Agenda item

To consider the report which outlines the current policy position on Planning Enforcement and recommend improvements.

The Committee received a report from the Planning Development Officer and was asked to agree the use of a specific Planning Enforcement Management Plan (PEMP) to improve the performance of planning enforcement, and note that a specific PEMP would enable the embedding of policy and practice, which would improve responses and output, whilst at the same time setting clear standards for delivery. The Executive Lead Member for Place Shaping was in attendance at the meeting.

The Head of Planning explained that the report before Members set out the current policy governing planning enforcement and established the principles of forward planning for service improvement. The service was underpinned by Selby District Council’s Corporate Enforcement Policy and formed the overarching general approach to enforcement of planning, licensing, housing and environmental issues.

The Committee noted that their views were being sought on the principle of moving towards a specific PEMP in order to facilitate service improvement. When the PEMP had been drafted it would be brought back to the Committee in November 2018 for further comment and consideration.

The Committee was pleased to note that work had already begun to improve the Planning Enforcement service in a number of ways, such as active management of the case load and improving levels of communication. Members acknowledged that around 20% of the cases causing a backlog were either non-planning matters, duplicates or out of time, and emphasised the importance of these cases being filtered out appropriately, in order for the legitimate enforcement matters to be dealt with. Officers explained that this approach was part of the work currently taking place to build a clearer picture of the current situation, and subsequently formulate a strategy of how to move forward work more efficiently.

The Committee expressed concern that prioritisation of enforcement matters was not working, and that better information about enforcement procedures and processes would be useful to both the public and Members. Reporting and monitoring of enforcement was also a key element of the service which Members felt required improvement; Officers confirmed that work would be undertaken on these aspects as part of the development of the PEMP.

Officers explained that recruitment to the Enforcement Team had been an issue in the past, but that the team would be fully staffed from October. The provision of additional resource and ways of integrating the work of the Enforcement Team with that of Development Management were being explored in order to begin clearing the backlog of cases.

Staff training was identified as another area requiring attention, particularly on the effective use of software and existing workflow/project management systems.

Members noted that Officers were expecting the PEMP to be in force by the end of 2018, and for the service to begin to demonstrate improvements by then. It was suggested by the Executive Member for Place Shaping that an all-Member briefing on planning enforcement could be arranged when the PEMP was in place; the Committee were supportive of this suggestion.

RESOLVED:

i.              To strongly support the development and implementation of a Specific Planning Enforcement Management Plan to improve the performance of planning enforcement.

ii.            To recommend that a Specific Planning Enforcement Management Plan will enable the embedding of policy and practice, which will improve responses and output, whilst at the same time setting clear standards for delivery.

iii.           To review the existing case-load and

i)    all non-planning matters, historic or otherwise, should be removed from the case-load and re-directed to the appropriate service; and

ii)   all out-of-time, duplicate cases and non-planning matters should be culled from the list of outstanding cases.

iv.           To recommend that on completion of the draft Planning Enforcement Management Plan, it should be presented again to the Policy Review Committee for review and comment.