minutes 13 07 01

9.45 - Welcoming address Cllr Palmer, Administration Leader for Development and Regeneration at the London Borough of Barnet welcomed delegates to the meeting. Barnet has adopted the new cabinet system of local government and hence his unusual title. This system has been in operation for some time and has resulted in a wider spread of executive powers between councillors and officers. Barnet is the second largest London Borough and manages to achieve the determination of 70% of planning applications within eight weeks. In the year 2001 they have served 42 Enforcement Notices and 5 Breach of Condition Notices and 74% of enforcement complaints were dealt within the 8-week period. Cllr Palmer noted that there has been an increase in the number of complaints this year. He could not stress enough the importance of the enforcement function as for many people it was their only contact with the Council, it took great skill and diplomacy to explain the things that cannot be resolved, such as boundary disputes. Enforcement officers have to deal with a wide range of people from the awkward customers to 'little old ladies', and in so doing must have the ability to be both polite and firm when appropriate. Cllr Palmer wondered if the task would be easier if breaches of planning control were made a criminal offence, and admitted that he could see the merit of this. One of his main planning concerns were mobile telephone masts, as Barnet are now having to consider third generation masts, the matter was becoming even more controversial. Cllr Palmer wished everyone an enjoyable day, commenting that the networking and exchange of information was perhaps one of the most important aspects of the meeting.

10.05 - Minutes of meeting held 23 March 2001 The Minutes of the last meeting were taken as read. Any other business Jim Lynn thanked his colleagues at Barnet, particularly Jim Clark, for all their hard work in organising the meeting. Phil Wratten, sent his apologies for absence due to ill health. This would have been his last meeting prior to his retirement from Wokingham District Council, he sent his good wishes and goodbyes. The Head of Development Control at Wokingham District Council would be pleased to hear from anyone who may be interested in filling the vacancy derived from Phil's retirement.

10.15 - Mark Shaw - Hertsmere DC - The enforcement experience When Mark originally agreed to make a presentation it was intended to be a retrospective look at his enforcement career prior to his retirement. However, it has transpired that Mark will be remaining at Hertsmere on a consultancy basis so that his presentation will not be a farewell but in the nature of his overview of enforcement over the years of his employment. Mark expressed his thanks to Jim Lynn and congratulated him on his skill and endurance in regularly organising such interesting meetings. Even though he is not officially retired, Mark welcomed the opportunity to reminisce about the changes he has seen in his 12-year career, some good and some not so good. He felt that not everything he said would please all the delegates, however, he was willing to share some thoughts and opinions on several enforcement related issues. Mark has provided a transcript of his presentation, which is available upon request.

11.50 - Professor Anthony Layers, Barrister at Law - Planning Agreements are they enforceable? Challenges to Human Rights Anthony trusted that the group would find his presentation a useful CPD session and acknowledged that CPD is also relevant to his profession, although he recalled that his Pupil Master did not undertake any! Anthony discussed various matters commencing with his observations on the judgement by the House of Lords in the Alconbury Case. This appeal was based upon a belief that a breach of the Human Rights Act had occurred, namely that the appellants had not had their case heard by a 'fair and impartial' tribunal. Anthony stated that prior to the House of Lords decision he had confidently predicted the eventual outcome. This he did by drawing a parallel from an appeal decision in the 1960s by a Minister charged with adjudicating upon the proposed creation of Stevenage as provided for under the New Towns Bill. Anthony with much aplomb, and to the amusement of those present, read extracts from the appeal hearing transcript. He focussed upon the then argument that an appeal being heard by the Minister responsible for seeing through the legislation, resulted in local residents being deprived of the right to Natural justice'. Anthony then went on to discuss problems relating to both Section 106 Agreements and planning obligations. He gave various examples of the contractual difficulty known as 'privy' and the inability of third parties, to whom benefit was intended, from pursuing an action against the signatories to such an agreement. The detailed notes of Anthony's presentation-are available upon request.

13.00 - Lunch

14.00 - News of forthcoming meeting This will be on Friday 9th November at Chigwell in Essex sponsored by Epping Forest. Presenters include Mr Andrew Kirby, Senior Planning Inspector with responsibility for enforcement appeals and inspectorate training (previously spoke at Eastbourne in November 2000), Mr Lee Philpot of the Home Office draftsman of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Linda Russell (solicitor) who has spoken at previous meetings and Kanta Wildsmith of Essex County Council Gypsy Trust.

14.05 - Mr Bernard Webster, Lecturer at the University of Portsmouth - Material Considerations in planning applications - an update Bernard Webster spoke on the subject of 'Material Considerations' as defined by Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the new Section 54(A) introduced by Section 26 of the Planning and Compensation Act, 1991. He cited several recent appeal cases - all of which are contained within his presentation notes - detailed notes are available upon request.

15.20 - Peter Harrison, Barrister at Law - Legal update, Environmental Planning Peter Harrison focussed his presentation on: 1.@ Prosecutions under Section 179 in the light of the HRA 2: direct action under Section 178 - the forgotten remedy? 3: The Criminal Law and Contaminated Land - something over the horizon? In doing so he made reference to the Human Rights Act 1998. He stressed the need for planning officers to pay particular regard to the HRA when presenting reports to Committee. Peter dealt with the problems of pursuing criminal proceedings for a breach of an Enforcement Notice in cases where delay has occurred - possible counter claim of 'abuse of process'. He set out some advice when considering taking enforcement and subsequent prosecution. Peter listed points 'for and against' the remedy of direct action as empowered by Section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Finally, he dealt with contaminated land, setting out the regime in summary form, followed by 'remedial notice' action with the resultant offences in cases where noncompliance occurs. The presentation was concluded by a wide-ranging question and answer session in which Peter displayed his extensive knowledge. Full notes of Peter's presentation are available upon request.

Jim Lynn thanked all those present for their support and reminded delegates of the next meeting to be held on 9th November 2001.

IN ORDER TO OBTAIN COPIES OF ANY OF THE PRESENTATION NOTES REFERRED TO ABOVE, PLEASE CONTACT EITHER JIM CLARK C/0 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET OR JIM LYNN C/0 SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL TEL: 01276 707203.