Forum Topic

John,Are you for real ?.  You keep talking about excuses, hold on a minute, I don't work in the public sector and haven't done so for several years, there's nothing for me to gain personally or professionally by posting what I do on this forum, what I'm simply telling you is the reality.You say get a warrant.  You're only going to seek a warrant from the court if you can't obtain entry through normal means (Section 196 of the T&CP Act).  You're only going to establish that you can't gain entry from trying to gain entry using standard powers.  So the owner is going to have a pretty good idea that you are going to go for a warrant, and will clear out the outbuilding before you turn up with the warrant.  And then what ? - the next week the owner puts the person back in the outbuilding and you're back to square one.  You know the number of cases, do you want the Council to use resources trying to get 1100 warrants on the basis of an unsubstantiated complaint ? - the Courts would laugh and refuse.I love the way you're trying to tell me the law.  My parents have a sink, a toilet, a washing machine, a freezer and a microwave in a detached outbuilding.  Suffice to say it isn't used as independent accommodation, but is used for purposes ancillary to the main house.As for sitting in a car out of hours to obtain evidence, I've done it, not for 8 hours but certainly for lengthy periods of time.  Sometimes that evidence was crucial in successfully prosecuting or enforcing, sometimes it was a waste of time.I know what you say is how many people see it, because surprisingly enough when you work in Council Enforcement Teams for 10 years you get a pretty good idea of the public perception of your job.  Unfortunately when you're employed by the Council you have to politely listen, whereas I can tell you that you're talking bollocks.If you think it's so easy, perhaps you should give it a try, although if you think taking a photo is 'very risky' I guess you'd never left the comfort of the office ;-)

Adam Beamish ● 4865d

Well said Xanthe,and yet more excuses from Adam! To suggest that £280,000 doesnt go very far is exactly what i would expect to hear from someone who has no idea how to spend public money effectively,and as we all know,there are plenty of those people!£280,000 could employ 10 enforcement officers for a year,and surely they would make significant headway with the problem,provided,of course,that they are given the support and leadership from their superiors.Adam,you say its no long term solution just to employ more people to deal with ever increasing number of cases.What is the alternative? Whatever solution the council has attempted in the last ten years has clearly failed miserably.If the owner is refusing access,then obviously the next step is to get a warrant.This is the normal proceedure,why do you consider this a big deal?Regarding the "scenario",the microwave is classed as a cooking facility,and is not allowed.The building is now capable of being used as an independent residential unit,and should become subject to further investigation.No enforcement officer could or would issue an enforcement notice at this stage,to suggest otherwise is misleading.He would have to have more evidence and then present this to the enforcement commitee,who would then authorise an enforcement notice,or not.If the council,as your scenario suggests,serve an enforcement notice with such flimsy evidence,then they deserve to pay the costs!To suggest that an enforcement officer would sit in his car,overnight,for eight hours,is pure fantasy.If the enforcement department are playing cat and mouse with these people,its because they allow it to happen.The scenario you have chosen is far from typical,and i can only presume you have done so in order to make the job look far more difficult than it actually is,and it would seem that the current regime are only too happy to go along with it.Sorry,Adam,thats how i see it,and i suspect many others do as well.

John Kerr ● 4865d

£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 ● 4865d

Hmm, I'm not sure where this discussion is heading.It's easy to criticise people when you have no idea of what the job entails, the relevant legislation etc.  And I'm sorry John but some of the comments you've made only illustrate how you are completely out of touch with the realities of day to day life within a Council Planning Enforcement Team (maybe I am too, after all it's been over 5 years since I walked away from Local Authority work, although I deal with Council Planning Departments on a daily basis so probably not !).  Certainly I can't think of any time since my first planning job in 1998 when public services, and planning enforcement in particular, were having money thrown at them.  But as I say I don't believe it's all about resources and money.  It's about the system, a system which like any has strengths and weaknesses, and also it's about a two-way approach - you seem to think that the problem/failings of the system is/are wholly down to those people who breach planning control, whereas I'd say that a significant number of complainants only add to the problems by wasting Council resources.You also forget John that I, just like you, live in the Borough now and indeed did so when I worked for Hounslow, so  I've just as much 'right' to moan as you have.  And don't think I'm an apologist for Hounslow or any other Borough, I deal with Council Planning Departments every day and find, just like I did when I worked within them, that there's a big variety in the quality of employees, both in terms of their abilities, their knowledge, their willingness to help/deliver solutions and their commitment.As for me, I'm human.  There's no easy way to measure the effectiveness of an enforcement team.  I wouldn't say I was any more or any less effective than my predecessor or my successor, we all worked within the confines of the system/legislation.  Sure I made mistakes, just like you and everyone does in your work.  But I'm comfortable that I did plenty of good things too.

Adam Beamish ● 4866d

John, you probably aren't aware that I used to run Hounslow's Planning Enforcement Team from 2001 to 2006 and spent 10 years at various Councils within the SE/London either as part of enforcement teams or managing the enforcement/appeals/certificate applications teams.I can't agree with what you say, but I do understand that unfortunately the general public perception of planning enforcement is negative and people think that things should be dealt with far quicker/easier than what they are.  To be clear, there is no 'national policy' on outbuildings being used for residential purposes.  Nor, technically, is it actually illegal - it only becomes illegal once an enforcement notice has been served and not complied with.  Until then, it is unauthorised, and there is a big difference between something being illegal and something being unauthorised.The biggest problem with the use of outbuildings is collecting evidence.  Outbuildings are usually in the back gardens of residential houses or flats - legally no Council Officer can gain entry to such a property without 24 hours prior notice, without obtaining a warrant from the courts.  You get in the outbuilding and there's a toilet and a microwave but no clear evidence of someone living there.  Neighbours say there is, the owner says a relative is staying over for two weeks and thus the outbuilding is being used for purposes ancillary to the main house and hence no breach is taking place.  If the Council serve an enforcement notice and can't provide evidence that a breach of planning control was ever taking place they are at risk of costs being awarded against them on appeal.It speaks volumes to me regarding planning enforcement that prior to the Coalition Government being elected the Conservative Green Paper waxed lyrical about how the Tories intended to tighten up planning enforcement and were even considering making any breach of planning control, however minor, a criminal offence...two years later the National Planning Policy Framework devotes a grand total of a single paragraph to planning enforcement.

Adam Beamish ● 4867d