Issue - meetings

(Report of Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health)

The report gave an overview of a proposed Planning Enforcement Plan intended to provide a clear and transparent structure for dealing with planning enforcement matters.  Particular reference was made to how complaints would be managed and prioritised.

The proposed approach to enforcement, including timescales for action, details of responses to suspected breaches of planning control and prioritisation of planning enforcement resources were set out in the Plan, attached as Annex 1 to the report.

After careful consideration of the Plan, concern was expressed about the consistency of the terminology used and whether there could be confusion around the meaning of expedient and ‘serious harm’.   Officers recognised the importance of consistency and suggested that paragraph 2.6 of the Plan be amended to reflect that the test for expediency was ‘serious’ harm and not just ‘general’ harm.

In addition, it was suggested that the Enforcement Plan be reviewed in 6 months to check and monitor progress.

Following consideration by the Planning and Transportation Advisory Board, the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure resolved that:

The Planning Enforcement Plan, set out in Annex 1 to the report, be adopted, subject to the amendment to paragraph 2.6 as set out above.

Decision Notice D160060MEM

The report gave an overview of a proposed Planning Enforcement Plan intended to provide a clear and transparent structure for dealing with planning enforcement matters.  Particular reference was made to how complaints would be managed and prioritised.

The proposed approach to enforcement, including timescales for action, details of responses to suspected breaches of planning control and prioritisation of planning enforcement resources were set out in the Plan, attached as Annex 1 to the report.

After careful consideration of the Plan, concern was expressed about the consistency of the terminology used and whether there could be confusion around the meaning of expedient and ‘serious harm’.  Officers recognised the importance of consistency and suggested that paragraph 2.6 of the Plan be amended to reflect that the test for expediency was ‘serious’ harm and not just ‘general’ harm.

In addition, it was suggested that the Enforcement Plan be reviewed in 6 months to check and monitor progress.

Reference was made to Parish and Town Council involvement as effective community engagement was a key part of delivering a responsive and accountable planning enforcement service.  Concern was expressed that, as there appeared to be no definitive action outlined with regard to parish and town councils, effective communication and involvement could be lost.  In response, it was suggested that this point would be revisited and strengthened to benefit and encourage parish and town councils to engage with planning officers over planning enforcement issues.  However, parishes were invited to contact the Borough Council immediately with any concerns raised by their residents.

Finally, it was suggested that the Enforcement Plan be reported to the next meeting of both the Parish Partnership Panel and the Tonbridge Forum in September. 

RECOMMENDED:  That the Planning Enforcement Plan, set out in Annex 1 to the report, be adopted, subject to the amendment to paragraph 2.6 as set out above.