INTERNAL AUDIT SERVICE

Transcription

1 Annex 1 INTERNAL AUDIT SERVICE PLANNING ENFORCEMENT AUDIT Duncan Wilkinson, Assistant Director Audit & Risk June Audit Opinion: Weak Satisfactory Good Limited

2 Planning Enforcement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 AUDIT AREA 1.1 An audit of Planning Enforcement has been carried out in accordance with the 2015/16 annual audit plan. Service Purpose: Planning Enforcement are responsible for monitoring, investigating and taking enforcement action on unauthorised development that has taken place in Milton Keynes, in line with the Town and Country Planning Act BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 The Council is responsible for investigating complaints where building works or changes in the use of the land and buildings are carried out without planning permission. Breaches of planning control are investigated by Planning Enforcement officers with enforcement action taken at the discretion of the authority. 2.2 Effective enforcement maintains public confidence in the planning system helping to deter unauthorised building works/changes in the use of land. 2.3 Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in carrying out works without planning permission of a building, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of: Four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed when there has been a change in the use of a building to a single dwelling house; Ten years beginning with the date of the breach for any other breaches of planning control. 2.4 In December 2012, Planning Enforcement (previously formed part of the Regulatory unit) became part of Development Management. In November 2015, a new Strategic Business Unit, reporting directly to the Head of Service, has been in post to oversee the work of the enforcement officers. The current Head of Service post is being led by an interim consultant until the end of May The Planning Enforcement team comprises of 4 full time officers (1 officer was on long-term sickness but now no longer works for the Council) and 1 temporary interim officer. Enforcement provides a reactive service and responds to complaints and enquiries received. 2.6 Complaints and enquires are received directly into the shared planning mailbox, from the Public, Councillors or from the Planning service. AUDIT REPORT E680/16 1 June 2016

3 Planning Enforcement 2.7 Volume Indicators: Number of current live cases within Uniform Number of cases not within Uniform (in mailbox) Number of cases within Uniform (former officer s cases) January 2016 April Total Number of cases *Source: Case data extracted from Uniform Formal Enforcement Action taken Numbers Enforcement Notices 17 Listed Building Enforcement Notice Tree replacement notice Injunction 1 Prosecutions 6 Planning Contravention Notices Source: Statistics from Planning Enforcement Service from April 2015 to March AUDIT OPINION LIMITED ASSURANCE Planning enforcement is a complex area of the Planning service susceptible to large volumes of referrals that may or may not be illustrative of planning violations. The Limited Assurance opinion is necessary from 2 key control issues: An Enforcement Policy that needs to be brought up to date, including clarity regarding prioritisation of referrals and be fully disseminated to all relevant Planning staff The absence of effective caseload management to facilitate the prioritisation of limited resources and ensuring the prompt completion of prioritised investigations. 4 WAY FORWARD 4.1 Management have confirmed that: The Enforcement Policy will be updated to include details of prioritisation of cases and the Council s targets for responding to complaints received. The Service will produce comprehensive procedure notes for staff to outline the AUDIT REPORT E680/16 2 June 2016

4 Planning Enforcement process for documenting and evidencing cases within Uniform to ensure a consistent approach exists The team will focus on cleansing the older cases within the Uniform system as a matter of urgency. This will enable effective caseload management to be carried out in the future. The cleansing exercise will include reviewing those cases where the time limit is approaching, closing cases where appropriate, allocating new cases to officers, and regularly monitor the progress of caseloads. Housing in Multiple Occupation (HMO) illustrates this need as a complex / contentious issue for MKC where HMO s may or may not require planning permission but are being referred to the Planning Enforcement team The Service are currently exploring reviewing how the current Uniform system is utilised, as well as seeking to upgrade to include an Enterprise Module which will enable reports to be run to better assist in the effective management of caseloads. All actions are in the Management Action Plan (Page 5). 5 AUDIT OBJECTIVES AND AUDIT SCORE Key: = poor/weak, = some improvement required, = good: no /very minor improvement is required Objective: The Service have complied with policies and procedures with regard to Planning Enforcement (Compliance) The Council s Enforcement Policy is dated September The policy makes no reference to planning legislation such as The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) and the Planning Practice Guidance. The policy does not include any timeframes for responding to complaints or how cases should be prioritised. See Management Action 1 Objective: Enquiries/Complaints received are prioritised and investigated in accordance with set targets (Investigation) Case-loads Reports were run from Uniform to identify all live cases allocated to Planning Enforcement officers. As at January 2016 there were 818 live planning cases within Uniform. During the audit, work was carried out by the team reducing this to 539 cases. Although there are no documented targets for responding to cases the Enforcement Officers use their professional judgement to ensure cases are appropriately dealt with. Stakeholder feedback supports that this is the case. Reports from the current Uniform system do not allow for effective caseload management. See Management Action 2 AUDIT REPORT E680/16 3 June 2016

