Notes of
Councillor Brown’s opening address
Good
morning and welcome.
We
are here to listen to some very interesting talks on planning
enforcement and allied subjects.
I
would like to say a few words about planning enforcement
from the perspective of a Council Member – drawing on
the views expressed by members of the public and parish
councils.
When
people talk about planning enforcement, what do they mean?
Usually remedying a development that should have
had planning consent.
But what is a development, and what developments
actually require planning consent.
We might answer this by referring to Section 55 of the 1990 Town &
Country Planning Act.
We might delve into the General Development
Order of Permitted Development Rights.
But
of course, the public are not concerned with such things
and neither, it would appear, are some Parish Councils.
No,
what is seen is some perceived or actual infringement
together with the requirement to have an immediate remedy.
The difficulties arise when the remedy is not as
prompt as the public would like.
Quite
possibly, the name itself – enforcement – is part of the
problem, at least in the view of many members of the public,
no one is actually forced to remedy the breach.
I well recall many years ago that Colin Rockall,
the then Chief Executive of Tandridge District Council,
was challenged by a member of the public at an annual
parish assembly – “why is the process called enforcement
when it does not enforce anything?” Since then, I have heard that question again
and more than once.
There
is also a persistent view that development without the
benefit of prior planning consent is illegal.
But we know, and tell the public that this is not
the case. I believe
however, that some breaches such as unauthorized works
to a listed building are criminal offences.
We may recall the Carnworth report of the late
1980’s, which last investigated this matter and drew back
from this in view of the difficulties that might result
in criminalizing planning infringements.
Nevertheless, a commonly held view is that development
without prior planning consent is illegal and the offenders
should be punished.
Another
commonly expressed view is that there are different regimes
for different cases. There is, according to some members of the
public, and sadly, some members of some Parish Councils,
the view that there is one process that we use for the
“small” offender who we “come down” upon like a ton of
bricks, and another for the big commercial offender, who
we let get a way with anything for months and years on
end without taking any action.
But,
we know that that is not the case and the process is prescribed,
for example by, PPG 18 “Enforcing Planning Control” so
that enforcement action should be used as a last resort
after attempting to remedy the breach by negotiation or
invitation to submit a planning application or other appropriate
action. We know that if we shortcut these processes,
we are unlikely to be successful should the matter come
to a court of law.
This
of course leads to another widely held view that the fact
of an application being retrospective to the development
having taking place is ipso facto a reason to refuse the
application. This
of course quite simply is not the case.
There
is a range of options that the development control authority
has – such as planning contravention notices, breach of
conditions notices, enforcement notices, stop notices,
injunctions. We
are of course obliged to take proper account of laws and
time periods regarding appeals and applications and court
judgments. We
should only take action where such action is in support
of acknowledged public interest.
Tandridge
District Council has requested some alterations to the
law, for example, that relating to suspension of a valid
enforcement notice, upheld at appeal, by a fresh application.
As
a member and in common I hope with all other members,
I do value the important service provided by our enquiry
and enforcement team.
I do understand at least some of the frustrations
inherent in the present laws that govern enforcement.
We
would welcome courts of law taking planning matters more
seriously than some appear to do presently.
We understand the frustrations expressed by members
of the public and may share the view that some members
of the public who are directly affected by some unauthorized
development or activity – for example unauthorized encampments,
of which more later – believe that little if any regard
is paid to their human rights.
While
unauthorized encampments with consent of the landowner
follows the general enforcement principles, illegal encampments,
that is without the landowner’s consent, could be dealt
with by a Court Order – possibly within 10 days.
As
members, we try to bridge the gap between the proper aspirations
of the public and the majesty of the law governing planning
enforcement.
It
is not an easy task.
|