowledgeable about planning, being a
surveyor and an ex Cllr. and have had no previous issues with the dept. to warrant
such attention.
When Cllr Haskins took on the role of planning at Parish Council level he attended a
course with GBC, which I understand was of great benefit. Given that very few of us
at Parish Council level have qualifications or experience in this field, I would
recommend that GBC run regular courses and produce succinct support material for
affiliated bodies as this improves communications all round.
It would also be useful to have enforcement cases listed on the planning portal. The
inspectorate at the recent Wancom hearing appeared to think we had access to this
material on-line but when we asked GBC for a link we were told that it wasn’t
available and one had to ring in?
Information relating to enforcement notices should be sent to the Clerk and the Cllr
dealing with planning as soon as possible to permit a thorough response. The matter
relating to the current enforcement notice at MHGF was sent to the wrong person
(despite having been informed of the change several times). By the time it reached
the correct person he was on holiday and had the Chairman not been so involved in
the case, it could have passed by without representation from the Parish Council.
At a recent contentious planning application (Priorsfield School) survey, approx. 20
people from the planning committee were invited to carry out a site visit. As I
understand it, only 1 or possibly 2 people attended, One person spoke against the
application and this was without appropriate notes. We fail to understand how
attendees can argue for or against a major development without a site visit, when the
location is key deciding factor.
Please note that the answer to 2d refers to the fact that the following a review of the
MHGF case, the reasons for the decision GBC made were explained, hence we
understand why the decisions were made. We do not however agree with all of the
decisions that were made or the way in which they were made.
Like wise 2e given the poor level of response and general understanding of the case
prior to the review and the dismissive letters from Mr Hill, we did not expect a great
result and we did not get a great result and hence one could argue that as our
expectation were low, they were met.
8
Appendix 6
It is good to see that improvement have been made although the Departments
prevarication over legal sites for gypsies is leading to retrospective planning being
given to illegal pitches, which some see as GBC avoiding their responsibilities.
Officer comment: In respect of the Gypsy and Traveller Hearing, (Wancom) it would
not have been appropriate to have legal representation present. The Planning
Inspector may not have allowed the Hearing to continue had we arrived with either a
solicitor or barrister as part of our team. Nick Upton who led the Hearing is an
experienced senior planner. Councillor Tony Rooth who was present on the day of
the Hearing and also gave evidence was perfectly happy with our officer’s
performance.
The Monkshatch appeal was determined to be a written representations appeal
following consultation with the ward councillor Neil Ward. The situation could not
occur again as the Planning Inspectorate now determine the form of appeal.
The following paragraphs seek to re-open the Monkshatch review. Officers consider
that this case was fully explored; lessons were learnt and now have no further
comment on the case.
In terms of training we do have an annual programme of councillor training and
recently undertook a Parish Council and Councillor training event on Enforcement
and Material Planning considerations. The Development Control Manager meets on
average between 4-6 Parish Councils on an informal basis each year for training and
a question and answer session
3. East Horsley Parish Council Planning and Environment Committee
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
1. We would like to see Enforcement show “more backbone” in dealing with cases.
2. We would welcome the opportunity of meeting with GBC Enforcement to help
facilitate communications and develop a better understanding on both sides.
Officer comment: The Development Control Manager is meeting representatives of
East Horsley Parish Council on 22 March to discuss Development Control and
Enforcement issues.
4. Effingham Parish Council
Q1. Making an enquiry to the Planning Enforcement Team
The Clerk uses all of the above EXCEPT by telephone direct line to a specific officer.
This is so that the Planning Enforcement SERVICE can record the call centrally and
distribute it to the correct individual subsequently. If you don’t do this, cases can go
unregistered and get lost, which you will only find out about much later.
Q2. Your experience with the Planning Enforcement service
Answer to Q2 a) b) & c):
If speaking of relatively minor infringements where the activity required by the officer
is fairly straightforward, the box to tick would be Agree.
9
Appendix 6
If speaking of potentially significant infringements, the box to tick would be ‘Strongly
disagree’. This is because, after an initial assessment of the situation and general
agreement about the severity, the experience has been that you will not hear another
thing unless you contact the officer, and then all you will hear is reasons why the
system has stagnated; nothing effective or conclusive is being done.