5 Planning Enforcement Conclusion Evidence supports a conclusion that, whilst the delivery of the service is being maintained effectively in terms of the delivery of its statutory function, caseload management is not a priority resulting in a large number of older cleared cases not being removed from the live records and a lack of focus in progressing lower priority cases. The lack of caseload management has resulted in the volume of live cases increasing, although this situation is further exasperated by an enforcement officer being on long term sick leave who subsequently left. Good control on this area would enable the service to evidence that resources are focused on priority cases. Objective: Service budgets are monitored against their forecast, with explanations for any variances (Budget) The Planning Enforcement function is a component part of the overall Development Management (DM) budget. The DM budget is discussed and monitored monthly between the Head of Service and Finance. The main costs of Planning Enforcement are salary costs and one-off costs such as court costs. There are no income streams related specifically to Enforcement as it is an investigatory and reactionary service. The Development Management Service as a whole achieved savings during 2015/16 which was used to offset a forecasted overspend in elsewhere in Planning and Transport. Objective: Staff have the appropriate skills to take enforcement action when necessary (Skills) Enforcement officers have a number of years experience working within Planning Enforcement. They have good working relationships with both the Housing and the Legal department. An up to date policy is essential for maintaining staffing skills as well as individual responsibility for continuing professional development in order to be assured that case outcomes are appropriate. Testing identified 4 out of the 7 cases which were closed on Uniform had not been signed off by an independent authorising officer verifying adherence to policy etc. The revised policy should make reference to the procedures for authorising and closing cases within Uniform with this only taking place where it has been agreed by those with authority to do so under the scheme of delegation. See Management Action 3 AUDIT REPORT E680/16 4 June 2016

6 Likelihood MKC INTERNAL AUDIT SERVICE Planning Enforcement Audit MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN The Agreed Actions are categorised on the following basis: H S I E M S I E L S I L M H Impact Essential - Important - Standard - Action is imperative to ensure that the objectives for the area under review are met. Requires action to avoid exposure to significant risks in achieving objectives for the area under review. Action recommended to enhance control or improve operational efficiency. Ref. Findings Risk/ Implication Agreed Action Management Comments Responsible & Target Date 1. Enforcement Policy The enforcement policy was last reviewed in September 2012 and does not include recent legislative requirements. Planning enforcement ineffective Essential The Service will review and update the Enforcement Policy including details of the Council s targets for responding to complaints and its approach to prioritising cases. The policy will be reviewed annually. The policy will be adopted by the Development Management Committee and published on the Council s web page. Agreed The Draft MKC Local Enforcement Plan (LEP) has been written. It contains a matrix which allows for an assessment of the level of harm associated with the breach which is matched an expected response time relative to that harm i.e. a development causing severe harm such as unauthorised works to a listed building will be investigated within 1 day. The draft LEP also includes targets for both the administration of the function as well as expectations as to the completion of the investigation where possible. Strategic Business Unit October 2016 AUDIT REPORT E680/16 5 June 2016

7 Planning Enforcement Audit Ref. Findings Risk/ Implication Agreed Action Management Comments Responsible & Target Date 2. Case Load Management Caseload reports are not being used to manage the volume of cases by officer or monitor the time taken to respond to, action and close cases. Data is currently not available to quantify the number of HMOs that require investigating by the planning team in accordance with the Planning Policy Planning enforcement ineffective / not prioritised Essential As a priority, case load data will be cleansed to identify the correct number of live cases. In addition, procedure notes will be drafted for staff to outline the process for documenting and evidencing cases within Uniform. Case-load reports will be used on a monthly basis as a management tool to monitor officer s workloads and measure the time taken to respond to cases, action and close cases. Case load management will be analysed on a monthly basis to identify the number of: cases outstanding new complaints received number of cases where formal action taken by type number of cases closed Agreed Individual case-load review has commenced, and reports are produced via an Access system. Weekly team meetings being undertaken to identify issues and disseminate information to staff. Initial discussions have taken place with the Team of the Business Support, Enforcement Officers and Interim Improvement s. From this it has been agreed that an Enforcement Action Plan needs to be put in place as soon as possible covering operational, resourcing and IT issues. Review the potential for investigation of HMOs on a proactive basis in the context of issues identified within the Enforcement Action Plan. Continue to deal with HIMOs on a reactive basis resulting from complaints received. Strategic Business Unit July Case Decisions Cases can be closed within Uniform without management authorisation. Incorrect decisions made Important Management will carry out monthly sample checks of cases which have been closed to confirm the correct decision has been made. Agreed Introduce a system to ensure that all cases signed off by officer has authority to do so under scheme of delegation Strategic Business Unit July 2016 AUDIT REPORT E680/16 6 June 2016

8 Milton Keynes Council PLANNING ENFORCEMENT E680/16 Final Report Distribution List Corporate Director - Place Service Director-Planning & Transport Interim Head of Development Management Strategic Business Unit Corporate Director Resources & Commercial Development Service Director- Financial Resources Member with Portfolio for Public Realm External Audit Duncan Wilkinson Assistant Director Audit & Risk Leena Bains Auditor Available in audio, large print, Braille and other languages Tel Milton Keynes Council Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ T E internal.audit@milton-keynes.gov.uk