Agenda item

To consider an update on how Wokingham Borough Council carries out duties relating to Building Control and Planning Enforcement

The Committee considered a presentation, set out in agenda pages 13 to 20, which outlined how Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) carried out its duties in relation to Planning Enforcement and Building Control.

The presentation outlined that most planning applications were approved, and most unauthorised development was acceptable and could be regularised through retrospective planning applications. The issuing of an enforcement notice should be used as a last resort, and WBC’s approach to planning enforcement was in line with Government guidance and was set out within the Local Planning Enforcement Plan. A total of 35 enforcement notices were issued by WBC in 2020, and these notices were only served once all other negotiations had failed. Most enforcement notices resulted in an appeal and usually a public enquiry, and WBC had a good track record in winning the majority of enforcement appeals. With regards to Building Control, this was a statutory service which was simultaneously in direct competition with the private sector for all projects regardless of their nature and size. Building Control ensured that building standards were met at the design stage and further critical stages of construction, however Building Control was not a clerk of works service. The enforcement of matters related to Building Control was restricted to one year after the completion of works, whilst prosecution could occur up to two years from completion of works. WBC was also responsible to intervene where there was a category one, serious hazard, in residential accommodation under the Housing Act 2004. WBC was unable to assist in a number of areas, including encroachment and trespass issues, party wall dispute, asbestos, or poor quality of workmanship.

Wayne Smith (Executive Member for Planning and Enforcement), Stephen Brown (Interim Assistant Director – Place), Roger Paine (Head of Service - Building Control Solutions), Ed Shaylor (Head of Enforcement and Safety) and Jason Varley (Operational Manager - Development Management & Compliance (Senior Specialist)) attended the meeting to answer Member queries.

During the ensuing discussions, Members raised the following points and queries:

·           Was WBC deterred from serving enforcement notices due to the expense and resource involved? Officer response – No, officers always looked for the most cost effective and efficient way of resolving issues, and enforcement notices were only issued once all other forms of negotiations had been exhausted.

·           To what extent was WBC’s statutory Building Control Service in direct competition with the private sector? Officer response – WBC’s Building Control Service was in direct competition with the private sector, and there were over 100 private companies across the UK, offering clients a wide range of choice.

·           Was WBC’s Building Control involved in the Loddon Field development? Officer response – No, this was dealt with by the national house building council, which most national house building companies chose to use.

·           Who should be contacted where a private driveway was obstructed by a vehicle parking on the pavement? Officer response – As the pavement was part of the highway, this would be a police matter.

·           How many Planning Enforcement officers were there to deal with in excess of 800 requests for service per year? Officer response – There were five officers in post for this function, however the Planning Department operated a hybrid model whereby planning officers worked across both disciplines to offer resilience.

·           Was there any redress for the complainant of a potential enforcement breach should officers respond by stating that a breach had not occurred? Officer response – It was for officers to decide if there had been a breach, however if further information was provided (for example evidence that lots of clients were attending a home office for meetings) then officers would reassess the case.

·           Where a case had been determined as not expedient to pursue, did this mean that the development was a breach however it was not cost effective to enforce? Officer response – No, this might occur where officers believed that a development would get planning permission, however the applicant might not want to pay for an agent to proceed the application and officers had to decide whether it was effective to enforce in each specific case.

·           Who should Members and the public contact in the case of a category one and two hazard? Officer response – All such requests should go via the environmental health email. Once this service was fully integrated back in-house, this would allow WBC more control. WBC expected private landlords to address issues in the first instance, however where there was a lack of response WBC would intervene in the case of an emergency.

·           Were there many cases of illegal HMOs within the Borough? Officer response – There were not as many instances as in neighbouring Boroughs such as Reading and Slough, although there were a number of HMOs on the western edge of the Borough. If landlords were hiding the status of a dwelling as an HMO then officers were keen for the public and Members to report such instances to environmental health. From April 2022 onwards, a list of licensed HMOs would be published on the WBC website to allow residents to check the status of registered HMO dwellings.

·           It was noted that landlords had a responsibility to manage a HMO more so than a regular rented dwelling.

·           It was noted that at the beginning of an enforcement investigation, officers would write a letter with a 28 day response time. If appropriate, officers would suggest a retrospective planning application is placed, and would offer a reasonable timetable for the application to appoint an agent.

·           Where a neighbouring property undertook construction work and caused an issue, for example with rainwater drainage, would this be a Building Control issue? Officer response – In this instance this would be a Building Control issue, however if this was raised after more than two years since works ceased then this would be an environmental health issue.

·           Were discretionary licences for HMOs being considered after the service was brought back in-house in April 2022? Officer response – Once the service moved back in-house additional data could be gathered regarding this issue, and Members could be appraised of the findings. The process of creating the discretionary license would be time and resource heavy, however if it solved a problem then it would be explored.

·           Would the in-house service be effective from April 2022, and would improvements be seen? Officer response – It was hoped that the service would be at least as good as that offered currently by the Public Protection Partnership (PPP) in April 2022, and over time a variety of improvements would be made. Members, residents and Town and Parish Councils would be consulted regarding what improvements they would like to see. A good manager had been recruited, and several staff were being transferred from the PPP. Response times for a variety of issues would hopefully be improved, and a particular focus would be placed on responding to issues for vulnerable tenants.

·           It was noted that whilst housing associations were responsible for dealing with accommodation issues and repairs, in recent times some associations had been experiencing resource issues.

·           It was noted that the service from April 2022 would be far more accessible for Members, residents, and Town and Parish Councils.

·           It was noted that should a discretionary HMO license be approved, this would apply to all HMOs operating on the day of approval and beyond.

RESOLVED That:

1)     Wayne Smith, Stephen Brown, Roger Paine, Ed Shaylor, and Jason Varley be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)     The Committee be kept appraised of developments as Environmental Health moved back in-house in April 2022.