Answer to d)
The answer again depends on the severity of the case. If it is minor, the reasons
advanced by the Enforcement Officers for their actions are usually easy to
‘understand’. If it is major issue, experience shows that any number of reasons is
brought up over time to explain away inactivity and lack of effective conclusion.
These explanations can be ‘understood’ but this is not the same as saying that the
reasons are ‘acceptable’.
Answer to e)
It is hard not to agree with this statement, but it is an ambiguous statement. Given
past experience and the performance on some cases, a statement about
expectations applies whether the outcome was 100% satisfactory or 100% wholly
unsatisfactory.
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
When big Enforcement cases blow up, just as with difficult planning applications,
parish councillors and clerks often end up in the invidious position of mediating
between members of the public and the GBC Officers. Unfortunately, all too often
these cases linger on over long periods of time so this is an uncomfortable
experience and it becomes increasingly difficult, even impossible, to maintain respect
for GBC’s performance.
For instance, the local representatives want to be able to report to residents that
cases are being treated with vigour and despatch. The public expects, and indeed
demands, this. But many serious cases seem never to attract this energy. After an
initial burst which establishes that a significant problem exists, long delays are
allowed to accumulate during which these cases languish and become moribund
without redress, much to the continued distress of residents. It must be remembered
that residents experience what they feel is injustice actively condoned by GBC, and
they cannot get over this feeling. It can make their experience of their own locality a
misery to them for years. Parish Councillors and residents feel it is up to them to do
all the work providing information and longterm pressure in these cases in order to
get anywhere towards action or resolution.
Enforcement is an undeniably difficult role in which any officer requires tenacity in the
face of the perpetrator’s attempts to divert or distract them. But all too often, in this
parish’s experience, some officers allow themselves to be put off from moving the
case on by such extremely predictable obstacles as no response to letters, dogs,
locked gates, no companion for back-up.
A close working relationship providing fast turnaround with the Legal Department is
often required for Enforcement to be effective in the big cases, but all too often we
have experienced officers blaming each other for failure to make the next step on any
case, so that all sense of impetus is lost. The perpetrators realize how easy it is
simply to spin things out as long as possible, and they can hardly be blamed for
10
Appendix 6
doing so. It has also been this parish's experience that when Planning Inspectors
have upheld GBC's legal position in enforcement appeals, actual implementation of
the action that has now been authorised does not take place. Further time lapses
while the perpetrator can just ignore the judgement that has been made against
them.
Enforcement officers need to keep a professional and neutral distance from
complainants and ‘offenders’ equally, but we have experience that often over time
officers do not maintain this impartiality or distance. A forgiving and easy familiarity
with the perpetrators, leading to amused tolerance of their ingenuity, prevarication or
cheek can be seen to develop. This is especially annoying to witness in the face of
the continued distress of residents.
Finally, the management of joint working between Planning Enforcement and one or
more other departments or institutions is often necessary for effective tackling of
problems at some sites: for instance, Cleansing, Environmental Health, SCC Waste
disposal, VOSA or the Environment Agency. It seems at present to be out of the
question to see effective action if this type of joint effort is required. ‘Clever’
perpetrators again know just how easy it is to duck and dive between the different
agencies, playing one off against another, completely unhampered in their activities.
This drives residents to distraction, because to them this constitutes the ineptitude,
powerlessness or tolerance of major wrongdoing by the major relevant authorities,
and serves to provide encouragement to others.
In support of the comments above Effingham Parish Council would cite amongst
others such examples as Two Firs Calvert Road, Leewood Farmyard, Land at
Outdowns, Three Acre Barn, Newmarsh Farm and most recently The Long Barn.
Officer comment: Timescales for the turnaround of enforcement cases has
improved following the lean review. There will always be controversial cases that
take longer.
We have to treat all parties fairly. This includes those who are complained about.
We wouldn’t be doing our job correctly if we simply took the word of complainants
and enforced without fully reviewing the situation.
There are occasions where it is difficult to gain a response from letters that are
seeking information from people about their activities.
