The Cabinet Member for Planning, the Head of Planning Services and an Area Planning Officer have been invited to attend for this item.

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member for Planning, the Head of Planning Services and the Area Planning Officer to the meeting.  The Head of Planning Services advised that the Planning Enforcement Contractor who had subsequently been invited had had to send his apologies.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Head of Planning Services gave an update on the planning enforcement team since the structural changes introduced in September 2017.  Members were invited to ask questions.

What was the new structure in Planning Services?

Why would the new system work better?

How much progress had been made to get rid of the problems of the past?

The Cabinet Member for Planning provided some background and advised that the Enforcement Team Leader had retired, and this led to an opportunity to review the Planning Enforcement team.  He explained that staffing levels had increased from 2.8 FTE to 3.8 FTE.  The Team Leaders (two Area Planning Officers) work would deal with 25% enforcement issues, and these would be localised to their area of planning work.  The Cabinet Member explained that a Planning Enforcement Contractor was employed up to the end of the 2017 financial year (March 2018).  He advised that the new way of working had been implemented on 1 September 2017, and he considered it to be too early to determine how successful the new system of working was, and also its impact.  The system needed to embed.  He explained that it was difficult to give feedback on progress made, but he acknowledged that there had been a change of culture in the Planning Enforcement and Development Management teams.  The Planning Enforcement Contractor had brought a different approach, which was appreciated both by officers, and the general public.

The Head of Planning Services provided further details of the new structure.  He explained that the two Area Planning Officers were now also Enforcement Managers.  The Senior Planning Enforcement Officer dealt with complicated cases throughout the Borough, and she reported to one of the Enforcement Managers.  A couple of new Enforcement Officers had also been recently employed.  The Head of Planning Services explained that the Planning Enforcement Contractor was a Senior Enforcement Officer and had been ‘a breathe of fresh air’ to the department.  He had written new procedure and practice notes to deal with enforcement cases.  In future Members could be added to cases as a complainant and this would ensure they were updated throughout the cases.  The Planning Enforcement Contactor had also set up monthly meetings with the Legal Team to review ongoing cases.

The Chairman stated that Members wanted consistency and were keen to get matters established.  He welcomed further comments from Members.

In terms of the contractor’s role, should there be Swale Borough Council (SBC) staff employed, rather than contractors?

What were the changes in the culture within the department?

The Cabinet Member considered it was the personality of the Planning Enforcement Contractor that was helping, plus the procedures that he was compiling for the enforcement staff.

The Head of Planning Services outlined the new deadlines for retrospective planning, right through to any enforcement action.  He explained that the Planning Enforcement Contractor was an extra resource at the moment.  It was possible that his contact could be reviewed, but it was envisaged that by the end of March 2018, the measures that the Contractor had instilled within the team would be ‘up to speed’.

Members made comments which included:  disagreed that it was too early to report on the changes that had taken place; agreed that there had been a change in culture, and there had been a vast improvement; it was critical to keep the case system up to date; Members could offer local knowledge to cases, but often knew nothing until they were submitted to the Planning Committee; very happy with the huge amount of change that had taken place; and it was important to have continuity with records coming forward to current officers.

Was 3.8 FTE for enforcement officers sufficient resources?

The Cabinet Member advised that more would be known when the first period had been reviewed.  There was a lot of one-off work to embed data.  He considered that 3.8 FTE was about right.

The Head of Planning Services explained that the 3.8 FTE were full investigating officers, whereas previously, part of the 2.8 FTE had been a management role.  Management and guidance was now coming from the two Enforcement Managers (Area Planning Officers), so overall, more senior officers were involved.  The Development Management Team had been replenished with more planning officers to deal with household applications.

The Cabinet Member explained that 52% of the Legal Team’s cases were planning work, so there was more resource there, than solely the 3.8 FTE.

Further comments from Members included:  not happy that previously enforcement cases had been dealt with too leniently; we needed to see dates, updates, and actions; communication was key, this had been a disgrace in the past; updates were needed at Planning Committee, we owe that to the members of the public so they see that action had been taken; a professional response was needed to the ‘bedding-in’ process; acknowledged that the contractor was an expensive resource which might not continue, but it was not good to also lose the new culture and working practices, this needed to be maintained; reporting to Members was important, all Members would want to be informed progressively, however, Planning Committee Members would want to see all enforcement matters, and we had not seen that yet.

What was included in the 3.8 FTE? Did it include 2 x 25% from Enforcement Managers?  Did they have 25% time to spare?

How was the Team going to deal with catch-ups; i.e. issues that were at least two years old and entirely unresolved?

What were the arrangements for the working relationship between the Planning Department and the Legal Department?  Issues bounced back and forth between the two departments, and it was important cases were not lost in the system.

The Head of Planning Services reported that the Planning Enforcement Contractor had set up monthly case review meetings, and there would be joint responses from the Heads of Planning and Legal Services.  He explained that there were three full time Enforcement Officers and one 0.8 FTE.  There was a new format with dates of the next review meetings and this would be forwarded to Members.  Each October there would be a general report to the Planning Committee, and there was a new Performance Indicator in the new enforcement charter.  This would look at the lifespan of enforcement cases and how quickly they were completed.

The Area Planning Officer explained that the Planning Enforcement Contractor had unified the list of enforcement cases, establishing the current situation with each case.  These could be looked at during review meetings, and there was now more joined-up thinking, with more involvement from officers, both approving applications and dealing with enforcement cases.

The Cabinet Member stated that there had been review meetings, looking at cases that were more than six months old, and target dates were set for completion of the cases.

Transparency and communication – what would implement/trigger communication, and when would that commence?

The Head of Planning Services explained that there were 600 enforcement cases per year.  Some of these were very basic, and not worth notification.  The Planning Enforcement Contractor was setting up criteria to generate when a trigger would be set to instigate an update to Members.

The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities suggested that Ward Members be added to the system, and Members sifted through what was relevant to them.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for Planning, the Head of Planning Services and the Area Planning Officer for attending the meeting and looked forward to a further update in the new year.