Agenda item

The Chairman invited the Head of Paid Service (NB) to introduce the report. He outlined the background to the establishment of the Enforcement Board in 2013 and the subsequent formation of the Combined Enforcement Team. He explained that the Board was set up to tackle difficult, often longstanding enforcement issues, mainly related to property and then in 2016 the Combined Enforcement Team (CTE) was established to bring a consistency of approach and efficiencies in the way the Council dealt with empty homes, council tax completions and planning enforcement. He said that the report before Members covered complex cases and those dealt with by the CTE. There were several longstanding cases although a number of these had been progressed or completed in recent weeks.

The Head of Paid Service reminded Members that the previous Overview & Scrutiny Committee had recommended to Cabinet that enforcement update reports should be presented quarterly rather than six monthly. He said that a considerable amount of work had been undertaken to improve the layout of the accompanying matrix that detailed the enforcement cases and suggested that Members may wish to reconsider the timing of reports to ensure that the committee’s work programme was not overloaded.

The Head of Paid Service concluded by saying that the CTE tried to visit as many long term empty properties as possible throughout the year but that there would always be a ‘churn’ of about 400 properties. He said that the information in the matrix was confidential and that Members should always take advice from officers before speaking on any of the cases.

Questions and Discussion

1.    The Chairman, Cllr N Dixon, asked whether there were any issues or specific cases that required the support of the Committee. The Head of Paid Service replied that there were not. Key cases were highlighted and individual cases were dealt with through council policies. Serious cases would be reported up to Members. Cllr Dixon then asked whether there were any barriers in terms of process that the Committee could assist with. The Head of Paid Service replied that an understanding by Members that some of the more complex cases could take a long time to resolve would be appreciated.

2.    Cllr L Shires asked if it was possible to have a timeframe for cases to help Members manage expectations. The Head of Paid Service replied that it varied hugely. Often contact would begin with a letter followed by a formal notice. There was a wide range of options before officers, each with a different timeline. Using a compulsory purchase order was the last resort and before that it could take 1 year to 18 months, allowing for a compliance period and then an appeal period. He then highlighted two high profile cases that the Board was dealing with – both having gone on for several years with considerable cost implications. He concluded by saying that a third of cases had very long term issues, the rest were ‘churned’ over in about a year. The Chairman thanked him for his comments and suggested that Members checked the matrix regularly to see stage by stage progression. This would give them an indication of likely timelines.

3.    Cllr N Lloyd (Portfolio Holder for Environment) said that it was a derelict building in North Walsham that had led him to stand for election as a district councillor. It took 6 years to resolve and this was not due to a lack of trying as the owner would not engage. However, the result was worth it. He advised all members to look around their wards and report any neglected sites. It should also be remembered that there was a financial benefit to the Council for getting empty properties back into use. The Chairman suggested that this could be raised at the next meeting of Full Council to raise awareness. 

4.    Cllr N Pearce queried whether there was any way additional pressure could be put on owners to comply. He suggested that they could be summoned before Members for questioning. The Head of Paid Service replied that this would sit outside of the enforcement processes. He added that the Council was a regulator and that should be sufficient in dealing with such cases. It was essentially about keeping the pressure on owners. Occasionally meetings between the owner and Council officers took place on site, sometimes under caution and in such cases it was a requirement for the owner to attend. The Head of Legal, Democratic Services and Benefits added that it was not allowed under law for members to get involved in individual cases as there were often criminal matters that were being investigated. Also, there were no legal powers in place requiring people to come in or engage with the Council. She referred to a case where a member had persuaded a defendant to admit that they had committed a crime, however, it could not be used in court as evidence as it was not done under caution. She concluded by saying that the Committee could ask people to come in and speak on how any issues or problems could be resolved. The Chairman thanked her for her comments and said that the discussion was straying into process and that a training session or briefing paper could help members understand the issues better.

5.    Cllr J Rest said that the time element was important as was the cost. He referred to a derelict shop in Fakenham which had been updated but was now on its 4^th owner. Essentially it had not been worth the time and effort as it was not viable as a business.

6.    Cllr N Housden referred to the tyre mountain in Tattersett and whether there was an indication of the timeline going forward. The Head of Paid Service replied that it was such a big case that it would be brought back to Members. However, it was getting to a point where the deadline was fast approaching. Cllr Housden suggested that a working party could be established to look at the wider issues arising from such challenging cases. The Head of Paid Service replied that this could be a way forward. There were certainly issues around disused airfields that could be looked at.

7.    Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked whether owners who fell into business rates arrears were given the option of a payment plan to clear the debt. The Revenues Manager replied that he would address this point during consideration of Agenda item 10: Debt Recovery 2018/19.

8.    Cllr L Shires asked if it was possible to provide a cost breakdown of the enforcement cases to date. The Head of Paid Service replied that officer time was not calculated (with the exception of the Legal team). Court costs were known and logged. Cllr Shires sought confirmation that there was no known cost for the 32 cases currently being dealt with by the Council. The Head of Paid Service confirmed that there wasn’t. The Head of Legal, Democratic Services and Benefits added that it was not common practice for officer time to be recorded, however, improvements in digital technology were moving quickly and it was possible for some legal case management systems to record ‘background time’ and this may be a tool that could be used more widely in the future.

9.    Cllr N Housden asked whether the Council received costs when a case was concluded in its favour. The Head of Legal, Democratic Services and Benefits confirmed that an application for costs was always submitted.

The Chairman thanked everyone for their input. He asked Members to consider the frequency of the Enforcement Update reports, suggesting that they could revert to every 6 months with the proviso that if members had any concerns then an additional report could come to the Committee at any time.

It was proposed by Cllr N Dixon, seconded by Cllr G Mancini-Boyle and

RESOLVED

1.    To note the continued progress of the Enforcement Board and the Combined Enforcement Team.

2.    To receive further updates on a six monthly basis.