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:
Cllr B Warren, Chairman of Willand Parish Council, l referring to item 8 on the agenda said that within the report it is recommended by the officer that the Committee ‘note the progress as outlined in this report’. There are some areas of the report which show limited progress or conclusions have not been reached. It could also be argued that there is a need to resolve the question of confidentiality and the questionable use of the data protection act as a reason to withhold information from Members, Town and Parish Councils and members of the public who have raised planning enforcement issues.
Would Members feel it helpful and expedient to have more information on performance indicators and the results of ‘bench marking exercises’ before bringing forward the Local Enforcement Plan to Cabinet in November? Paragraph 2.9.1 states ‘This is in progress with exploration undertaken of how performance in planning enforcement is measured in other authorities. Draft performance indicators have been produced and will be taken to the Planning Committee for their consideration.’
Although it may be helpful to know what others are doing is not MDDC capable of setting its own policy which could then be a leader in setting robust performance indicators.
Are the responses from the other authorities available for inspection?
Knowing how sensitive Planning Enforcement – or the perceived lack of it – is in the District would it not be wise for the stated proposed performance indicators to be available for consultation or discussion before being placed before the Planning Committee? Without this it could be noted that the only view the Planning Committee will have is that of the officer.
Paragraph 2.12 states ‘Officers investigate the possibility of finding a way of updating residents and town/parish councils in relation to complaints regarding enforcement and reporting back to this Committee within 4 months.’
Paragraph 2.12.1 states ‘A benchmarking exercise has been undertaken in order to understand how other authorities deal with this issue and has found that little information on live enforcement cases is regularly disseminated to Town and Parish Councils. Whilst MDDC Members can be briefed with a legal expectation of confidentiality, when information goes to Towns and Parishes, we cannot work on the same presumption of confidentiality.’
Are Members content with this explanation which appears to infer a slight on the integrity of Town and Parish Councillors who invariably raised the issue in the first place? Why does this need to be delayed by 4 months?
The Chief Executive in front of this Committee and at our Parish Council meeting has emphasised his wish to see more opened with appropriate communication. The comment in paragraph 2.12.1 could go against this commendable statement of intent and allow the Head of Planning and Regeneration to go back to the earlier position that anything to do with planning enforcement is confidential. We have sufficient examples of this being the case where ‘confidentiality’ has been used to try and hide activity or failures by certain officers.
May I please end on a positive note in that our current Enforcement Officer has been a breath of fresh air? She responds promptly and positively when issues are raised. She responds with appropriate updates as to actions taken or reasons for not taking any action which are understood and appreciated by the Parish Councillors. No mention of Data Protection Act or breaches of trust and anything mentioned which could be sensitive is responsibly dealt with without any problems to date. We feel that her approach is in tune with the intentions of the Chief Executive in relation to communication. Long may it continue.
My final question is will you please thoroughly scrutinise this report and ensure that the improvement in communication which we are currently experiencing is maintained thus restoring confidence in the system?
Mr Keith Grantham, referring to item 8 on the agenda said that this question relates to the Local Enforcement Plan put forward by the Head of Planning and Regeneration paragraphs 2.12, 2.12.1. At various meetings I have attended the theme the Chief Executive has taken is MDDC must be more open and accountable. This is happening, with a lot more information being put on the Council’s website and many of the officers being helpful. This is why I cannot understand the Head of Planning and Regeneration wanting to take a retrograde step and move back to the old days by proposing not to inform Town and Parish Councils on enforcement matters. This suggests that Towns and Parishes cannot be given and trusted with information. This is a smear on the integrity and trustworthiness of Parish Councillors. All Councillors are elected in the same way, as far as I am aware, no District Councillor signs any form on confidentiality. If they do then this could be rolled out to Parishes too. The Head of Planning appears to choose to hide behind confidentiality. Why? She states in her report a benchmarking exercise has been undertaken and in a sweeping statement says other councils do not pass on information to Towns and Parishes, but there is no definitive information to back up this statement. At this moment in time, we have a very good relationship with the enforcement officer who covers the east area and hope this will not change. Will the Planning and Regeneration department follow the Chief Executives instructions and be more open and accountable?
The Chairman indicated that answers to the questions raised would be answered at the agenda item.