Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer requested by the Board following concerns expressed by Members regarding the management and capacity of the enforcement section of Planning and Development Services.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report as a result of Members expressing their concern at the meeting of the Board on 19^th February 2008 on the quarter 3 performance report regarding the management and capacity of the Compliance Service of the City Development Department.  The report set out background information relating to the present performance levels of the compliance service, the composition of the team and the enforcement tools available for use.  The report also drew attention to the national context and the Department of Communities and Local Government’s (CLG) report on the national Review of Planning Enforcement, which indicated areas of focus which were relevant to the development of the compliance service in Leeds.

The Chair welcomed to the meeting Phil Crabtree, Chief Planning Officer, Sue Wraith, Head of Planning Services, and Jim Wigginton, Planning Compliance Manager, all from City Development.  The Chief Planning Officer outlined the key issues in the report and requested that Members consider and comment on the report and endorse the course of actions set out which had already been taken towards improving the compliance service.

In brief summary, the following issues were discussed:

·  Training for Members – It was suggested that officers reconsider the timing of the seminar training sessions in order to try and improve attendance.

·  Workload of compliance officers – Officers advised that this was an issue and currently amplified by two vacancies in the section.

·  Improving the customer experience – With regard to members of the public, officers advised that the service endeavoured to keep people informed of progress on individual cases.  With regard to keeping Elected Members informed, officers advised that lists of key cases were provided and they would review whether it was possible to provide more frequent updates on cases than at present.  Members stated that they would like the Compliance Service to be much more proactive in informing Members as to what action was being taken on particular cases, what advice they could give to their constituents and the likely timescales involved for any action to be taken by the Compliance Service.  Members stressed that they should be made aware as soon as a case was registered, including tree preservation orders.  Members suggested that they should receive progress reports on all compliance cases rather than on just the key cases, however officers advised that this was not practicable within the current resources available.

·  Training and Development of Staff – Members were advised that the service had found difficulty over a number of years in recruiting to more senior and specialised positions.  The service was reviewing its career graded progression arrangements and training opportunities in order to help develop and promote junior staff to more senior posts.  It was reported that work was already underway to develop a more integrated compliance and planning service.  This would help develop planners and compliance officer skills to become more generic, build capacity and provide greater flexibility in the service.  A review of officers’ job descriptions in these areas was currently being reviewed.  Members requested that the Department’s Action Plan on Career and Training for the Planning and Compliance Service be brought to the successor Scrutiny Board.  The suggestion of introducing apprenticeships was also raised.

·  Resources – It was noted that as a result of fee income being below estimate, there was a financial deficit of £800,000 for salaries in the Planning department for 2007/08.

·  Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) training – Officers confirmed that it was within the section’s action plan for some PACE training to be supplied by external providers.

·  Public perception that the service only took enforcement action against individuals or smaller companies – The Board was advised that there was no reluctance to take enforcement action against large developers, however this impression might be due to the fact that larger developers were often more amenable to resolving issues through negotiation and therefore formal actions were not required.

·  Planning conditions – Officers advised that construction codes were very rare, could not be placed on smaller planning applications and therefore this was not a compliance issue.

·  Inadequacy of fines – Members expressed their concern regarding the maximum fine of £1,000 which they considered totally inadequate for larger businesses.  Officers advised that there were other more effective means of resolving matters with larger developers than fines, such as discussion and negotiation.  If this proved unsuccessful, then fines of up to £20,000 could be levied through serving enforcement and stop notices.  It was acknowledged that often insufficient weight was given to environmental crimes.  Anti Social Behaviour Orders were suggested by Members as perhaps a more effective method of ensuring compliance.

·  General public’s lack of faith in the enforcement process – Giving more publicity on the successes should be considered. 

·  The relationship with legal services – Members were advised that the relationship between enforcement and legal colleagues was very good.  Regular meetings took place with prosecution solicitors.

·  Monitoring of large developments – Members expressed concern with regard to large housing developments in particular, where building took place over a number of years, where there were no rights of access and whether there were the resources to monitor these developments on a continuous basis.  Officers responded that there were no resources to do this and that the priority was to respond to complaints.

·  Section 215 (Planning Blight) notices – Members were advised that this notice was infrequently used.  Completion notices would often be more appropriate.

·  Problems with certain developers – Members were advised that perhaps procedures could be put in place to examine more closely new planning applications submitted by developers who were known to have caused problems with compliance in the past.

RESOLVED –

(a)  That the report be noted and that support and endorsement be given by the Scrutiny Board in particular to the following actions and further improvements as set out in the report:

(i)  A review of the career graded progression and training and development opportunities available to compliance staff.

(ii)  Regular progress reports to appropriate parties on key enforcement cases.

(iii)  A review of prosecution procedures, including making provision for holding taped interviews compliant with Police and Criminal Evidence Act requirements and provide appropriate training for enforcement officers.

(b)  That the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development consider with the Chief Planning Officer what subjects to include in the new training programme for Members and whether more suitable dates and times could be identified that would achieve better attendance levels.

(c)  That update reports be submitted to the Scrutiny Board (City Development)’s successor Board in autumn 2008.

(Note: Councillor Taggart arrived at 10.30 am during the consideration of this item.)