Agenda item

This report provides the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee with an outline of how the planning enforcement process is resourced and delivered in Brent.

Councillor Farah, Cabinet Member for Safer Communities and Public Protection introduced a report from the Corporate Director of Communities and Regeneration that outlined the planning enforcement process as carried out in Brent and detailed how this area of work was resourced. The Committee heard that Brent’s Planning Enforcement performance was consistently good and rated within the top 3 nationally, despite this the Planning Enforcement Team continued to seek ways to continue to improve the service.

Following the information heard the Committee raised the following points for discussion:

·                Committee Member’s shared that they were often contacted from constituents who had raised Planning Enforcement issues and subsequently felt they had not been listened to as they did not receive adequate communication from the Council, therefore the Committee required clarity on the number complaints received, specifically, in relation to the lack of communication following an initial planning enforcement complaint. In response the Committee was advised that very few complaints of this nature were received, where they were received, they were resolved promptly by the Head of Planning and Development Services.

·                The Committee felt it was important to manage residents’ expectations when they raised a possible planning enforcement issue and queried with officers how clear the process was to residents from the point that a complaint was reported. In response the Committee was advised that once a complaint was received a letter of acknowledgement would be sent out within 7 days to the complainant acknowledging receipt of the complaint with an explanation on the back of the letter that advised of what would happen next. The Committee heard that it was difficult to provide complainants with an exact timescale as there was several factors that could affect the speed and escalation of a complaint, namely the quality of the evidence provided at the point of making the complaint. If good quality evidence was provided and officers felt that there was a breach, officers would aim to complete a visit within 2 weeks. Once a site visit has been completed officers would notify the complainant to update them as to whether the Council were able to take action.

·                The Committee noted that not all complaints received progressed to action being taken, as some complaints did not constitute a breach and where there were breaches identified, due to limited resources within the team, only the highest priority cases were likely to be progressed.

·                Officers recognised the reputational risk that could be expected if residents felt their reports were not being acknowledged and in turn appreciated the need for improved communication to support residents understanding and expectations of planning enforcement in Brent; with improved guidelines and threshold information available to support residents in managing their expectations of the service.

·                The Committee required clarity on the communication Ward Councillors could expect if a breach was identified in their wards. Officers advised that due to GDPR considerations it was not always possible to include Councillor’s in emails that updated the progress of a case, unless they were included in correspondence at the initial stages, or the report had been submitted via the Member Enquiry System. Officers recommended that if residents were concerned about lack of communication, they could contact their specific case officer and if no response was received, they could contact the Head of Planning Enforcement to request an update.

·                The Committee queried if the initial acknowledgement letter sent to complainants who had reported a suspected breach clearly communicated the next stages of the process, as it was felt that this information would support residents in managing their expectations of the service. Officers advised that there was clear guidance provided on the acknowledgement letter, however the document was due for review and in line with the revised general information for residents in relation to the work of the Planning Enforcement service. It would be updated to provide more detail and clarity for residents, including approximate timescales so that residents would know if and when it was appropriate to escalate their concerns.

·                The Committee queried how the Cabinet Member for Safer Communities & Public Protection was kept updated with enforcement issues, in response the Committee was advised that Tim Rolt, Enforcement Team Manager regularly met with Councillor Farah in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Safer Communities & Public Protection to update him on cases where direct action had been taken as well as providing him with a data update. The Committee queried if it was possible to receive a breakdown of how many enforcement complaints and notices were issued per ward, including information on types of breaches. It was felt this information could assist more targeted comms campaigns specific to areas where certain breaches were more prevalent. In response officers advised that a new database was currently being procured, once this was in place it would be easier to extract the data requested to support both Ward Councillors in understanding the issues in their wards and to provide targeted comms.

·                In terms of prevention, the Committee felt that it may be useful to feature successful prosecutions and direct actions in the Your Brent magazine and Brent Council website to act as both a deterrent and to reassure residents that the Council would take action where proven breaches had been identified.

