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:
Paul Elstone’s questions related to Item 8 on the agenda; on the subject of Review Recommendations of the Planning Enforcement Working Group.
Question 1:
The Summary Report indicates there were 3 levels of priority in terms of
Caseload. High Medium and Low. What were the selection criteria for determining in which priority an enforcement issue was allocated to?
In reply to Mr Elstone’s questions, the Director of Place answered:
Answer:
The priority of a case was determined by the enforcement officers using their professional knowledge, expertise and judgement and in accordance with principles as set out within the current Local Enforcement Plan.
The list of enforcement matters were also regularly reviewed (monthly) with the Development Management Manager and Corporate Manager. The Director of Place reviewed high priority cases on a monthly basis.
The new enforcement policy – currently in draft and being worked on by officers prior to presentation to Cabinet – would consider a revised approach to how cases are prioritised and escalated, although the focus would continue to be on high priority cases.
It should be noted that a high degree of officer discretion would always be necessary in relation to prioritisation given that each case is unique and would need to be considered based on its own facts.
Question 2
Was there a MDDC Policy or Procedure Document that clearly outlined the priority selection process?
Answer:
The Local Enforcement Plan set out the priority level of cases in a broad sense.
Question 3
Was this document available for public review?
Answer:
Yes – the current plan was on the public website and was easy to find.
Question 4
Of the High Priority enforcement issues, which were estimated to be currently around 22, how many had been outstanding for over 6 months?
Answer:
There were 12 cases.
Question 5
What was the longest outstanding High Priority enforcement case? And why had it taken so long to close down?
Answer:
A case from 2020 relating to a Listed Building and UPVC windows. The reason the case had been outstanding for so long was because they were awaiting information from the owner.
Question 6
Of the 517 cases that had been closed how many of these were handled by.
- Non Material Amendments.
- Certificates of Lawfulness.
- Planning Variation Agreements of any sort.
Answer:
That information was not to hand – If Mr Elstone was keen to have that information then the Department would need to consider the request separately and they would need to consider how long it would take to deal with that request.
Question 7.
Of the Preceding categories in question 6, how many had been closed down on a delegated authority i.e. by MDDC Officers and without any referral back to the MDDC Planning Committee?
Answer:
Planning enforcement matters are not referred back to the Planning Committee.
Under the previous Council, the Cabinet Member for Continuous Improvement had oversight of planning enforcement matters and was kept involved regarding the closure of cases and matters relating to high-priority cases.
Despite the fact that the constitution affords delegated authority to officers to deal with matters relating to planning enforcement, the intention was to keep the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration appraised of key performance measures and key cases in relation to planning enforcement.
Question 8.
Was it MDDC’s policy to refer any enforcement decision back to the MDDC Planning Committee where the application came before the Planning Committee in the first instance? This was where the Planning Committee itself set or agreed the conditions.
Answer:
No, it was not MDDC policy. There were certain scenarios where enforcement action needed a decision from the planning committee such as urgent works notices.
Question 9.
If the answer to the previous question was no, did that not defeat the integrity of the Planning Committee Process? That it further lead to a lack of public trust and the will of their elected members potentially being fundamentally ignored?
Answer:
No, it did not. The question suggests that a breach of a planning condition would always be allowed to continue when in fact officers will seek to address planning breaches in order to ensure compliance with the planning conditions – noting that officer necessarily have to focus on high priority cases first.
On occasion, breaches could sometimes involve a planning application to regularise activity – which would then be a public process.
Where compliance did not occur, and no application to seek to regularise was put forward, appropriate enforcement action would follow if it was deemed to be proportionate and expedient in the eyes of the LPA. As stated previously; high risk cases would always necessarily be prioritised.