We have powers to enter sites and the fact that there are dogs or that they are
locked doesn’t deter officers.
5. Ockham Parish Council
Q1. Making an enquiry to the Planning Enforcement Team
I do know a couple of the enforcement team and tend to approach them direct via
email – I do not know how enforcement is split up whether by area/parish etc or on a
case by case basis. This would be useful information. If you telephone via the
switchboard 99 times out of 100 you get voicemail and this is often not followed up.
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
11
Appendix 6
It is unusual for us to get an update without us pushing for one. Part of the problem
appears to be that issues are never dealt with to their conclusion so that the “to do”
list just gets longer and longer. For example – why are there never dates by which
time the problem has to be solved, dismissed or taken to the next lever? Its always a
question of “we’re waiting to hear from the land owner…” This is how many people
eventually get consent because time runs out.
Leadership is poor – this is a known issue but seems to drag on without anyone
carrying the can – it appear to us that most staff either work part time or are rarely in
the office. This may be totally legitimate but it does not give a good impression that
the job is taken seriously. It is particularly galling because parish councillors are
volunteers and we make time to get the job done.
I am sure there are a number of good news stories from enforcement but we don’t
see that side at all – what this means is that people take risks and do things that they
should do with the knowledge that the enforcement team either does not have the
clout or the ability to enforce.
Officer comment: In terms of communication officers accept that this could be
improved. We are also looking to improve the information contained within our
monthly report to councillors and Parish Councillors. The Development Control
Manager has met with Ockham PC every 6 months for the last 4 years and will
continue to do so. We will try and improve further our communication with the
Parishes.
There are no part time enforcement officers. The nature of the job is that they do
have to regularly go on site. However there is always cover left in the office and
phones are always answered.
6. Pirbright Parish Council
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
Additional feedback by updates on a regular basis would help.
Officer comment: We will be improving our monthly enforcement report
7. Ripley Parish Council
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
We have seen an upturn in performance in the last 3 months.
There are times when the service is excellent but times when we are unable to
engage with a person of sufficient experience.
Parish Council could assist far more, given the opportunity, with reporting and
updating
Feedback needs improvement.
Officer comment: We accept that communication needs to improve
8. Seale and Sands Parish Council
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
12
Appendix 6
We always seem to have inconsistencies with planning applications by GBC
decisions. We also see that enforcement is not being carried out, especially with
some long standing issues
We would like to see a status report each period regarding outstanding enforcement,
with reason for delays in it being carried out and actions currently taking place.
The public are always interest in these types of issues and get baffled as we do as to
why things are not resolved.
Officer comment: We will be improving the monthly enforcement report and
particularly updates on outstanding cases
9. Shackleford Parish Council
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
1) There is no problem with making the initial contact.
2) The problem is with getting feedback and/or results
3) It’s very rare to get feedback without chasing for it
4) writing to the individual officer sometimes gets a response
5) Generally the simpler stuff, eg unauthorised advertising, is dealt with quickly. It’s
the more complicated cases where there are problems
6) If the PC raises an enforcement issue, surely it is entitles to feedback
7) There are routine updates, sent every two months. This is inadequate and does
not enable us to know what is happening locally, hence we have to spend our
time and the individual officers’ time in chasing up outcomes
8) The routine updates are incomplete and give no proper information about
progress on cases
9) It is impossible to find out Whether Enforcement of Development Control is
responsible monitoring planning conditions eg EN/10/00119 the Bund
10) We have three longstanding real problems of obtaining feedback in these cases:
EN/10/00119 the bund
EN/10/00417 Molly Mackerels
EN/07/00239 Hall Place or South Site Barn
These illustrate the lack of communication from Enforcement
11) It is difficult to understand the delay in dealing with some of the cases, and much
results from the lack of communication between Enforcement and Development
Control eg Longacre Barn. Reference not known, but the case is only too well
known to the Planning Department. The history of this site and the way it has
been dealt with by GBC illustrates many of the problems we face.
Officer comment: We acknowledge the need for better communication.
10. Shere Parish Council
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
We understand the reasons behind the actions taken by the Planning Enforcement
Team but do not always agree with the rationale.
