Issue - meetings

The Committee heard from the Housing and Environmental Enforcement Manager in relation to the updated Corporate Enforcement Policy. It was explained that the Corporate Enforcement Policy was last updated in 2018 and whilst there was no requirement for this policy to be reviewed within a certain time period, it was necessary to ensure the policy reflected any legislative or policy changes. It was also good practice to bring the updated policy to the Committee in order for amendments to be accepted.

Members were provided with a summary of the background to the document, with it explained that the Council carried out a wide range of regulatory roles in meeting its many statutory duties of protecting the public, individuals and the environment. The policy was an overarching policy that applied to all of the services within the Council that have regulatory type duties. In some service areas, these enforcement duties had specific guidance and regulations, which set out the requirements for enforcement within that specific area. It was recognised that fair and effective enforcement was essential and Members were assured that the Council was committed to being consistent, fair and proportionate its approach to these matters. A clear policy ensured that all those who lived in, worked in and visited the district were able to have a clear understanding of what could be expected in regards to an enforcement matter.

With regard to individual work areas having separate specific policies that provided more details in regards to approach they took on specific subjects, it was noted that those policies were not included within this document, but were informed by it and referred to it. It would be these policies that could be more flexible for Councillors as they dealt with more local specific issues. There were currently local policies for Licensing, Public Protection, Housing Standards, Planning Enforcement and Food and Health and Safety. Further strategies and policies relating to envirocrime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) were also being scheduled for development.

Members thanked the Housing and Environmental Enforcement Manager for a thorough and detailed report and supported the work undertaken by his teams. Members enquired as to the details of evidential vs public interest test in terms of taking action. It was explained that in receiving complaints, mostly of an anonymous nature, there needed to be the evidence in place that there was an area of concern and that, in approaching the enforcement of resolving an issue, there needed to be greater public interest in resolving the issue. An example of using this test was given of flytipping, whereby the costs of taking a prosecution through the court system needed to be balanced with the less costly method of issuing a fixed penalty notice.

A Member of the Committee raised a specific enquiry as to how matters were dealt with if there was one individual suffering, for example through noise complaints. Members were assured that the individual needs of the complainant were always taken into consideration, in terms of harm  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35