Agenda item

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

The Committee requested that the following items be considered for the Policy:

-          Traffic light system

-          Quarterly form to report on cases

-          Harm Assessment to be reviewed 6 monthly and relevant performance

-          Direction signs to sites to be added

-          Enforcement Officers to make themselves known to the landowner. 

-          Resource to carry out obligations under the Policy to be considered by the Service in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder for Planning

-          Policy to reference working unsocial hours and weekends maybe required sometimes, otherwise breaches could be left unmonitored during those times

-          Danger to public safety considerations and to other groups, animals and horses

-          Officers must work with others across the Council

-          Overall policy review every four years.

-          Wording around publishing of decision – decisions would be published (but remove reference to details)

-          Acknowledge next to include case reference number  

-          The context of information published on the Council’s website.

The Officers agreed to consider these points and confirmed that some had already been agreed but had not yet been implemented.

On page 50, priority 3 include directional signs to new developments. Page 51, add a new 8.9 Harm Assessment must be reviewed 6 monthly on its performance. On page 57 10.5 Enforcement Officers “will” make themselves known to landowners rather than “try to”.

No problem with either of those however we may have to give some thought on how we are going to review the Harm Assessment form on a 6 monthly basis. It is important that we review that as accurately as we can. In terms of directional signs, sometimes under permitted developments developers are permitted to put directional signs up. The signs are normally on their sites not in the middle of nowhere. So if they are in the middle of nowhere we can take action on that.

What is the policy in terms of recruitment? Looking at page 65 the Harm Assessment form item number 3 which is public safety. There are dangers to public safety which are indirect for example somebody who is riding a horse who then gets thrown from the horse because something is happening at a site next door – will you give reassurance that that will be included within that part or whether that requires a separate question as whether there are any possible effects relating to animals?

Answered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning. My understanding is the resource is not about money, it is very difficult to recruit people we want.  We are looking various different ways of what we can do when we are recruiting. You mention danger to public safety it is really difficult when you have a situation where something is happening that effects someone next door and the legal side of it.

If there is third parties being affected by developments there will probably be other reasons aside from public safety to look at.

Officer response

With regards to the point about other groups, it’s important for any enforcement policy on a specific area to reflect that something may have been reported to Planning Services that is not a planning issue but the Council Services would work together to find a solution if possible to a problem. That is the benefit of the Corporate Enforcement Group that the Council has set up.

Page 46, 4.4 second paragraph needs a tweak to the words to say “we will” rather than “we aim”. On 47 4.7 proportionality those who choose to deliberately go against laws and regulations these should go into priority one.

Officer agreed that they were happy with these points.