|
Southern Enforcement Officer Group MINUTES of MEETING |
|||
| Venue |
Imber Court, Molesey, Elmbridge |
Hosted by ELMBRIDGE BOROUGH COUNCIL | |
| Date | Friday 4th July, 2003 | ||
| Published | Minutes/Presentations ~ 13 July 2003 | ||
|
Jim Lynn welcome everyone to the meeting and thanked Ann Biggs, Matthew Grahams and everyone else from Elmbridge Borough Council who had been involved in the organisation of the meeting. The next meeting would be held at Chigwell in Essex on 5th December, 2003. |
|
|
9.45 a.m. |
Welcoming Address Councillor John Bartlett, Portfolio Holder for Regulatory Affairs at Elmbridge Borough Council welcomed everyone to Elmbridge. Councillor Bartlett outlined the history of development within Elmbridge, and the unique position of the Borough being bordered by the River Thames, River Wey, River Mole and the M25. Some of the current issues facing planners within Elmbridge were the fast growing population, individual communities, high property prices, large amount of common land and lack of affordable housing. Councillor Bartlett outlined a case study at Brooklands in Weybridge to demonstrate some of the issues facing planners, enforcement officers and the elected Members in Elmbridge. |
|
10.00 a.m. |
Minutes of the Previous Meeting Agreed. Jim Lynn made the following comments:-
|
|
10.15 a.m. |
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill – Bernard Webster (Dean of the Faculty of the Environment at Portsmouth University) Bernard Webster explained the changes in local authority planning as a result of the Compulsory Purchase Bill and the implications it would have on Planning and Enforcement officers. The changes included the move away from the current complex plan system adopted in 1991 and the move towards a two tier system. The two tier system would comprise Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks. Changes would also be made to the planning process, including the reduction of a period of permission from 5 years to 3 years and the trial of the statement of development principles which, if successful would replace outlined planning permission. Enforcement was recognised as the area which made the planning system credible. The Government had recognised the heavy workload on enforcement officers, but considered the current powers adequate and sufficient, the problem was seen to be a lack of resources. - For full details, please see the speaker’s notes. |
|
11.15 a.m. |
Refreshments |
|
11.30 a.m. |
Planning Conditions and the Problems of Enforcing Them – Stephen Job, Part-Time Planning Inspector Stephen Job outlined the reason that conditions were introduced into the planning process, and the constraints on the use of conditions. Enforcement of conditions became difficult when unnecessary or poorly worded conditions had been applied to a planning permission. It was very important to ensure that all conditions were necessary and worded clearly. Advice was given on when to use an enforcement notice, a stop notice and a breach of condition notice and the advantages and disadvantages of each. - For full details, please see the speaker’s notes. |
|
13.00 p.m. |
Other Queries – Jim Lynn Jim Lynn outlined other queries that had been received on planning enforcement issues prior to the meeting and where appropriate, answers were given as outlined below:-
|
|
13.15 p.m. |
Lunch |
|
14.00 p.m. |
Relevant Planning Law Topic – Harriet Townsend, Planning Law Barrister Harriet Townsend outlined the implications of the Porter Judgement and the background to the case. Details were also given on planning injunctions and other enforcement issues, including the use of the County Court and the High Court. - For full details, see the speaker’s notes |
|
15.00 p.m. |
Refreshments |
|
15.15 p.m. |
Non-Compliant Business – Dave Taylor and Dianne Shirley, Officers from the Non-Compliance Unit at HM Customs and Excise Dave Taylor outlined how business were charged VAT and how much VAT they were liable to pay. The non-compliance unit dealt with unregistered businesses and unregistered workers by carrying out visits and audits, acting on information received from other organisations, drive bys, newspapers and local advertisements. Businesses that failed to register or did not fully detail their turnover were likely to be builders / fencers, catering / leisure, hotels and Bed and Breakfasts, pubs, taxi firms, market traders, antique dealers, second hand car businesses and cash businesses. Carousel fraud was the biggest fraud in the Country at present and this involved fraudsters making millions of pounds through tax evasion. Useful HMC&E Contacts:
- For full details, see the speaker’s notes |
|
16.30 p.m. |
Close of Meeting Jim Lynn thanked everyone for attending and all of the speakers for the day. |
| Presentations made available for SEOG members to view - Imber Court 04 July 2003 | |||
| Speaker | Subject |
Slides
|
Handouts
|
| Bernard Webster (Dean of the Faculty of the Environment at Portsmouth University). | Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill |
-
|
|
| Stephen Job (P/T Planning Inspector) | Planning Conditions and the Problems of Enforcing Them |
-
|
|
| Harriet Townsend (Planning Law Barrister) | Implications of the Porter Judgement and the background to the case. | ||
| Dave Taylor and Dianne Shirley (Officers from the Non-Compliance Unit at HM Customs and Excise) | Non-Compliant Business |
-
|
|
|
Message from WebMaster: Please note all of the above presentations are now available for viewing through your web browser without the need for additional software. |
|||
Page Updated: 25 August, 2003
©2002 SEOG