To receive any questions relating to items on the agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Note: A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Minutes:
Referring to item 10 on the agenda (Planning Enforcement) Councillor Ursell of Willand Parish Council stated that it is appreciated that Members are recommended to take a particular course of action within the officer’s report. This appears a minimal option. Will Members please recognise that there is a genuine concern within town and parish councils as to the real and perceived issues that planning enforcement in Mid Devon is not working effectively to retain the confidence of the public and elected councillors in the planning system? Do Members really believe that a ‘benchmarking exercise’ alone will restore or create the necessary confidence in the system?
Would Members consider recommending a review of the whole management system within the department by someone from outside of the department or even outside of MDDC? This is suggested as MDDC have dedicated Planning Enforcement officers yet when one or more are away enforcement enquiries in their area seem to stop until they are available again. There is experience of this in more than one instance. Could consideration be given to Planning Officers dealing with all aspects and then they may have a better overall picture and allow for more flexible working and taking responsibility for enforcing the conditions they have recommended?
Councillor Warren, of Willand Parish Council, referring to item 10 on the agenda asked would Members please consider the causes of some of the enforcement issues which are brought about by the planning process itself? Officers recommend approval of certain applications subject to conditions and one gets the feeling that these words are used to achieve approval from planning committee which otherwise might not be forthcoming. Some of these suggested conditions are not clearly specific; in some cases they are unachievable and some are certainly unenforceable therefore why impose them in the first place? Locally these conditions are seen to be broken and when representation is made to officers one is met with reasons as to why nothing can be done and phrases such as expedient, proportionate, negotiation and similar are used to excuse inactivity. A developer can breach conditions and stand a good chance of doing what he/she wanted as opposed to what was approved by planning committee and end up achieving what they wanted by way of retrospective approval or officers deciding to take no notice at all. Is this the most appropriate way to retain credibility in the process? Is it wise for officers alone to decide to take no action on breaches of conditions set by the planning committee? Is it right that everything appears to be done to excuse or permit breaches by developers/landowners yet little or no consideration appears to be given to views of complainants? Is it because they cannot appeal and cannot seek compensation as a person in breach may be able to if he/she does not like the outcome.
Councillor Grantham of Willand Parish Council, referring to items 10 and 11 on the agenda stated that Members had been given a report and recommendation by the Head of Planning and Regeneration. Under item 11 certain selected items would be discussed. Would it not be helpful to Members to have a representative from the interested council/community present who could contribute having a full and detailed understanding of the local concerns of the case? Whilst understanding the need for a certain amount of confidentiality, certainly the number of cases at Willand and surrounding area, basic details are in the public domain having been discussed at Council meetings open to the public. When detail has been questioned or documents asked for by the Parish Council ‘confidentiality’ is quoted by officers. Would the system not have a greater credibility if there was more openness in non-financial or non-sensitive information in order that people could see that something was done? Could not this committee publicly identify the sites being discussed and/or the alleged breaches?
The Chairman stated that these issues would be addressed during debate on the item.