Speed is of the essence when it comes to the enforcement of planning regulations. Unauthorised building work can become immune from planning enforcement in as little as four years. For an authorised change of use, it is 10 years. Although the law was changed on 25 April, 2024 to extend the enforcement of time limits from four years to 10 years in relation to unauthorised building work, that change does not apply retrospectively. It means that unauthorized building work completed before that date will continue to be subject to the four year rule before it becomes immune from enforcement. Nor are planning irregularities always a victimless crime. Imagine if you were disturbed day and night by the revving of car engines because your next door neighbour had turned their domestic garage into a motor repair shop. Wouldn’t you want your council to take action?
Nor are local authorities obliged to act against planning irregularities in every case. Only when they consider it ‘expedient’ to do so. But this does not absolve councils from the responsibility to investigate complaints of planning breaches, where they are reported, in order to make that crucial decision. The council which refuses to do this and allows a planning irregularity to become ‘established’ by default, opens itself up to the possibility of ombudsman complaints. Nor is it any excuse for the local authority to say that it does not have the resources to investigate planning irregularities. Does it have the resources to pay out the compensation claims which will inevitably follow if it fails to act against planning irregularities where there is a need to do so?
Once a planning irregularity has been reported, it needs to be investigated. Only then, can a decision be made as to whether it is ‘expedient’ to take enforcement action. But that is only the beginning of a statutory process.
Information has to be gathered. A decision made whether it is expedient take planning enforcement action or to ignore the irregularity because it is considered harmless. Once it is decided that enforcement action has to be taken, a legal decision has to be taken as to the appropriate course of action to be taken against that planning-breach. There are several choices. Including a planning contravention notice; breach of condition notice; or the traditional enforcement notice, against which there is an appeal to the Secretary of state, which could, although rarely, lead to the cost of a public inquiry. Once any statutory appeals against the enforcement process has been exhausted, the local authority have to follow up with prosecution if the breach continues.
It is also important that councils are seen to be robust when it comes to regulatory enforcement. Otherwise it sends the wrong message. That planning irregularities can be ignored. It is why Dorset Council’s backlog of 900 cases is so problematic. Many of those pending cases are already on their way to becoming immune from planning enforcement, as well as those cases which have already become immune. If the council does not have the resources in-house to deal with it, and maybe it should consider outsourcing that function.
BRUCE AND HOLLY 