WELCOME ADDRESS

Steve Ingram, Head of Planning at Huntingdonshire Council welcomed everyone and stated that he was delighted to be asked to speak at the meeting. He talked about the issues faced by Huntingdon and considered the authority was good value for money.

Steve Ingram discussed the location of the council and various details such as the population and number of planning applications and enforcement requests dealt with. He continued to explain that the authority was a busy one and spoke about the planning challenges facing the council, e.g. the growth agenda, delivering sustainable development and increasing public engagement through public speaking.

Steve Ingram also talked about the planning enforcement challenges that Huntingdon are working on e.g. ensuring positive compliance, planning permissions and unauthorised residential issues.

Jim Lynn thanked Steve for addressing the group and thanked Sandy and her colleagues for all their hard work in making the day run smoothly. Jim also thanked Paul Corbett, the web master, for his hard work in maintaining the SEOG website.

Jim mentioned that Tony Russell from National Association of Planning Enforcement (N.A.P.E.) was present if anyone had any questions or comments to make.

Duncan opened his presentation by explaining that he was a partner in SJ Berwin, a company that acted for the Crown Estate. He talked about how the system worked prior to the new regulations being passed in June 2006, where the Crown was immune from planning control, although some Special Enforcement Notices (SENS) could be served. He continued to say that if there was development planned on Crown land no action was allowed however if a third party was going to carry out development on the land, they would need Local Authority consent.

From June 2006, crown land was subject to planning control and Duncan discussed various circulars and the normal application procedure. He also talked about urgent Crown development and the enforcement procedure from June 2006.e.g. there were no more SENS.

Duncan finished by summarising that the Crown is now subject to Planning Controls, notices/orders can be served without consent of the Crown but consent was needed for entry onto land and court proceedings.

Duncan took questions/comments from the group including the use of the Human Rights Act with reference to Crown land and the only other course from prosecution would be a judicial review.

. => Notes/presentations associated with this topic maybe available [>>]

Bob explained to Jim that the group had appreciated Jim's hard work involved in the organisation of the SEOG meetings and a collection had been made to mark his 50th meeting. He said that Jim had special qualities, which encouraged people to help him with the event and without Jim SEOG wouldn't exist. Bob admired Jim's dedication and continued to say that Jim nearly didn't make the meeting due to a family bereavement. However, Jim did attend showing a great commitment. Bob thanked Jim for all his hard work and a presentation of gifts was carried out.

Jim spoke of the enjoyment experienced in assisting with the running of S.E.O.G and of the immense personal satisfaction gained in seeing the Group go from strength to strength. He then expressed his thanks to everyone for the presentation of such wonderful gifts and tribute paid by Bob on behalf of the membership of the Group (a statement of thanks by Jim has been placed on the home page) Jim also confirmed that in a couple of years time he will cease his role as Co-Chair and asked for anyone interested in assuming the responsibility to contact him or Bob.

Jim advised that Alan Frampton from the New Forest was carrying out a survey regarding enforcement officers and would be handing out paperwork during the day to anyone who would like to take part. Also Ken Vaughan (South Northants District Council) would appreciate any comments/advice regarding property, which has been sold but is now derelict.

Jim advised that the venue for 13th April 2007 had been booked for Imber Court in 2007.
.

TONY RUSSELL - NAPE

Tony Russell, Chair of the National Association of Planning Enforcement (N.A.P.E.) congratulated Jim on the 50th meeting of S.E.O.G.

Tony explained that he joined NAPE in 2003 but it was officially launched on 6 June 2006. He supports the work of NAPE, which has the 'ear' of Central Government, and he said he feels that the organisation should support SEOG. NAPE needs more people to join and stated that NAPE would fight and lobby Government for everything enforcement requires.

Chris explained that the Advertising Council was a federation of advertising companies which did not sell anything. He continued by saying that there was evidence of advertising over 4000 years ago; in UK there was paper hanging (fly posting) in 1740s. 1948 saw the publication of the first Advertising Regulations, which were passed to control and not to repress. However today it seems to be the other way around.