·                The Committee recognised that the cumulative cuts made from central government to Council budgets had undoubtedly had an operational impact on the Planning Enforcement service, despite this the Committee felt the team were managing well with the limited resources available, however queried if a reduction in the backlog of work could be supported by the introduction of an apprenticeship scheme within the service or job sharing opportunities to assist in covering sickness and leave. In response the Committee was advised that it was possible to re-deploy staff if necessary, however this was not an option that had been fully explored yet, additionally, the Planning Development Team were able to support in signing off cases when needed. An apprenticeship would be welcomed by the department; however, it was acknowledged that funding would need to be sought to provide this.

·                The Committee required clarity on cases where after a period of time any breach of use of land or buildings that had not been challenged by enforcement action could be granted as established use. The Committee was advised that once an enforcement notice was issued, the land/building could not be recognised as established use regardless of the time taken to enforce any remedial action, therefore even if cases were caught in a backlog, once the notice had been issued it would remain until the breach had been remedied and established use could not be claimed.

·                The Committee were concerned that there was no scope to carry out visits to address complaints in relation to construction issues, it was felt this was a key concern for many residents, particularly in wards identified for large scale regeneration as these issues could continue over years. In response the Committee was advised that throughout the planning process conditions were often added via a Construction Management Plan in order to mitigate concerns identified in the planning phase. If there were felt to breaches in relation to the Construction Management Plan, concerns should be reported to better placed Council departments such as the Highways Enforcement Team and the Noise Team who could provide a more effective response to the concerns raised.

·                The Committee recognised that construction related issues were better placed with the Highways Enforcement Team and the Noise Team, however felt that this information should be clearly communicated to residents and Councillors as they were unlikely to be aware of the different reporting mechanisms available to them across the Council.

·                The Committee queried how other enforcement agencies within the Council could also help to alleviate the pressure from Planning Enforcement where appropriate. The Committee was advised that Planning Enforcement liaised closely with housing colleagues, the ASB team and Noise team to support successful resolutions and share resources effectively. The Committee were further advised that a strategy would be proposed to Cabinet in relation to using the digital strategy more effectively within the Council to support enhanced information sharing between departments, whilst being mindful of data protections in place.

·                The Committee required clarity in relation to Planning Enforcement’s consideration of conservation areas in the context of the climate crisis, in response officers acknowledged the close connection between climate change and conservation and advised that work was being actively undertaken to explore how to integrate energy saving measures within conservation areas.

At this stage in proceedings, the Committee agreed to apply the guillotine procedure under Standing Order 62(c) in order to extend the meeting for a period of 15 minutes and enable the remaining business on the agenda to be completed.

As the Committee had no further questions for officers, the Chair thanked the Planning Enforcement team for attending the Committee and for the effective work that had taken place within Brent, before moving on to summarise the outcome of the discussion and the additional actions identified, which were AGREED as follows:

Suggestions for Improvement

(1)      Where possible, include benchmarking data to accompany figures/statistics provided in all future scrutiny committee reports. In the absence of benchmarking data, provide context behind figures/data provided in reports e.g., percentages.

(2)      To avoid unnecessary back and forth dialogue between officers and residents, improve communications around the standard of evidence required to proceed with planning breach complaints. This should include public education, and improvements to the planning enforcement webpage including the reporting mechanism.

(3)      Review the effectiveness of the Planning Enforcement Investigation Guide to better manage residents’ expectations of the planning enforcement process (e.g., providing clarity on planning enforcement timescales).

(4)      Undertake an audit to determine the wards with the highest amount of planning breach complaints, and the wards with the highest amount of enforcement activity. This intelligence should be used to develop a targeted strategy to prevent planning breaches e.g., targeted planning education and/or communications campaigns etc. The Audit should also categorise the types of breaches receiving enforcement notices.

(5)      Explore additional ways to increase staffing capacity in the Planning Enforcement team to address backlogs.

Information Requests

(1)      Provide a copy of the Planning Enforcement Investigation Guide.

(2)      Provide a breakdown of –

·                Planning breach complaints by ward.

·                Enforcement activity by ward.

·                Types of breaches that have received enforcement notices by ward.

(3)      Provide planning enforcement timescales.

(4)      Provide information on the training provided to planning enforcement staff in Brent.