Agenda item

PStanley presented the report, noting that the purpose was to provide an update on the planning enforcement service over the last 12 months and to provide an update on the March 2022 planning enforcement audit and the service's response to the control issues raised. PStanley noted the successes highlighted in the report and noted that there are now 145 fewer live enforcement cases compared to this time last year and the corporate performance for first site visits is improving, although it is failing to meet the 100% target. PStanley advised that there are a number of challenges, including staff vacancies as there is no permanent assistant team leader and they have been unable to recruit the 1-year enforcement officer position. The audit raised a number of control issues and PStanley noted the appended management action plan. The enforcement team can't deal with all cases at the same time and therefore a focus is required.

PStanley outlined the 3 areas of focus as (1) dealing with new cases and close new cases as quickly as possible, (2) to deal with older cases in a systematic way with the aim in 2022 to look at 4 calendar years to ensure that enforcement matters don't become immune to enforcement action by virtue of the passage of time, and (3) to focus on the matters causing significant harm.

Cllr Riddick referred to item 3 on page 261 of the report, noting that it suggests a more recent trend of a significant increase in live enforcement cases was being disguised and asked what is being disguised. PStanley explained that the number of enforcement cases has increased over the last 10 years, though there has been a significant decrease in the last 12 months, and that the comment was highlighting that the trend in the last 12 months doesn't negate the overall increase in cases. Cllr Riddick commented that the report notes that the amount of live cases has more than doubled since 2014 and that this suggests more cases are coming in than are being closed. PStanley confirmed that they have closed more than they have received in the last 12 months due to receiving fewer cases and the results of the 400 plan. PStanley advised that if numbers return to 2018-19 levels then there may be a return to the team being able to handle all cases if they continue at current staffing levels.

Cllr Harden asked that the Committee's praise be passed onto the team.

Cllr Harden noted that the 400 plan is working and that the team had also benefitted from a reduction in cases coming in, and asked if they would now be looking at a 250 or 600 plan. PStanley commented that they are optimistic that they can go to below 400 by the end of the financial year and the intention was to supplement the 400 plan with a 300 plan as a sustainable rolling caseload, though it is unpredictable as a large number of new cases or complex cases could mean the team would struggle to achieve the 300 figure.

Cllr Harden asked if performance would have improved if they had hired the staff required or if they need to review the salary costs for the role. PStanley stated that if they had an additional enforcement officer over the past 12 months then they would have completed more work. Cases have been closed due to changes in working practices and deciding to not pursue some cases when it's not in the public's interest to spend further resources. On why they have been unable to recruit, PStanley outlined the 3 reasons as (1) the salary being below market expectations, (2) a national shortage of experienced planning enforcement officers, and (3) planning enforcement has a reputation of being a negative service that only deals with breaches and complaints. When the role was promoted to existing members of the planning team, there was no interest from officers.

Cllr Foster referred to the audit and asked PStanley if he was confident that controls issues raised have now been addressed. PStanley confirmed that the management action plan has covered these points and that the issues were partly linked to staff capacity, such as on dealing with older cases where there is no apparent ongoing action. PStanley advised that other measures have been put in place, such as reiterating the importance of priority 1 cases and that the enforcement team are aware of the need to visit these sites within 24 hours of a complaint being received. On dealing with matters procedurally, PStanley explained how they look at cases that show on the system as belonging to an officer no longer at the council and that there is a system in place to ensure that cases are still monitored. It was also felt by the auditor that there was no way to recognise when the team had refused to set up an enforcement case due to being a non-planning related matter, and items passed on are now stored to ensure this can be demonstrated.

Cllr Wilkie referred to the current vacancies and acknowledged the challenges already raised. Cllr Wilkie asked how they could resolve the issue. PStanley confirmed that they have advertised 3 times for an assistant team leader, that they have advertised the role in different locations and did reword the advert, though after the third time it was felt that a materially different offer was required before spending more money on the recruitment process. Discussions have been held with HR on the banding of the post as some responsibilities are not reflected in this banding, and once this process is finished, this will result in a material increase in salary. ARobinson added that there is an issue with recruitment across enforcement and that they could look to support the service through recruitment though the longer-term solution lies in how they can work better with partners and draw on resources from other authorities as required.

Cllr Taylor asked what scrutiny is in place for decisions on not taking further enforcement action. PStanley confirmed there is no scrutiny in place and it is a delegated decision where the officer reaches a conclusion in their report and this is signed off by the head of enforcement. PStanley advised that decisions are not taken lightly and if a homeowner refuses to submit planning applications then the choices are to either take formal action or close the file as not expedient, and enforcement notices can only be served if they are confident they will win the appeal against the notice, with one of the grounds of appeal being that planning permission would be granted. When a file is closed as not expedient, a judgement is made that planning permission would be granted. Cllr Taylor understood the need to use officers' discretion and asked that these cases be reported to the relevant management committee to gain their opinion and asked that it be highlighted to the Committee if this work could be undertaken. PStanley referred to the table under paragraph 35, which highlights the 135 cases noted as not expedient, and he explained there are a number of cases where a resolution is achieved, and that it would not be practical to bring 135 cases to a management committee.

Cllr Taylor recommended that there is a review by elected members to help understand if more resources are required. PStanley advised that he should first look to break down why cases are marked as non-expedient, adding that most cases are either very minor breaches or technical breaches. Cllr Taylor asked that there be some scrutiny from councillors on the process. ARobinson acknowledged Cllr Taylor's comments and agreed that they could look at the parameters, though planning enforcement is particularly complex and it's challenging to set out a codified set of responses. ARobinson stated that the discretion they have is beneficial and that providing further explanations would provide an 'open goal' for developers, though they could look to update guidance and parameters for members to better explain which cases they would enforce against and how this squares with the resources in place. Cllr Taylor commented that they could look to consult local members when proposing to drop an action in their ward, to provide an overview, and the councillors could then request further information, and if an agreement can't be reached then it would go to the DMC.

Cllr Anderson advised that most cases that are not pursued are trivial and would not be controversial or require any democratic input. Cllr Anderson noted that PStanley provides an enforcement report on a quarterly basis that is taken to the DMC, this lists all notable cases, and any member can pre-register with the Chair to raise any enforcement cases. Cllr Taylor commented that some input to the process on closing off items would be beneficial.

Cllr Harden summarised that the Committee requires more information on why particular cases are closed to allow members to then add into the discussion.

Cllr Riddick noted that the 135 non-expedient cases was 25% of the workload and asked if there was a danger that subjective decision making could encourage others to perform similarly. PStanley advised that they serve more enforcement notices than other Hertfordshire authorities and that there is a reputation that action will be taken. PStanley stated that in cases being closed due to limited harm or for being particularly minor, if there is a repeated breach then it would be equally minor and not harmful.

Cllr Riddick noted the considerable decrease in fly-posting and noted that this has been cut down considerably in parts of the borough. Cllr Riddick commented on the prosecutions issued in Two Waters for £42k plus costs had sent out a clear message. PStanley noted this as an example of taking conservative formal action on a particular area that resulted in a reduction of cases.

Cllr Foster asked if those who notify the team of an issue are told when a case is closed. PStanley confirmed that they are.

The Committee passed on their thanks to the team in working to achieve the 400 plan.

The Committee noted the report.

ACTION: PStanley to provide further details on why particular cases are closed.