Chris discussed advertisements in relation to development plans explaining that an advert cannot be refused when referring only to the development plan. An advert should be judged on its own merit and take into account amenity and public safety.

Chris showed the group various examples of adverts and talked about shop names and corporate design. He continued to say that a large percentage of shop signs could be displayed with deemed consent. He also stated that no poster panel had ever caused a road accident - no one has accepted a poster has distracted them, as they should be driving with due care and attention.

Chris advised that there was no enforcement action on adverts -if the advert was unlawful then prosecution was the correct action.

Chris took questions from the audience. One member asked what would be the thoughts on an acceptable poster but a bad hoarding. Chris explained that there was no distinction between the two. The regulations said an advert includes the poster and hoarding. Other comments included the use of a gantry to change posters, large companies displaying illegal adverts (but the fine is minimal compared to the income received whilst the advert is displayed prior to prosecution), and adverts on vehicles.

=> Notes/presentations associated with this topic maybe available [>>]

LUNCH

Annalisa began her presentation by discussing ownership of Britain's river and canal navigation. 3100 miles were owned by Members of the Association of Inland Navigation, 600 by the Environment Agency and 2200 miles by British Waterways of which Annalisa was employed by. She had only 4 patrol officers to cover the 2200 miles. She also talked about what was required in order to keep a boat on the waterways, for example a licence, a boat safety certificate, third party insurance and a permanent mooring or be continuously cruising. (British Waterways Act 1995 s17)

Annalisa showed the group various slides illustrating the different types of boats found on the waterways and the types of moorings available. She also discussed how costly it could be to keep a boat on the waterways.

Annalisa talked about planning consent requirements. Planning consent was not required for a residential continuous cruiser or a permanently moored non - residential boat. However consent was required for a permanently moored residential boat. She added that a continuous cruiser was a boat, which was not in one place for more than 14 days. Unfortunately some boats will move a few feet for a while and then move back, known as bridge hoppers. British Waterways have tried to combat this by interpreting a 'continuous cruiser' in the British Waterways Act 1995 as 'engaged in a genuine progressive journey around the network.'

Annalisa discussed enforcement activities on the waterways. The patrol officers may remove any vessel which is sunk stranded or abandoned. Any breach of planning regulations is dealt with between the local Authority and the boater.

. => Notes/presentations associated with this topic maybe available [>>]

Richard began his presentation by explaining that he would be looking at statutory provisions and case law that deals with whether a planning permission has been legally implemented. He talked about pre conditions and that they were common in outline applications, reserved matters approvals and full planning permissions. He also discussed various cases illustrating conditions and permissions and their impact on planning control. He emphasised that there should be a clear and precise paper trail of the conditions.

Richard also discussed the Whitley principle, where if a developer carries out a development in breach of any pre conditions (e.g. prior to having received all the approvals that it requires from the Local Planning Authority pursuant to conditions that have been attached), the development would be unlawful. Richard talked about exceptions to this principle giving case examples.

=> Notes/presentations associated with this topic maybe available [>>]
.

Jim thanked everyone for coming and the speakers for giving up their time. He advised that the next meetings would be as follows:

would be sponsored by Mole Valley and would be at Imber Court on 13 April 2007. The following meeting would be on 27th July at Bushey.

NEXT MEETING Friday 13 April 2006 - VENUE: Metropolitan Police Sports Club, IMBER COURT sponsored by MOLE VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL.

SUMMER MEETING Friday 27 July 2006 - VENUE: Metropolitan Police Sports Club, BUSHEY.

If anyone has suggestions for a subject or of a speaker for a future meeting please contact either Jim Lynn or Bob Moon.

Finally we need a sponsor for the meeting in July/December 2007, and any authority willing to host a meeting please contact Jim or Bob urgently.

- "Enforcing Against Queen and Country"

- "Rosie and Jim meet the Planning Enforcers"