The outcome of the investigations vary.
13
Appendix 6
Officer comment: No comment
11. Tongham Parish Council
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
The parish has had very few contentious enforcement issues in recent years.
Officer comment: No comment
12. Wanborough Parish Council
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
There has been a number of long running planning issues in the Parish, most of
which have involved, or are involving, the Enforcement team. The Parish Council has
often found it difficult to discover the status of its referrals, and has often not been
informed of a referral’s progress until its conclusion.
The enforcement reports do not provide enough information on an ongoing basis.
In general, the increasingly busy enforcement team gives every appearance of being
badly under-resourced, which given the rise in the number of retrospective
applications, is unsatisfactory.
Officer comment: I don’t understand the link between an under resourced team and
more retrospective applications. We have no control on unauthorised development
and when and where it may happen.
13. West Horsley Parish Council
Q1. Making an enquiry to the Planning Enforcement Team
We feel that a direct telephone call is the best rout which should be foll owed up by a
return call or email to report progress within 10 days. In the past simple pro-former
emails have been issued rather than direct responses to the particular planning
enforcement issue.
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
In some instances we have found the response to be quick. However on a greater
number of other occasions it was felt that the particular cases were not well looked
after and that in general the departments time taken to issue a reply was far too long.
Officer comment: Since the Lean Review we have sped up the allocation of cases
and the initial investigation. The speed in which we now investigate cases has
improved greatly.
14. Worplesdon Parish Council
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
14
Appendix 6
We do not feel there are sufficient staff to deal with:
1. The number of enquiries that are received.
2. The subsequent enforcement action.
Officer comment: No comment
15
Appendix 6
Planning Enforcement – Scrutiny Task Group
Responses to other questions.
1. Abbotswood Residents Association - Central Crescent
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
It seems that residents are often the first to identify issues and then seem to have to
work very hard to convince Enforcement that a structure is not being constructed
according to the law or an approved plan. In the case of number 42 Abbotswood
residents had to press for plans to be submitted to GBC for the changes being made
and when this occurred GBC were able to see that their initial reaction, that the work
was entirely in keeping with Permitted Development Rights, was incorrect.
I am not sure if the issue lies with Building Control or Enforcement but constructions
are not checked to confirm they are in line with planning permissions early enough in
the process in order to demand that changes be made. This was the case with
number 36A Abbotswood. Again the matter was first raised by residents.
The decisions of the Planning Committee concerning retrospective applications
appear to lack consistency. In contrast to a case in Ripley, I heard debated at
Millmead, where retrospective approval was sought, supported by all the neighbours,
the Council refused it but in the case of retrospective application at 36A where all the
neighbours were against granting retrospective approval, the Council granted it.
Officer comment: The issues relating to 42 Abbotswood were not straightforward
and involved many elements. It resulted in a split decision of a certificate of
lawfulness application (11/P/2058).
Building Control will not always identify differences in the plans as owners have the
ability to utilise ‘approved inspectors (AI’s)’. We do however have a plan check
assistant whose job it is to identify differences between approved plans and building
control submissions.
We receive in the region of 130-150 retrospective planning applications per annum.
Each case needs to be determined on its own merits.
2. Abbotswood Residents Association – NW Spur & Abbotswood Close
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
Our neighbourhood has had a large number of developments in the last few years,
and overall the impact has been adverse. This arises from many factors and we hope
that the welcome classification as a Conservation Area will improve the situation for
the future.
However, this will not in itself be sufficient if there is not a rigorous check at early
stages – especially of the siting which has been a source of trouble in at least two
situations. Earlier inspection of the basics should reduce the need for retrospective
amendments at later stages which can so often generate frustration among
residents.
16
Appendix 6
Officer comment: We can fully understand the irritation RA feel over retrospective
applications. We have to process them as we would normal applications…..the same
policies apply.
Our plan checking should pick up on any differences between the approved plans
and building control submissions when we are dealing with the case.
3. Ash Green Residents Association (received after deadline)
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
We have never contacted the Enforcement Service while I have been secretary. We
do monitor the planning applications but so far have not taken it any further.
