Meeting documents

For Members to consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:          Jacqui Bromilow, Enforcement Team Manager

01296 585498 jbromilow@aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk

The Committee had received an update on Development Management and Planning Enforcement on 13 February 2018 which outlined the plans for improving the service. At the time, Members wanted an update to come to committee later in 2018.

The Committee report listed a number of measures which were to be implemented including the introduction of a new computer database system later in the year. The system would be run in a test phase during December and January for implementation in February 2019. The introduction of this system would assist the integration of the environmental health and planning enforcement parts of the team as their systems were currently separate. This cross-referencing of information would reinforce the joint working already being done, most notably with Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO). Historically, planning enforcement had been reactive and reviews were underway to understand potential improvements to create resource for proactive enforcement.

Since June 2018 the enforcement service had had a number of challenges which included significant staff turnover and a sustained increase in the number of enforcement cases. There was a national shortage of planning officers and the AVDC service had carried out two recruitment campaigns but had not been able to recruit an experienced planning enforcement officer. However the service had recruited two officers from within AVDC who were familiar with the challenges of planning and the service was offering training and support. Three experienced contractors had joined the enforcement service on a short-medium term basis; two were focussing on training and developing new enforcement officers and carrying caseload whilst the third focussed on activities to progress and close historic cases.

The report contained numbers of cases opened and closed in 2017 and 2018, and the officer in attendance expected that case numbers would grow further. Members were advised that the priority of the service was to reduce the number of historic open cases so that the numbers reflected actual active cases that officers managed. Report generation that would categorise cases would also be investigated to identify casing trends.

The Committee sought further information and were advised that:-

       i.        The previous team setup was:

1 x Principal, 2 x Enforcement Officers, 1 x Admin.

The new setup would be:

1 x Principal, 1 x Senior Officer, 3 x Enforcement Officers (with one primarily focused on proactive enforcement). Administration would be moved to a different section to streamline enforcement activities.

      ii.        Enforcement cases were not always clear cut with a quick solution available to enable a case to be closed. For instance, cases remained open if a retrospective planning application was expected to rectify the enforcement issue. Alternatively, cases remained open to log and monitor officer visits. A number of officer visits may be required to determine the likelihood of a breach. This evidence gathering was important as notices served required evidence.

     iii.        Reports and information could be incomplete and this needed to be reviewed to ensure information shared was meaningful.

     iv.        Members would not always be aware of cases if the case was raised by a member of the public directly.

      v.        The new Cabinet Member had liaised closely with the service to obtain an understanding of the service pressures, discuss resourcing and challenge performance where appropriate.

Members were invited to give comments and suggestions which could be included within the Enforcement Policy as it was in the process of being reviewed.  The Committee discussed the concerns they had with the service with the two main elements being communication and resourcing. Members considered constructive suggestions for service improvement which were as follows:

Communication

·         Greater communication between the service and Parishes on enforcement issues as the Parish Councils had local knowledge that may close historic cases.

·         Members being informed of when a case was raised in their Ward, the process and case progression.

·         An acknowledgement of a case being raised by a Member followed by an understanding of the process, action(s), and outcome of the case. A single point of contact who takes ownership of the case may help in this regard.

·         Case notes are maintained in a central system which is particularly important given staff turnover and use of contractors.

Resourcing

·         Utilise Members to liaise in their Wards to take strain off the service.

·         Consider use of technology to assist in the service if there was a business case. Drones were mentioned specifically in this regard.

·         Officer time logged on cases.

The Committee saw merit in an update coming back to Members around September 2019.

RESOLVED –

That the update be noted and the suggestions for the service be considered in the imminent review of the enforcement service.