1.         Pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Council Procedure Rules the following question was put by Mr Bernard Brown and answered by Councillor Vine-Hall.

Question:  How many times since April 2015 has Rother District Council issued a Temporary Stop Notice on a development where planning applications have not yet been heard by the Planning Committee. To complement this answer will the Council either publish or republish the detailed narrative of the Tests to be met before the decision to Issue or decline to issue a Temporary Stop Notice is made.

Answer:

1 Temporary Stop Notice issued. 

Other Formal Enforcement Action over the same period is as follows:

64 x Enforcement notices (4 further notices in the process of being served)

1 x Stop Notice

18 x Section 215 Notices (where the local planning authority considers that the condition of land or buildings adversely affects the amenity of an area)

24 x Prosecutions (4 further prosecutions in process)

To answer your question on the publishing aspect, the narrative of Enforcement is already contained in the Rother Local Enforcement Plan which can be viewed on the Council Website at the following link:

https://www.rother.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Local_Enf_Plan_-_Policy_2016_Final.pdf

Supplementary Oral Question: Rother District Council issues less than 30% of the average number of Temporary Stop Orders of the local planning authorities in England.  In 2015 the Government made it easier to issue TSNs to help counter a surge of intentional unauthorised development.  Recently the Council demonstrated extreme unwillingness to issue such a notice in an uncontroversial case for a breach of planning control and intentional unauthorised development, even despite the development posing a significant safety risk.  This was for a situation related to gypsy and traveller pitches and the parish of Battle now has the overwhelming majority of such pitches in Rother District Council’s jurisdiction.  All the sites under Rother District Council’s jurisdiction originated from unauthorised development without planning permission on AONB agricultural land, followed by retrospective planning applications.  Although the issue of TSNs is a delegated matter, it is presumed officers are working within Council Policy.  So the question is, is it the policy of the Rother Alliance controlling group not to issue Temporary Stop Notices in cases of unauthorised development by authenticated gypsy and traveller families due to the assuage failure to identify appropriate sites for this use in rother? 

Answer:  Is it a Policy of the Rother Alliance not to initiate stop notices for that group?  The best answer I can give is that the Alliance currently follows the existing process and policy for stop notices and you are referring to a specific case and generally the officers take a very pragmatic view and there is a balance between pragmatism and any other action you might consider.  There is also the consideration of exactly what might happen if you issue a stop notice and whether that will be successful and really very much depends on what action is being taken in terms of development on a site.  

(It was clarified by the Chairman of Council that there had been no change to the existing policy and the decisions were based on the narrative of enforcement provided above.)  

2.         Pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Council Procedure Rules the following question was put by Mr Michael Hedges and answered by Councillor Vine-Hall.

Question: Please advise the success rate in ultimately vacating and restoring sites where any intentional unauthorised development was undertaken and a retrospective planning application subsequently refused (including dismissed appeals) during the last five years?

Answer:  Thank you very much for your question.

350 Retrospective planning applications

Of which -

46 refused

37 of these refusals (including appeals) have been resolved – which might be a new application coming forward or an appeal decision.

Leaving 9 cases, as follows:

3 active enforcement in play

3 in the process of prosecution or injunction

1 in the process of a new application with the proposed building being moved

1 in the process of a new retrospective application and if that is refused, enforcement will be considered

1 that has just been refused so the prosecution action is about to progress

Supplementary Oral Question:  Can you clarify the difference between the term resolved for the 37 refusals and the question which I asked which was specifically how many of the sites had been ultimately restored and or vacated? 

Answer:  Of those 9 I gave you the detail of each one and none of those have required at this point in time to be restored or vacated because they are in the process of some form of prosecution or the enforcement notice being served.  Until it is served and until either the person will move out at the appropriate time or move to prosecution, nothing can happen; but those 9 are all in play, going through the appropriate process.

The Chairman of Council permitted a further exchange to clarify answer given as follows:

Mr Hedges: My question Councillor Vine-Hall was not to do indeed with the 9 cases, which you kindly explained what is happening with those, but with the 37 remaining.

Councillor Vine-Hall: The 37 refusals have all been resolved by either a successful appeal by the applicant or by the person who the enforcement action was taken against or by a new application or a retrospective application on that land which has resulted in some form of approval.       

Mr Hedges: In other words, for those 37 as far as you are aware, they have not been necessarily restored or vacated.

Councillor Vine-Hall: They have not been required to be vacated.