Agenda item

The ADP introduced the report and informed Members that it related to the enforcement functions of Planning, long term empty homes, the Enforcement Board and Combined Enforcement Team. He added that future updates would be provided on a six-monthly basis to OSC and Cabinet. It was reported that the enforcement process had continued to move forward during Covid-19, progressing land mark cases such as the Shannocks. In reference to long-term empty homes, it was stated that the Council continued to perform above than the national average, with less than one percent of the District’s housing subject to long-term empty measures, which was in large part due to the efforts of the Revenues Team. The ADP referred to the Combined Enforcement Team and stated that there were currently 290 live cases, and that from January 2020, 264 cases had been closed. He added that the Team of two and half officers were working well to close cases efficiently and effectively. It was noted that a review of the District’s Enforcement Plan would be undertaken with the Interim Enforcement Manager, and it was expected that changes would be reported as part of the next update.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr W Fredericks asked how Members could receive an update on active cases within their wards, as she was aware that contacting officers directly used  valuable resource. She added that she welcomed the development of an online form for triage of enforcement cases, and asked whether any form of online access for case updates could be made available. The ADP replied that the report and accompanying matrix referred to the work of the Enforcement Board, but it did not cover all enforcement cases in progress. He added that officers would continue to provide a bespoke response via email for the time being, though officers were working towards an online questionnaire to streamline the process. It was noted that due to resource limitations, contacting officers directly remained the best solution, as it was not possible to routinely update and report information on over 200 cases to ward Members.

      ii.          The Chairman sought clarification on whether enforcement information was already available online, to which the DSGOS replied that the Enforcement Board Matrix was available in the ModGov Library. The ADP added that most cases on the Matrix were approaching conclusion, and stated that for ongoing enforcement cases public access was available, though it was advisable to contact the relevant officer to receive the most up to date information.

     iii.          Cllr G Mancini-Boyle sought clarification on the process of pursuing enforcement action, and asked whether officers relied on the empty dwelling management order. He added that many enforcement cases likely dealt with probate, and asked whether the Council often encountered renovation costs once the enforcement process was complete. The ADP replied that whilst most cases did not follow textbook progress, they were often resolved through increased Council Tax banding. He added that the vast majority were therefore resolved in a three, six or twelve month period, with visiting officers undertaking a follow-up check to monitor properties for signs of decay or occupation, to ensure that the correct Council Tax was being paid. It was noted that properties that were vacant for longer often involved probate or other issues that made cases more difficult to resolve, though long-term empty issues were not as common. The ADP stated that these properties were also often located in areas with limited future potential, in which case Section 215 notices could be submitted, in addition to negotiating with owners to repair and occupy properties. He added that in some cases owners did not want to occupy properties, in which cases empty homes legislation would be considered, though its use in the District was very limited.

    iv.          Cllr H Blathwayt raised concerns that the resourcing of enforcement had been raised at Parish level, and noted that there was a perception that enforcement was not a Council priority. He asked whether these concerns were shared, and whether an increase in resources was worthy of consideration. The ADP replied that in his experience, the enforcement process was critical to Planning, and that despite the hard work of officers, operating with a small team could be difficult. He added that the approach to enforcement at NNDC was serious and progress was being made, though long standing cases required significant resource. It was stated that consideration was being given to provide more administrative support to the Team, to allow greater focus on casework, and that three officers would be the appropriate resource for an authority such as NNDC. Cllr H Blathwayt asked whether a Task and Finish Group would aid in monitoring ongoing cases to report progress, to which the ADP replied that this could be considered alongside the views of Cabinet, once progress had been determined as part of the next Enforcement Board Update.

      v.          The Chairman stated that as the effectiveness of enforcement was paramount, and public expectations were high, it was his impression that the Enforcement Team was potentially under resourced. The ADP replied that one issue with public perceptions was that planning enforcement was a reactionary service that dealt with a high number of cases, therefore it could not deliver an overnight solution to breaches of planning consent. He added that the Council was also unable to stop individuals seeking retrospective planning permission, and where this was the case, it should be taken as a positive that enforcement could ensure that permission is sought.

    vi.          Cllr P Heinrich referred to the figures provided for empty dwellings and asked how accurate this was, when it had last been audited and how many properties had management orders in place. The ADP replied that the position on empty homes had been impacted by Covid-19, with prosecutions Council Tax prosecutions paused temporarily during the Pandemic. Now that they had been resumed, prosecutions were moving forward, though there was a backlog of cases at the Courts that delayed longstanding cases. He added that a more accurate figure could be provided once discussions had taken place with the Revenues Manager.

   vii.          Cllr J Toye referred to public perceptions of enforcement and stated that whilst there was an expectation for an Enforcement Officer to respond to complaints quickly with a site visit, this had not been the practice since 2013. It was noted that multi-agency enforcement action had to be promoted as a better way to resolve enforcement issues.

  viii.          Cllr L Withington stated that there was strong support from Members for the Enforcement Board, and suggested that it may be appropriate to express support of the Team to Cabinet, to ensure that compassionate and effective enforcement could continue, in order to support the planning process.

    ix.          The Chairman noted the concerns that had been raised and stated that whilst an Enforcement Board Update had not been received for some time, it was clear how important enforcement was in supporting the planning process. He added that if there was a resource issue causing undue stress, then it would be appropriate to address this.

      x.          It was proposed by Cllr H Blathwayt and seconded by Cllr G Mancini-Boyle that Cabinet give consideration to the resourcing of the Planning Enforcement Team to strengthen and support the Council’s planning enforcement process.

RESOLVED

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

2.      To recommend to Cabinet that consideration is given to the resourcing of the Planning Enforcement Team to strengthen and support the Council’s planning enforcement process.

ACTIONS

1.     ADP to provide clarification on the number of empty dwellings, when the number was last audited and how many properties have management orders in place.