Up to this point we do not have any complaints with how the Council have interacted
with us, and have not had any problems getting in contact.
Officer comment: No comments
4. Clayton Drive Residents Association
Q1 b). How would you make your initial enquiry?
Visit to Council Planning Department
Officer comment: No comments
5. CPRE Surrey Guildford District
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
Each case is different. We have often been disappointed in the past. An example of
this is the paint ball activity in Effingham. Also the marathon of problems relating to
New Marsh Farm belonging to Ray York in Effingham. We have had difficulties too in
trying to reach a conclusion concerning Blanket Mill Pig Farm in Worplesdon and a
number of sites in Normandy (eg 4 Acre Stable, and Chapel Farm). We also have
problems with gypsy sites, in Ripley, Normandy and elsewhere.
Officer comment: The cases referred to at Delta Force, Effingham and New Marsh
Farm in Effingham are very historic cases with numerous breaches and issues. At
Four Acre Stables we have recently been successful on moving on family members
of the Mobey family who shouldn’t have been on site. Chapel Farm is a Surrey
County Council operated site.
6. Charlotteville Jubilee Trust
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
The 3 minutes that you are allowed at the meetings to address your points are very
good we are lucky to have such an opportunity
Officer comment: This comment seems to refer to public speaking at Planning
Committees, and has little reference to the workings of the enforcement team.
7. Merrow Residents’ Association
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
The M.R.A. have made a number of complaints in the last 3-4 years and even though
rapid action is often necessary it doesn’t always occur. We are sometimes told that it
will take 6-8 weeks for the matter to be addressed because of work load pressures.
We seldom get any feedback nor do we see the routine reports prepared by officers.
17
Appendix 6
We conclude that enforcement of the planning regulations and approvals must be
given a higher priority as it has the potential to cause damage to the whole planning
system.
Officer comment: The timescales for reacting to cases has improved since the lean
review. Further improvement should be seen once the charter is adopted. We are
also looking at improving the monthly report to Parish Councils. At the moment
Residents Associations do not get the monthly reports. This is something we need to
consider as to whether or not they should.
8. Ockham & Hatchford Residents Association
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
We have little confidence in the ability of the enforcement team to take any
enforcement action.
Officer comment: No comments
9. Queen Elizabeth Park Residents Association
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
We understand that the Process takes time and that responses are necessarily
measured. An indication of the probable time would assist especially as matters have
often become a concern when this Process is invoked. It is at times hard to reconcile
common sense and the final outcome against aspirations and concerns an the stated
national and local policies.
Consistency, communication and simply providing a timely response all help to keep
people informed and to avoid potential misunderstandings. Local knowledge is
clearly valuable also.
Officer comment: The enforcement charter should assist in being clear on the way
in which the team prioritises cases and the response times
10. Ripley Society
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
We have an excellent Boro’ Councillor (John Garret) & The Society tends to feel
enforcement work via him.
Officer comment: Councillor John Garrett periodically comes into the office and
talks to our enforcement officers if he is concerned about an issue or case.
11. Seale, Sands & Rumfold Amenity Society
Please provide further information about your organisation in the box below
The society works closely with Seale & Sands Parish Council. Our remit means that
most of our enforcement actions are with Surrey County Council. Where enforcement
action is needed by Guildford Borough Council, we normally work through the Parish
Council. It is a long time since we contacted GBC Enforcement Team.
I have spoken to the Chairman and I know that he will represent our views.
Officer comment: No comment
18
Appendix 6
12. Westborough Allotments Self Help Association (WASHA)
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
When it comes to enforcement it is not lost on any of use that GBC planners do not
obey dictates from higher authorities or at best use a window dressing compliance
mechanism.
The SPA Avoidance Strategy is the worst example. The EEC objective to protect
endangered species was completely ignored. Huge resources were employed to
formulate an avoidance strategy which is farcical.
The statutory duty to provide allotments is ignored. There are hundreds of people
waiting for allotments. Additional land is available on the Aldershot Road site but it
can't be used as GAS is told it is not included in their lease. The lease itself is
strangely ambivalent on this point confusing area and number of plots available.
