Agenda item

A report on Planning Enforcement was considered by the Board. Members were reminded that the delivery of the planning enforcement was largely transferred to Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) on 1^st June 2024, with investigation of cases the responsibility of WRS and input provided from planning officers where their professional expertise was required. It was highlighted that prior to the formal takeover of the planning enforcement function by WRS, there had been assistance provided to the Council’s planning officers with the investigation officer role since the beginning of coronavirus pandemic.

There were 302 cases of alleged planning breaches in 2024/25 which required WRS to undertake an investigation. Of these, 5 cases were assigned as priority 1 cases as they satisfied the criteria for this set out in the Enforcement Policy. Of the valid cases, 173 out of 175 were closed and resolved by informal compliance or no issue in 2024/25. There were 304 open planning enforcement cases as of September 2025.

It was stated that the backlog in open cases had fallen slightly from 320 to 304 over the most recent period. Progress in clearing the backlog was slowed by the need to establish and embed the team within Bromsgrove since 1st June 2024 and the complexity of some cases where evidence of harm (in planning terms) had been identified. The short-term additional resource available to WRS to work on clearing the backlog would end in June 2026.

In relation to the number of valid cases with Community Protection Warnings (CPWs) or Community Protection Notices (CPNs) served, it was stated that since April 2025, four additional CPWs and two additional CPNs were served.

Officers highlighted that planning policy allowed retrospective applications to be considered (i.e. applications after an action had been taken) which necessitated the maintenance of an informal approach to negotiate compliance with planning rules.

The benefits of the current approach to planning enforcement were set out including that this allowed planning officers to focus on planning matters whilst the investigation and enforcement cases were dealt with by WRS.

After the presentation, Members discussed the content of the report as follow:

A breakdown of planning enforcement cases by priority – It was requested that Members be provided with the breakdown of ongoing / live planning enforcement cases by priority level. A Member explained that currently when residents approached Members for information on how the cases were being addressed, the elected members were unable to provide an indication or timeline of when they might be actioned or resolved. It was further requested that information on the length of time these enforcement cases had been ongoing should also be shared with Members. The Technical Services Manager for WRS advised the Board that legal advice would need to be sought in relation to sharing detail on case priority as providing this information could potentially lead to identification of properties and lead to investigations being compromised.

·         Case studies of successes and failures in relation to planning enforcement – A Member commented that more case studies needed to be provided for the planning enforcement cases which resulted in failure, in addition to those of enforcement successes. Officers responded that in many instances it was difficult to define cases in this way as the serving of notices could be seen as a failure where informal approaches could have led to a resolution. It was stated that in planning enforcement the informal approach needed to be maintained to work on resolving any breaches.

·         Fieldwork and desktop-based investigations – A question was asked in relation to whether enforcement officers undertook visits on site to assess whether breaches of planning rules had taken place. Clarification was provided that officers liaised with informants prior to undertaking a visit. For priority 1 cases, the enforcement officer would be expected to visit the site immediately after this.  For priority 2 cases, the timescales for site visits would be longer. All cases were triaged to determine priority. In each case, what needed to be established was evidence of harm in planning terms.

·         Effectiveness of issuing CPNs – Some Members questioned the effectiveness of issuing CPNs in light of examples where action to repair harm had still taken considerable time following the issue of a CPN. It was noted that issuing a CPN was not appropriate in every case and the case file would be reviewed before a decision was taken on whether a CPN was appropriate in a given case. The Technical Services Manager stated that within Bromsgrove, all CPNs issued bar one was being complied with, these mostly relating to waste-related issues.

·         Frustration was expressed by some Members in relation to a perceived lack of action in respect of large-scale planning enforcement breaches within Bromsgrove. The suggestion was made that planning breaches had occurred in recent months where it was deemed that limited monitoring of planning conditions had taken place, or where the Council was not in a position to enforce planning conditions despite having itself set the conditions through the planning process. Concerns were raised that this could result in the Council letting down residents.

·         Some Members felt that a review of the planning function (including planning enforcement) needed to be carried out. In response, it was explained that the Council was in the final stages of agreeing the terms of reference for the review with the Planning Advisory Service (PAS). The review was expected to start in October 2025, to commence by requesting feedback from elected members.

·         Possible legal tools to address planning condition breaches – A Member queried if it was within Council’s remit to prevent organisations from submitting planning applications for a certain period in cases where planning breaches were identified. Officers responded that as each planning application had to be considered on its own merits this was not possible to apply.

·         Capacity to monitor compliance with planning conditions / enforcement actions – It was noted that given the volume of cases, WRS did not have the resources to routinely monitor compliance with conditions.

·         The Cabinet Member for Planning, Licensing and WRS addressed the Board and reiterated that Members could contact him directly so that cases could be escalated through regular meetings between the Cabinet Member for Planning, Licensing and WRS and the respective Assistant Director.

·         Cooperation between planning officers and WRS enforcement officers in dealing with cases – It was explained that the difference of approach since June 2024 had related to the prioritisation of enforcement. This ensured that resources were concentrated on the most serious breaches of planning control, where breaches were escalating or severe harm was being caused.

·         In terms of cases, it was explained that investigation of a case would be undertaken and a report compiled by the WRS investigation officers with input from the Council’s planning officers where their planning expertise was required. This enabled the strongest evidence possible to be gathered. In all enforcement situations, the Council’s planning officers would attempt to ensure compliance with planning rules through negotiation and persuasion. Where formal action was required, WRS Investigating Officers would complete the steps to confirm the offence and prepare formal notice.

Following consideration of this item, Members agreed that it should be recommended that there should be more information regarding planning enforcement cases including monitoring of the WRS performance through key performance indicators (KPIs). This recommendation was proposed, seconded and, on being put to the vote, approved.

RECOMMENDED that key performance indicators (KPIs) be introduced to measure Worcestershire Regulatory Services’ (WRS) planning enforcement performance in Bromsgrove and that the KPIs be incorporated into monthly reporting to Members together with enhanced information on live enforcement cases data.