5. Case prioritisation, the use of formal powers and our approach to retrospective applications

5.1 In order to help allocate the planning enforcement team’s resources effectively, incoming complaints will be assigned a priority, which will then guide the timescales for dealing with the case and providing an update to the informant. A priority given at the outset may, on occasion, need to change once we have been able to visit the site and fully assess the situation. The council uses the following priorities:

• PRIORITY 1: When irreversible and serious damage to the environment or public amenity would result. Examples include works to protected trees; works affecting the character of a listed building; demolition works in a conservation area; other development where there is actual or imminent residential occupation, or development that will imminently become immune from formal enforcement action. Typically, only a very small proportion of the cases that the planning enforcement team will investigate will fall into this category.
  
  
• PRIORITY 2: This covers less immediate yet still serious breaches that give rise to severe planning harm. Examples include serious traffic safety hazards; and also non-compliance with certain planning conditions (e.g. some ‘pre­commencement’ type planning conditions where severe or lasting harm to amenities is likely to result from non-compliance).
  
  
• PRIORITY 3: Most breaches of control tend to fall within this category. It relates to breaches that are likely to remain stable in their planning impact and that are unlikely to give rise to any severe or lasting harm to amenities, but which are worthy of investigation and further assessment. Such breaches may include the erection of fences, development not being built in accordance with approved plans, and residential extensions.

5.2       The following timescales relate to each of the above priorities:

5.2   It is important to stress that the council’s planning enforcement powers are discretionary, and that the planning system operates on the basis that such powers should only be used in the public interest to remedy an unacceptable planning harm rather than being used as a punitive measure.  

5.3   Where the outcome of an investigation concludes that a breach of planning control has taken place, it will not necessarily follow that formal enforcement action will automatically then be taken by the council. Government guidance identifies that any council enforcement action should be ‘proportionate’ and appropriate to the seriousness of a breach and the degree of planning harm that is caused.

5.4   In many cases, unauthorised development may be of a nature that may have been approved by the council had an application been made in the first instance. Accordingly, in order to maintain public confidence in the planning system (generally) and how the council seeks to ensure adherence to ‘planning rules’ across the borough in order to protect the quality of the built and natural environment (specifically), the council will strongly encourage the timely submission of a valid retrospective application seeking to remedy the breach of planning control. In some instances, retrospective applications can include an element of proposed works should permission/approval be granted: for the purposes of this Plan, however, the term retrospective is used to cover applications that are retrospective either in whole or in part.  

5.5    The role of retrospective applications is an important component of an effective local approach to planning enforcement which seeks to achieve successful planning outcomes wherever that is possible. The advantage of such applications is that they will be in the public domain and so will allow members of the public, parish councils, community groups and any technical consultees to make their views known as to the planning merits of the application. The council will then be able to take all such views into account when reaching a decision.

5.6    A retrospective application that is approved by the council will enable the associated investigation to be closed as a breach of planning control will no longer exist.

5.7   If a retrospective application involves further works or actions to be carried out post-approval then the council will continue to monitor in order to ensure compliance with the terms of the approval: only when such matters are fully resolved will an investigation be closed.

5.8   If a retrospective application is refused by the council then, in most cases, it is likely that formal enforcement action will follow in order to try and remedy the planning harm that the council consider exists.