Results from Local consultation on land use, such as the Site Allocations
consultation, are ignored. It took too long to compile the results of the Site allocation
responses and when they showed a positive response from local residents in favour
of the whole of the Aldershot Road Allotments site being used as allotments, this
produced no change.
Residents get fed us with being asked to participate in “consultations” which they
know are a wasted of time. Non participation then allows planners to use the old
excuse of “no one objected”.
Is this democracy at work?
Officer comment: Special Protection Areas and our adopted Avoidance Strategy is
governed by European Legislation and therefore officers in Development Control
have no choice but to comply with the requirements of the legislation.
Allotments are mentioned in the Local Plan, under the definition of recreational
facilities in para 13.4 (p.111), and therefore covered by Policy R1 – Loss of land and
facilities for sport and recreation. In terms of the Councils statutory duty to provide
allotments, this is normally dealt with by Elaine Miles in Legal and Democratic
Services, should further information be required. Not an issue for the Enforcement
team.
Any allocation of land for all uses will be made though the Core Strategy and site
allocations and this work is still in progress, in accordance with the agreed timescales
in the Local Development Scheme.
To form any development plan document there are many stages of consultation and
the issues and options consultation document was the first part of the allocations
process. Work has been delayed due to the South East Plan challenge and the
changes in national and regional planning policy in the last18 months to two years.
13. Westborough, Broadacres & District Residents Association
Q4. Please make any additional comments in the box below:
On the few occasions that Planning Enforcement has been contacted either by our
local Councillors or by one of our residents, Planning Enforcement Dept were not
very interested in the problems raised and took no action even though in 2
memorable cases, trees were felled ahead of Planning Approval and a house was
built with non-compliant materials.
Thus our local experience is not good.
19
Appendix 6
We also remember our neighbours in Stoughton who suffered daily with construction
traffic taking prohibited routes and causing massive disruption for months during the
QE Park development phase. Despite many protests to yourselves from Stoughton
residents and SCA the local residents Assoc, nothing happened to stop Linden
Homes and their contractors from breaching clearly agreed development guidelines.
Additionally, who is responsible for enforcing Planning legislation re Allotment
provision in the Borough? And why is nothing ever done about compelling GBC TO
honour its statutory obligations.
We would just like to end on a positive note that WBDRA and local residents have
always found the front office Planning Dept Staff most helpful and courteous in their
dealings with the public.
Officer comment: The case details and address points in relation to the two trees
and house (non compliance with materials conditions) are not provided, making it
impossible to comment on specifically. Proper control over construction traffic access
to development and lorry traffic routes is notoriously difficult as it is inevitably out of
our control and a County Council matter.
We are glad that the Residents Association finds our reception staff helpful and
courteous.
In terms of allotments this is dealt with by our colleagues in Legal and Democratic
Services. Planning Services and particularly members of the enforcement team have
no day to day involvement in the issues relating to allotments.
20
Appendix 7
Task Group - Enforcement statistical comparisons
Since April 2012 a comprehensive review of all live cases was undertaken to assess and
refocus old cases that may have stalled and to close any older cases where possible.
At the start of April 2012 there were 258 outstanding live cases. Of those, 155 cases
had been received in 2011 or earlier.
At the end of July 2012 we have 243 live cases. Of those cases only 98 had been
received in 2011 or earlier.
Of those live cases received 2011 or earlier, to date, 57 have been closed which
represents 37 percent of these older cases.
Continuous regular 1:1s with officers will continue to ensure these older cases do not
stagnate.
The refocusing of cases has brought with it an increased use of formal notices to expedite
matters. The following statistic shows the increased use:
notices served Q4 2011 – 2012 – 11
notices served Q1 2012 – 2013 – 27
We have also seen an increase in the time taken to deal with simple cases received. In the
last quarter (April – June 2012), 54 percent of cases received in that quarter were closed in
the same quarter.
Unfortunately due to how information has previously been recorded we have been unable to
produce historic records setting out the reasons why cases were closed. As part of the
review into how cases are closed this information is now stored in a dedicated Acolaid field.
This will allow us to provide more information in future quarterly monitoring reports.
The new scheme of delegation is now in place. This allows officers to draft our own
statutory notices and serve them. Two enforcement notices have now been served under
this process. We have seen a significant reduction in the amount of time taken to produce
and serve the notices.
Under the old process it would generally take six weeks to three months from the initial
drafting of the enforcement report to the service of the notice. Under the current process it
has taken approximately one week from the drafting of the enforcement report and draft
notice through to the formal service of the final enforcement notice.
Appendix 8
Appendix 9
Planning Enforcement Implementation Plan
Ref.
Issue
Status/action needed
By whom?
By when?
1
Site visit can take up to 10 days to
complete from receipt of
complaint
Changed process to allocate on day 1 of receipt. We also
need a method of monitoring the time the allocation of
cases takes to get to officers
Cathy Bailey
New allocation
system already in
place. Cathy to
organise the
monitoring of
cases…most likely
on a monthly basis
Team meeting
already diarised
and in place.
Tim/Helen to
arrange regular
liaison with legal to
start first week in
July
Proactive team meetings (see below)
2
Additional time and cost from
travelling to sites due to no
defined patches.
Agree patches and team splits
Monitor benefits and issues
Refine and document procedure in SOP
Team meetings with
Josie are happening
fortnightly and then
separate fortnightly
meeting with Tim. Need
to arrange regular
meetings with legal with
Helen Mitchell taking
notes
Undertaken by whole
team following research
of case splits – now split
into east and west and
working well
Josie and Lee
Benefits are showing
already. Less mileage,
fair geographical and
caseload split. Mirrors
the DC teams. Cathy to
undertake monitoring
though graphs/tables to
show improvements
Josie and Lee to create a
brief operating manual
including the agreed
template document
Done and complete
Already actioned.
Cathy to undertake
monitoring by end
of July
August
Status/
Completion
Date?
Done
This is now
complete as the
team meetings
are set up and
we are now
meeting every 4
weeks with Les
Roberts and
Glynis Mancini
Done
Ongoing
Template for
officer reports is
completed and
is being used –
the operating
manual will
Appendix 9
Planning Enforcement Implementation Plan
Ref.
Issue
Status/action needed
3
Cases can remain unresolved for
many months due to a lack of
team level proactive
management.
Agree time/day/location of weekly team caseload
meetings
Outstanding cases
reviewed quarterly by
the whole team
Quarterly
Agree management information required to inform and
how this will be generated
Cathy and Lewis by way
of the quarterly
monitoring report to SMT
Case progress sheet set
up by Josie and Lee
Quarterly
Agree ‘typical’ case milestones to help identify issues
Develop escalation policy
4
There is currently a large backlog
of cases.
Agree days to do initial analysis
Classify into ‘Resolved can be closed’ ‘Unresolved needs
action’
By whom?
By when?
Started since end
of April
Need to set up. Regular
enforcement legal liaison
meetings which would
address any escalation of
cases - monthly – TD
and Helen M
End of June
Team quarterly review
led by Josie
Had one meeting
already – need to
get regular dates in
the diary
Ongoing
Done a first sweep of all
outstanding cases on
1/6/11 and closed
approximately 30 cases
Status/
Completion
Date?
come through
Carols report
First meeting
happened
1/6/11 and
approximately30
cases closed.
Second meeting
is diarised for
26 September
Ongoing
Ongoing –
needs altering
to be less wordy
This is done and
we have had
two meetings –
all diarised and
minuted by
Helen M
Ongoing next
one to be held
on 26
September
Ongoing
Appendix 9
Planning Enforcement Implementation Plan
Ref.
Issue
Status/action needed
Agree policy of action to be taken
Close all ‘Resolved can be closed’
Create officer specific action plan for ‘Unresolved needs
action’
Deliver action plan for ‘Unresolved needs for action’
5
Reports to legal for notice
production take several attempts
and can take several months
Design and agree template
Create SOP to document requirements
6
Improve working relationships
between legal and planning
enforcement
Establish monitoring mechanism for compliance with SOP
Monitor and review
Establish regular liaison group with clear Terms of
Reference
By whom?
By when?
