URL: https://democracy.canterbury.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1734

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: The Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning introduced the report that asked Cabinet to adopt the updated Planning Enforcement Plan.    There were two options for Cabinet to consider within the report:    1.To agree to adopt the Policy  2. Not to agree the policy    The Cabinet discussed the report, and the following points were made:    Cabinet was advised that approximately 18 reports of alleged enforcement breaches were received each week, of which around 25% required further investigation. Where necessary, officers visited the site, usually within a week of the receiving a report.  Support for the Enforcement Plan had been received from Sturry ward councillors.  Supplementary information would be issued, including a flowchart and frequently asked questions. An all-councillor briefing would also be arranged.  It was suggested that residents could be advised that they may seek support from their ward councillor when making a complaint. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning would finalise any wording with officers.  The Cabinet Member for Heritage should also be informed of relevant outcomes.  A question was raised as to whether a flowchart could be provided to clarify whether matters fell within the remit of the city council or Kent County Council, to help prevent residents being passed between authorities.  Appendix 1 will be made available in the public domain and this was supported  Cabinet discussed how councillors could be better kept informed and what trigger points should apply for councillors to refer matters back to officers.  It was explained that updates could be provided to ward councillors, although some information would need to remain confidential where there was an ongoing legal investigation.    It was then proposed, seconded and when put to a recorded vote RESOLVED that:    The draft Planning Enforcement Plan 2026 be adopted.    Record of the voting:  For (6): Baldock, Charlotte Cornell ,Chris Cornell, Dawkins, Hazleton and Nolan.  Against (0): None  Abstained (0): None    Reason for the decision: An up-to-date policy will provide greater certainty to the public and developers as to how the Council will approach dealing with potential breaches of planning law.  

Date of Decision: June 9, 2026