£280k doesn't actually go very far and simply employing more staff/throwing money is in my view rather short-sighted, and lets not forget many breaches of planning control aren't covered by the beds in shed funding.In the last few years Hounslow has secured what was then the biggest ever fine for non-compliance with an enforcement notice (£150k), prosecuted rogue landlords and recovered money under the proceeds of crime legislation, demolished illegal structures/developments and recovered the costs from the site owners etc. Indeed Hounslow has done far more in that regard than most other Councils.Yet case levels have increase by over 200 cases in 6 years. As Vanessa says, some people will 'risk it' no matter what Councils do. But it's no long-term solution for Councils to just employ more and more staff to deal with an ever increasing number of cases.Indeed, when the beds in shed initiative was first announced Councils immediately said "hmm, money, great, but that doesn't get us around the legal issues of obtaining entry". The Council can have 100 enforcement officers but if they can't actually get into a property without having to obtain a warrant from the courts then getting evidence is a huge problem.Take this scenario. I visit a house today with an outbuilding in the back garden. I'm granted access. The outbuilding is permitted development as long as its being used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the house. The outbuilding is empty, but there's a toilet, a microwave and a bed inside. It looks as though someone could be living there. The owner says that his uncle is staying with the family over Christmas and is sleeping in the outbuilding as there's not even room in the house, but eats all his meals with the family (the microwave is just a spare) and the toilet is used by the family as an additional facility. I can't just immediately serve an enforcement notice because I suspect he's telling porkies. If I do, and he appeals, I haven't actually got any evidence to support the Council's notice, and most probably the notice is quashed and the Council end up having to pay the owner's costs in bringing that appeal. The public then rants about wasting money.To do the job properly, I need evidence. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, as a Council Officer I cannot keep a house under surveillance outside of normal office hours without having to formally advise the owner that I am doing. So I tell the owner, he makes damn sure no-one stays in the outbuilding for the forseeable future, and someone has to pay the 8 hours of overnight overtime I've spent sat in my car for no good reason.Alternatively, I turn up unannounced during the normal working day and ask to inspect. I can't force entry or demand entry without a warrant, and have to give at least 24 hours notice. No owner is going to be stupid enough to let me in if he's got something to hide, and he's going to spend the next 24 hours removing any trace of anyone living there from the outbuilding.Hence why it would greatly assist my investigation if the complainant is able to provide evidence to support any notice the Council serves. But too many complainants say "oh no, it's absolutely outrageous and I want you to stop it immediately, but I don't want to fall out with my neighbour or give evidence so I'm not going to assist you by keeping a log of activity, taking photos etc., I pay your wages etc etc."So round and round we go playing cat and mouse. That's why those people who've been there, like myself and Vanessa, know how difficult a job it is, and that's why, with the greatest respect in the world, the average person doesn't.
Adam Beamish ● 5050d