Team has gone though
all individual cases pre
2011. Need to identify
how we are going to deal
with the old cases – this
may require a meeting
with Carol and Tim to
make decisions on what
to do with some of the
older cases
Done
Team
Josie to set up a
review meeting
with Tim D to see
the extent of the
issue with
outstanding cases
and how best to
address this
Josie and Lee
Lee and Josie have
produced a draft
template. Comments
received by legal ongoing
Josie and Lee to do
Carol/Tim
Carol/Tim
Terms of reference are
being addressed by
Alun/Carol/Glynis/Richard
and Tim. TD to set up
liaison meeting – likely to
be monthly
Done
No specific
individual time line
possible
Leading into each
quarterly meeting
End of June
August
3 months
6 months
TOR to be
completed this
week. Dates for
legal liaison
meeting to be set
up by HM this
week. First
meeting in July
Status/
Completion
Date?
Ongoing – but
approximately30
cases closed so
far
Done
Review
quarterly
Ongoing
Done
Through Carol
report – maybe
not till
December
To follow
To follow
Done
Appendix 9
Planning Enforcement Implementation Plan
Ref.
Issue
Status/action needed
Monitor and review benefits and issues
7
‘Political’ complaints can disrupt
planned work and lead to single
visit journeys
Monitor to establish exact numbers and type of case
Provide feedback into current revision of risk policy
Monitor compliance with agreed ways of working
8
Site work can be delayed due to
need to wait for engineering
services to carry out
measurements
Establish current cost of accessing this service
Establish cost of purchase of laser device
Agree funding
Purchase
Agree operating rules (where
stored/maintenance/booking)
Train
By whom?
By when?
Carol/Tim/Glynis
6 months from end
of June
From now
Josie and Lee to note on
case progress sheet
This will need to be
addressed by Carols
report in terms of
priorities of cases
Tim/Josie
Lewis
£36 per hour to use
Martin Bryson – cost per
annum £1000-1500
Lewis
Agreed
Ann Bryant/Tim D
Lee/Lewis
BC apparently has a
similar device – also Lee
has used one before.
Training from BC would
be helpful
Discussing with SS
on 21 June. Then
to go through MT
and Executive.
Likely to take until
September
Linked into Carol
policy report which
is yet to be shared
with the team
(September )
Status/
Completion
Date?
6 month review
in January 2012
Task and finish
group set up by
Scrutiny
Committee
committee - to
report by
December
Ongoing
Post December
Still using MB
periodically
Currently
ongoing –
infrequent use
Cost established at
£650
Agreed
End of June
Once purchased –
mid July
Mid July
Purchased and
being used
Being used
Appendix 9
Planning Enforcement Implementation Plan
Ref.
Issue
Status/action needed
By whom?
By when?
Status/
Completion
Date?
Josie needs to
speak to Garry
Kirk
9
Fly posting is done by Planning
Enforcement officers
Agree policy of response
Josie and Lee to look at
alternative ways of
getting them removed –
street team currently
doing some removal.
Possibly to come under
Gary Kirk and James
Whiteman
Initial findings by
end of July
10
The full range of enforcement
powers are not used regularly eg.
PCNs
Currently done when
necessary. Needs to be
discussed and agreed
with legal at our first
liaison meeting in July
July
Better use since
legal
enforcement
liaison meetings
11
The current process of receipt of
appeals adds delays
Enforcement to process their appeals form start to finish
End of July
Done – Cathy
Bailey now
processing
12
Keeping Carol and Tim informed
of cases that have attracted
formal action or reports that are
being prepared for action. Appeal
information also
Enforcement report
Cathy to create a weekly report to be emailed to Carol,
Tim and Josie setting out cases that have attracted formal
action…and setting out critical dates…appeal dates etc.
The report should also detail all outstanding enforcement
appeals.
Carol has prepared 12 page draft enforcement report
Josie, Lee and Cathy.
Need to talk to DCSO to
understand the
processes and to ensure
a smooth transition of
process
Josie and Cathy
End of July
Starting form
end of
September –
first report
Carol
Discussing with SS
on 21 June. Then
to go through MT
and Executive.
Likely to take until
September
In draft with SS
but ongoing
Implement
13