I have read the Communities ‘Developments in Enforcement’ paper on the PAS web page, I took a deep sigh and cringed in despair. We have been here before seven long years ago the ODPM consulted on the needs of planning enforcement. No surprises then when the results did not mach the aims that they had previously setout, the consultation died a death in some dusty bottom draw. What we need are more robust powers, which meets the challenge of rogue developers ‘using the system’ and making the system quicker and responsive to the needs and expectations of the public. By this I am not advocating mediation and therapy sessions with offenders trying to communicate with them the principals and ethics of responsible behaviour, but swift, responsible, robust and appropriate action. In a world where offenders can simply shout ‘human rights’ or ‘gypsy’ the system then goes into meltdown and the public are left querying ‘where are my rights’ is this an unequal playing field, why is it taking so long ? and it’s the public that demand answers from us on our actions or lack of action. The need for the power to require 'third parties' to release information would be a welcome tool, for example, who pays the council tax is something that at one time all enforcement departments could get just by phoning a colleague in the council tax section, now it is a matter of debate if even this can be released with more and more council taking a few that it cannot. (unless it is a criminal offence) Fly posting with mobile phone numbers on them. Ever asked BT for the subscriber details ? Well don’t bother; you are not going to get it. Having to wait for the case to become a criminal action is to late most of the time, its early on when that the need for information is required. As to the registers of advertisement offenders, what’s needed is for the LPA's who have a motorway in the area to take some action in the first place ? The M62 Hull to Manchester is a prime example of gross under action - a database is not going to overcome inertia. The use of ‘on the spot fines’ to the farmer / company for a repeated offence - an example of a much needed power, regulatory variable fines. one of the conclusions of the Macrory review Enforcement is under funded and often seen as the first thing that can be cut (as enforcement is discretionary) and the last thing to be funded, to have an enhanced fee for retrospective applicants, with the enhancement helping to fund training and proactive enforcement is a positive gain. I am aware of the horror, wailing and gnashing of teeth that originates from the DCLG when 'criminalsation' of offences is mentioned, however if like many areas of law, if it remains 'discretionary' and could work along side the Macrory reviews suggestions of VMAPS (Variable Monetary Administrative Penalties) as a more effective way additional tools for enforcement. If this happens then this is something that I personally would welcome. “Equal opportunity means everyone will have a fair chance at being incompetent” Don Sorby Principal Planning Investigation Officer
