Agenda item

That the Committee notes the operation of the planning enforcement process and makes any comments.

The Chairman invited Mrs Archer to introduce the report.

During the discussion Members raised concerns regarding the visibility and accessibility of Enforcement Policy and Cases, specifically Public and Parish Council access and the potential of an update to the Enforcement Strategy, which hasn’t been reviewed since it was written in 2014.

Mrs Archer suggested that Officers could produce some simple instructions and FAQs to allow Parish Councils to access ongoing cases more easily.

Mrs Stevens confirmed that the visibility and accessibility of and potential updates to Enforcement Policy will form part of the upcoming Service Plan Projects, during which concerns will be considered and addressed accordingly.

Cllr Purnell raised a question relating to the immunity granted to breaches of planning control if they have existed without action taken for either 4 or 10 years (as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). Mrs Archer clarified that once a notice is served the period for immunity is cut off.

Cllr Palmer drew the Committee’s attention to the large number of ongoing Enforcement cases into unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller developments. After some discussion amongst Members and Officers, Cllr Palmer resolved to propose a change to the recommendations later in the meeting.

In response to Cllr Sharp, Mrs Archer explained that Chichester District Council’s Enforcement guidance is similar to that of most other authorities as it is guided by Government legislation, noting in particular that there is no significant difference between the guidance of CDC and the Southdowns National Park Authority.

Mrs Archer responded to Cllr Sharp’s questions regarding tree protection and habitat conservation and explained that trees in a conservation area or under a Tree Protection Order are subject to enforcement.

Cllr Moss asked, in relation to new (particularly large-scale) developments, if the landscape was being sufficiently protected i.e. through the planting of new trees. Mrs Archer acknowledged that the department could be more proactive, rather than responsive, in this regard and that post-development site checks could be added to Officers’ schedules moving forward.

Cllr Moss, on behalf of Cllr Bangert, asked whether Enforcement efforts should prioritise habitual offenders (in breaching Planning policy), commenting that public perception is often that developers are allowed to flout the law.

Mrs Archer cautioned against a focus on ‘perception’, advising that Planning Enforcement must be proportionate with a focus on the scale of harm a specific breach is having. Mr Bennett endorsed Mrs Archer’s remarks adding that if an Enforcement issue reaches Court, the evidence presented can only take into account the particular case in question; noting however, that if a case reaches the point of sentencing, the longer term picture is taken into account.

The Monitoring Officer having listened to members views provided advice to Cllr Palmer on wording his proposal which was seconded by Cllr Moss. Cllr Palmer proposed an addition to the recommendations which was agreed by the Committee in a vote as follows:

RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee notes the operation of the planning enforcement process

2.    That the committee notes that:

(a)  There are a substantial number of enforcement investigations into unauthorised developments and notes that policy in this are will shortly be reported upon and;

(b)  Requests that any upcoming related reviews include express focus of greater transparency planning enforcement.

The Chairman asked for a show of hands and the new recommendations were carried, with one abstention from Cllr Sharp.

The Chairman, endorsed by members, thanked Mrs Archer and her team for their work.