| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Residents launch LBH Watch | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 05/08/10 21:59:00 |
| Nick, As you're probably aware given my career background planning , and in particular planning enforcement, has a place close to my heart. Government Circular 10/97, entitled 'Enforcing Planning Control' states : 'The power (in the amended section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act")) to issue an enforcement notice is discretionary. A notice requires remedial steps to be taken within a specified time-limit. It should only be used where the LPA are satisfied that there has been a breach of planning control and it is expedient to issue a notice, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations.' Within Planning Policy Guidance Note 18, also entitled Enforcing Planning Control, in respect to the general approach to enforcement, national government advises : '5. Nothing in this Note should be taken as condoning a wilful breach of planning law. LPAs have a general discretion to take enforcement action, when they regard it as expedient. They should be guided by the following considerations:- (1) Parliament has given LPAs the primary responsibility for taking whatever enforcement action may be necessary, in the public interest, in their administrative area (the private citizen cannot initiate planning enforcement action); (2) the Commissioner for Local Administration (the local ombudsman) has held, in a number of investigated cases, that there is "maladministration" if the authority fail to take effective enforcement action which was plainly necessary and has occasionally recommended a compensatory payment to the complainant for the consequent injustice; (3) in considering any enforcement action, the decisive issue for the LPA should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the existing use of land and buildings meriting protection in the public interest; (4) enforcement action should always be commensurate with the breach of planning control to which it relates (for example, it is usually inappropriate to take formal enforcement action against a trivial or technical breach of control which causes no harm to amenity in the locality of the site); and (5) where the LPA's initial attempt to persuade the owner or occupier of the site voluntarily to remedy the harmful effects of unauthorised development fails, negotiations should not be allowed to hamper or delay whatever formal enforcement action may be required to make the development acceptable on planning grounds, or to compel it to stop (LPAs should bear in mind the statutory time limits for taking enforcement action).' So that's what both national government advice (Circular 10/97, PPG18) and the planning legislation (T&CP Act) actually says. Your first paragraph strays on dangerous territory when it talks about residents looking for a reason why the 'rules' have been ignored. It is a fundamental principle of the national planning legislation and associated guidance that the enforcement regime is not there to punish people for breaking the rules, e.g. a retrospective planning application should be determined in the same way as a planning application proposing development. Why the rules are ignored is not something Officers can answer, nor LBH Watch can have any input in/change, that is something you need to ask the developers who break planning control. In my experience, many people foolishly rely on what a builder or a conservatory company tells them, rather than actually checking it out for themselves. Others hold the view that their home and its curtilage is theirs and they can act as they please within it. Some decide to take the risk and see if they get away with it. Others get permission for one thing and then suddenly think they'll completely change the building during construction but don't think to inform the Council. I don't believe in this day and age anyone can suggest that Councils can do more to educate people, there's a plethora of information available on both Council and Government websites, there's Duty Planning Officers available for homeowners to go and see without an appointment to get planning advice on minor developments, and (at least certainly in my time in local government) I was always happy to discuss planning matters with the public, including articles in HM magazine and the local newspaper, and indeed often talking with David and Vivienne Blackett (a charming couple who I always felt I understood and vice versa) from your own Residents Association. So I would suggest looking elsewhere than at Officers to find a reason why the rules are being ignored, maybe speak to the developers themselves ?. Apologies for being pedantic, but you make an erroneous reference to the 'impartial application of planning rules', I presume you mean policies within the development plan, as there are no 'rules' when it comes to deciding whether or not to enforce. The two phrases you quote which Officers use have their basis in the relevant legislation, there are the appropriate technical phrases. Much as I was occasionally tempted, had I ever said "we're not taking enforcement action because the extension is 2cms deeper than what it could be built without requiring planning permission and you really ought to stop wasting the Council's time and get a life" I don't think that would have gone down too well !. Councils deal with hundreds, sometimes in excess of 1000, enforcement complaints every year. Most Councils have delegated powers when it comes to exercising the discretion whether or not to take enforcement action. Very few Councils however give this discretion to one Officer, I had that discretion at Harrow Council and it wasn't something I was comfortable with. At Hounslow every time one of my staff wanted to close an enforcement case (where there was a breach) without taking action they'd have to write a report, I would then review that report and then twice a week I'd sit in a room for 2 hours with all of the other Team Leaders (5-6 people) and we'd make decisions on minor planning applications and enforcement matters. We wouldn't always all agree, but we'd come to a consensus, and if it was agreed that it wasn't expedient to enforcement, then we'd close the case and advise both the developer and the complainant accordingly. As for explaining that to the public, that would involve a personalised letter to each and every complainant following that decision. That just isn't feasible, no Council has (and certainly won't have as the 'cull' forced by the new government starts to hit) the resources to do that, and if people want a more detailed explanation they can always ring the Case Officer. It sounds to me as though ideally you'd like the scheme of delegation changed so that every enforcement decision is made in public - not something I'd support but regardless of that I'm not clear how LBH Watch is going to help achieve what you are looking for. |