Agenda item

The DFPCC introduced the report and informed Members that cases referred to in the report were live cases, and only a limited amount of information could be provided to the Committee in a public meeting.

Questions and Discussion

      i.        Cllr C Cushing stated that he found it difficult to understand which cases were getting better or worse from the content of the report and suggested that it would benefit from an executive summary to highlight key points. He added that the report would also benefit from a table to show the number of enforcement cases and a timeline to gain better perspective on the number of cases resolved. The DFPCC stated that the update focused primarily on the eighteen significant cases, with four of these outlined in the report. He added that of this eighteen, four were related to Melton Constable Hall, which was a particularly complex issue. It was noted that others included properties in Fakenham, Tattersett, and Cley amongst others. It was noted that the update covered combined enforcement which included revenues matters as well as planning issues, in order to bring properties back in to use.

     ii.        The Chairman suggested that it would be helpful to use specific dates and metrics to help clarify actions within the report. He referred to a stated reduction in caseload though the caseload appeared to have increased and suggested that the report may require amendment.

    iii.        Cllr S Penfold referred to the case in Norwich Street Fakenham and asked when a report would be submitted to Cabinet and what steps were being taken to recover all money owed to the Council by the freehold owner of the property. The ADP stated that he had recently taken the lead on the case and expected a report on potential actions by the end of the calendar year. He added that this would not necessarily conclude the action, but would determine which course of action should be taken going forward.

   iv.        Cllr V Holliday referred to the number of enforcement cases closed and asked how many had been closed as a result of enforcement action and how many were the result of action no longer being required. The DFPCC replied that he would provide a written reply after the meeting.

     v.        Cllr N Housden referred to Tattersett and suggested that it would be helpful to provide potential end dates to proceedings with best and worst case scenarios, to provide clarity on progress. The DFPCC replied that Sutton Mill did have an expected date of completion, whereas Tattersett was expected to take approximately two years to complete if progress wasn’t improved, and he would endeavour to provide this information where possible.

   vi.        The Chairman referred to the case of the King’s Head in Hoveton and declared that it was in his ward, and whilst he was mindful that it was a joint authority issue, he saw little evidence of any progress in closing the case from either authority. He added that the building had been in a dilapidated stated for over twenty-five years, and noted that it was in a prominent place that had a considerable impact on tourism. It was noted that the Parish Councils of both Hoveton and Wroxham were very concerned due to a lack of progress. The Chairman stated that more emphasis had to be made to resolve the case, and he offered his support if required. The DFPCC replied that NNDC had a limited role but would work with the Broads Authority on how best to proceed. 

  vii.        The recommendation was proposed by Cllr R Macdonald and seconded by Cllr P Fisher.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee notes the continued progress of the Enforcement Board and the Combined Enforcement Team.

ACTIONS

1.    Written response required on percentage of cases closed as a result of enforcement action and percentage of cases where enforcement action is no longer required.