Enforcement strategy review

Councillors highlighted that a common complaint from residents was regarding concern around planning enforcement. This was often in relation to what is, to the casual observer, a dismissive approach to planning applications which can result in the erection of buildings larger than the submitted plans followed by a reliance on retrospective planning to resolve the issue. Councillors are concerned that planning enforcement within the borough is perceived as weak which may result in an increase of planning breaches.

Senior officers explained that after a breach of planning has been reported the enforcement process can be lengthy. Buildings need to be physically measured and compared to approved plans. Officers then need to check to see if retrospective planning could be made and assess the harm that the breach has made. To appeal against a refusal of planning requires a long list of grounds. However, if there is genuine reason and harm being caused by a breach then it is pursued using a rigorous eight-phase investigation which forms part of the council’s local enforcement plan for planning. Retrospective applications then need to be dealt with on the same basis as the initial application which adds further time to the process.

The panel raised the point that the tightening of planning enforcement is not a priority within central government and the wider planning system. In fact, there is a focus to deliver more homes through permitted development and hence increased possibilities for people to make changes without the need for planning permission.

Discussions around the conversion of office blocks, which is covered by prior approval processes, highlighted a need for improved protection of residents. Planning enforcement follows legislation and therefore doesn’t have much input into the conversions of these buildings. There have been concerns with one particular property, Hayley House, which needed to be passed onto the PPP and the fire service.

Overall, the planning team confirmed that they are confident with the strength of their enforcement strategy and feel it supports and reinforces cases where they need to go to court to make prosecutions. Evidence of this is seen within the planning policy document where an eight-phase investigation flow chart can be found which details the process from receipt of complaint through to direct action if necessary. This strategy remains successful due to regular reviews and updates in response to changes in legislation.

After discussions about issues within planning enforcement the panel felt that local authorities should have greater powers to help address abuse of the planning system, specifically regarding retrospective planning. It was felt that a step towards achieving this would be for the Executive member for Planning and Transport to contact the relevant minister in central government.

An issue discussed around highways was the volume of work taking place. However, it was acknowledged that companies have a statutory right to carry out work. The council cannot decline applications but are able to control when the work happens. The website one.network can help increase awareness and provide a platform to find out when and where work is taking place.

By registering for free, residents can use the one.network website to receive updates of work due to take place in the selected area and also the duration of the work. This information is helpful for residents as it keeps them up to date with disruption within the chosen area caused by highway work. If they wish, residents can also use the information to report unauthorised works to the council which will help officers to investigate and implement enforcement to contractors and companies undertaking works without a permit.

After learning about the benefits the one.network website can provide, the panel recommends improving awareness through promotion on the council website. This will be beneficial for residents and the council and could be a useful tool to help monitor and report unauthorised highways work.

The Public Protection Partnership (PPP) is a shared service delivering Environmental Health, Licensing and Trading Standards on behalf of 2 authorities - Bracknell Forest Council and West Berkshire Council.

A focus within the PPP’s strategy is to take an approach of tackling issues from 3 ways:

1. Prevention by using media and information on the website to provide information to the public around a topic. Also, using signage and CCTV as a preventative measure.
2. Intelligence gathering by encouraging residents to report offences and highlighting ways to achieve this. For example, who to contact, where to find forms to report concerns and breaches of enforcement.
3. Enforcement through the issuing of fines.

This strategy has produced some successful results:

The Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS)

Thames Valley Police have accredited ABM Facility Services UK Ltd, a private company who hold the security contract at the Lexicon Shopping Centre in Bracknell. Five of their security officers have been presented with individual CSAS certificates. These members of the security team have been granted police powers to assist them in tackling ASB.

All have been police vetted and completed a CSAS training course. Working in partnership with Thames Valley Police and Bracknell Forest Council, the security officers have the authority to issue fixed penalty notices (FPN) for graffiti, fly posting, cycling on a footpath as well as breaches of the Alcohol Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). 

Fly tipping

There has been a marked reduction in fly tipping and resulting prosecutions for offenders. A decision was made about 12 to 18 months ago to employ a dedicated resource to specifically deal with this problem. Some recent successes in this area are:

• fly tipper convicted after collecting rubbish from residents to be disposed of was found fly tipped at a disused school site - the defendant was fined £320 and was ordered to pay a contribution towards the prosecution costs
• fly tipper convicted at Reading Magistrates Court following rubbish found fly tipped outside a charity shop - the court sentenced by way of a conditional discharge for 12 months and ordered the defendant to pay a contribution towards the prosecution costs

The PPP also use the positive effects that publicity of successful cases and outcomes can have. The main benefits of this are that it:

• develops knowledge and awareness of enforcement which can result in increased reporting from the public of enforcement breaches
• can help to act as a deterrent if there is publicity around the fines given
• provides reassurance that councils are implementing successful enforcement strategies

The good practice and examples provided by the PPP have highlighted some ways to enhance enforcement strategies within the council. Therefore, the panel proposed the following recommendations:

• improve communication, through greater coverage and reporting of success stories - this could be used to develop and increase understanding of enforcement processes
• increase enforcement through the development of CSAS
• investigate the use of CCTV to enhance the enforcement process when issuing fines, for example for fly-tipping - CCTV can additionally act as a deterrent and provide reassurance to the public with respect to fly-tipping hotspots

There was discussion within this review regarding CSAS training of park rangers, which could enable them to issue fines regarding littering and dog fouling and so on.  Whilst currently staff within the Parks and Countryside don’t have enforcement powers it was acknowledged that expanding CSAS powers within this area would not be appropriate for the following reasons:

Due to the nature of their work park rangers often work on an individual basis. For safety reasons it was not felt appropriate to provide them with CSAS powers.

Residents are respectful of park rangers, and it is felt that this relationship could be harmed through providing them with powers to enforce fines. It was acknowledged that they can get good results by speaking with and asking residents to pick up litter or clear up dog fouling without additional powers enabling them to issue fines. They are respected within the community and have a good relationship with the public.

The Parks and Countryside team carried out an extensive piece of work to look at how some enforcement action might be delivered for dog fouling and environmental crime issues. It was found that this wasn’t straightforward in terms of making sure how staff would be able to witness offences and then go through a process of issuing a fixed penalty notice. They concluded that giving rangers these additional responsibilities would be too much of a shift in terms of the core work they are currently required to do. An important aspect noted was whether pursuing CSAS training for park rangers was worthwhile to target a minority of people who commit these crimes.

It was noted that there is a process in place if a ranger, or member of the public, were to witness an offence such as dog fouling where a form can be completed, and the issue is followed up with the PPP partnership to take action.

The panel concluded that no recommendations were necessary within the parks and countryside team. It was agreed that the team is successful in their approach towards enforcement and the work they do.