Agenda item

The report reviews the issues raised in a petition received setting out concerns about a series of Planning Enforcement cases in Lynemouth. This report sets out the background and matters arising in these cases and the specific circumstances.  

The report, which was introduced by the Director of Planning reviewed the issues raised in a petition received setting out concerns about a series of Planning Enforcement cases in Lynemouth and set out the background and matters arising in these cases along with the specific circumstances.

The Vice-Chair (Planning) advised that this was being dealt with by way of the Petitions Protocol.

S Nicholson, the lead petitioner addressed the Committee in support of her petition.  Her comments included the following:-

·       She appreciated the statement made by the Director of Planning in his introducing the report and understood the actions being taken and thanked the Committee for the opportunity to address them on behalf of the residents involved.

·       Following research on the front elevation she quoted “the elevation which faces onto your private garden and is usually screen by fencing or walls etc is classed as the rear elevation” therefore lots of these sheds were in rear gardens and not the fronts.

·       The residents had always classed these as their back gardens as it was where miners, as this was a mining village, grew their vegetables, just as if it was an allotment, often to enter into local competitions.

·       Her husband, had during the course of his business as a builder, questioned Building Inspectors regarding planning permission being required for sheds, and they had all responded that they had not heard of this.

·       The Council had caused a lot of stress and worry in the village as letters had only been sent to some residents and not others and had not stated to which structures they related to.  This had affected the mental health and wellbeing of many residents with stress caused the thought of having to pay for this planning permission.  She asked that the Council put the welfare of residents before legislation. She understood that this action had to be taken, but people were the priority.

·       She was confused by the 4 year rule, stating that the newer sheds would look better and be in better condition and be more structurally sound than older ones and felt this was discrimination based on a number.

·       This anxiety had all been caused by the actions of two residents out of the 1058 residents of Lynemouth.

·       She questioned the actions taken in respect of some of the sheds and also the meaning of the word “expediency”.

·       The village was already suffering due to the global pandemic.  The village had always been a lovely place to live and she and others would continue to protect their way of life.  These gardens gave pleasure to many residents allowing them their private outdoor space with the sheds being needed for the storage of gardening equipment and such like.   Most residents were working class families or retired couples who only wanted to enjoy their quiet and peaceful gardens.

·       She asked that this unnecessary action be ended.

The Director of Planning explained the precise term “expediency” in the planning system.  He advised that there were a lot of things which could be breaches of planning control and an “expediency test” meant that even if something technically required planning permission it was not expedient to do so because the harm being caused did not justify the public cost in doing so, however there was no expediency test on whether complaints had to be investigated.  All complaints must be investigated and if this did not happen then a complaint could be made to the Local Government Ombudsman.  The expediency test in this instance had shown there was a need to investigate but no action was to be taken on the bulk of the complaints.

He advised that advice should be sought from the Planning Department on whether permission was required and residents should not rely upon builders etc to give advice.  He did not disagree on some of the points made by the lead petitioner and shared her concerns. He hoped to be able to take a more pragmatic view on enforcement cases which were in fact more of a neighbour dispute in the future.

Councillor Dunn, the Ward Member advised that this issue had raised turmoil and anger in the whole of Lynemouth not just with those affected and had been seen by residents to be a money making opportunity for the Council.  The petition could have had more signatures, however she acknowledged the report set out the position which the Council was obliged to take.  She would urge Officers to deal with the 8 outstanding cases as soon as possible and welcomed the review of the Local Enforcement Strategy.

Members felt that more information and better communication with residents from the Council would have benefitted in this instance and possibly more research in this instance prior to letters being sent to residents.  The Director of Planning would take these comments on board for the future.

RESOLVED that:

1.    The issues raised in the petition be noted;

2.    The Council’s approach to Planning Enforcement within the context of national legislation/duties be noted and to further note that the County Council utilised suitable discretion in relation to this matter; and

3.    This issue and “Harm/Expediency” gateway requirements be included explicitly in the review of the Northumberland Local Enforcement Strategy.