Skip to main content

Agenda item

Planning Enforcement Report

Purpose

This report provides an update on the performance, staffing, and capacity of the Planning Enforcement Team following the transition of planning services back into the Council in November 2024 and the subsequent PAS Peer Review.

It summarises progress against the PAS Action Plan, identifies continuing service pressures including recruitment challenges and backlog management, and sets out the measures underway to improve resilience, service efficiency, and performance.  The Overview & Scrutiny Committee is asked to consider the progress made and note the areas where performance remains constrained.

 

Accountable Member

Juliet Layton - Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning

Report Author

Harrison Bowley – Head of Planning Services

 

**Report to follow**

 

Minutes:

The purpose of the report was to provide an update on the performance, staffing, and capacity of the Planning Enforcement Team following the transition of planning services back into the Council in November 2024 and the subsequent PAS Peer Review.

 

The report was introduced by Councillor Juliet Layton, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning, and Harrison Bowley, Head of Planning Services.

 

In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted:

·         Members expressed concern about inconsistent enforcement case updates and staff turnover, with officers acknowledging current resource and system limitations but committed to improve and automate reporting so that members could see clearer, ongoing case progress whilst balancing legal constraints.

·         A system for improved reporting to members was being developed and was expected to be in place within the lifetime of Cotswold District Council, with an aim of late summer to end of the year. It was being built alongside a new enforcement plan and wider back-office improvements, though legacy data issues from older cases might delay full implementation.

·         Listed buildings were treated as a top enforcement priority, with a target response time of around 48 hours and site visits to prevent irreversible harm.

·         The enforcement team currently had six posts, but one senior enforcement officer position remained unfilled.

·         No planning posts were included within the vacancy management savings with planning and enforcement roles being protected and funded.

·         Enforcement work required specialist legal and procedural knowledge, so short-term redeployment was not straightforward.

·         Cases were not left indefinitely but were triaged and either closed or reactivated depending on harm and priority. A structured backlog clearance strategy was in place with governance oversight, and cases were assessed against age, risk, and planning harm rather than being automatically dropped.

·         Officers clarified the legal distinction between types of planning breaches: listed building and tree protection offences could be treated as criminal matters, while most other breaches only became enforceable after formal notices and non-compliance.

·         The backlog consisted of a wide mix of cases, but the Council currently did not have reliable data to quantify it precisely by severity or type.

·         A full breakdown into “minor” versus “significant” cases was not yet possible until the backlog has been systematically worked through and reclassified under the new triage and reporting process.

·         Members suggested that Ward Members could help prioritise backlog cases by providing local context on severity, particularly for less complex or lower-level breaches, subject to confidentiality considerations.

·         A resident-facing enforcement guide was proposed, alongside clearer communication for councillors to show where cases sit in the process and what timescales and likely outcomes to expect after reporting.

·         Improvements were being explored to make public information more accessible digitally, reducing reliance on lengthy reports and improving clarity for both residents and councillors.

 

Councillor David Cunningham proposed submitting the following recommendations to Cabinet. Councillor Angus Jenkinson seconded the proposal.  The Committee voted to accept the proposal.

Recommendations to Cabinet

1.    To note that that there is a recognised long-standing issue relating to Planning Enforcement.

2.    To welcome the steps currently being taken to employ the services of an individual with particular expertise in this field.

3.    To note particular concerns relating to:

i)             Communication with members, especially when they have submitted a suspected breach of planning – recognising that members are not decision makers but their community links and historic knowledge can be a valuable resource for Enforcement Officers.

ii)            Lack of a system showing progress against current and backlog cases along with their classification.

iii)           Clarity on responsibility for individual cases when one officer leaves and another is appointed.

iv)           Communication with the public – making sure that published guidance is available to residents to provide them with clear information on how to notify the Council of suspected planning breaches and also give details of how this process is managed to enable a better understanding.

4.    To request an update on progress against the Planning Advisory Service Peer Review action plan.

5.    To request an action plan for the backlog clearance strategy, with a particular emphasis on those cases where real harm is being caused.

6.    To request that the Cabinet take all reasonable steps to address the issues, including rethinking how the Council tackles planning enforcement and the resources allocated to it.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages