Agenda item

ES 20065

The Head of Planning and Development Support Team attended the meeting to update the Committee regarding the Planning Enforcement report. He stated that since 1st April 2019, 1061 cases had been closed and that between 1^st April 2020 and the time of the meeting, 428 cases had been closed. The oldest cases dated back to 2015—two of these cases had gone to Appeal, and one was in abeyance—in this case the Council was working with the resident to resolve an untidy site in West Wickham. Members were informed that the total number of cases that were outstanding was 764.

The Portfolio Holder  had drafted a briefing to Cabinet concerning some of the issues that had been facing the planning enforcement section.

The Head of Planning and Development Support Team briefed the Committee that:

·  There had been two new starters

·  Two planning enforcement officers had Covid symptoms and had been self-isolating

·  One officer had retired

·  Certain types of work had been prevented by the lockdown restrictions

·  The receipt of some planning applications had been delayed

·  Some court cases had been delayed

The Head of Planning and Development Support Team reported that despite various difficulties, there had still been some successful prosecutions. There had recently been a successful prosecution at Knockholt Station South Side. A press release would be issued regarding this in due course, and this would involve one of the Committee members and the Portfolio Holder. Knockholt Station had been fined as they were found to be in  breach of an enforcement notice.

The Chairman requested that in future, details regarding the number of investigations undertaken, closed and outstanding be reported in the main body of the report. 

A Member asked if feedback was provided to the person who reported the cases. The Head of Planning and Development Support Team responded in the affirmative.

Members were informed that the planning enforcement section had no budget for direct action themselves, and that because of this, before enforcement action could be taken, permission had to be obtained from one of the Planning Sub-Committees.

It was noted that this report would be presented to the next meeting of the Development Control Committee.

A Member felt that it would be beneficial if the cases classified as ‘general’ could be broken down further so that Members had a better understanding of what these cases related to.

A discussion took place with respect to Magistrates’ Court costs and what precisely constituted the ‘third’ reduction in the amount of the fine for a guilty plea.

A discussion took place as to what constituted an ‘untidy’ site. It was noted that the precise legal definition of an untidy site would be outlined in the Town and Country Planning Act, and there was a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court. No action could be taken regarding an untidy site if Probate proceedings were being undertaken. 

The Head of Planning and Development Support Team requested that in any instances where someone wished to make a complaint regarding an untidy site, then photographs should be supplied if possible.

A discussion took place about the possible use of drones for Planning Enforcement. 

RESOLVED that the report be noted and that in future, information concerning the number of planning investigations undertaken, closed and outstanding--be reported in the main body of the report.