A report from the Director of Regeneration and Environment is attached. This seeks approval to the Enfield Enforcement Policy. (Key decision – reference number 4040)
(8.25 – 8.30 pm)
Councillor Daniel Anderson (Cabinet Member for Environment) introduced the report of the Director of Regeneration and Environment (No.151) seeking approval of the Enfield Enforcement Policy.
1. That the Enforcement policy set out the Council’s approach to dealing with non-compliance robustly and swiftly and, covered a range of services, as detailed in the report.
2. That enforcement was a key tool for the Council in protecting the quality of life of its residents. Robust enforcement was essential for public confidence in upholding the integrity of the regulatory regimes that the Council administered to protect residents, the public, businesses and workers. The Council also recognised that good regulation was supportive to the economic vitality and growth of the economy and local businesses.
3. That if there was a serious or imminent risk of harm, danger, nuisance or injury the Council would take formal enforcement action immediately as required, as detailed in the report.
4. That the Enforcement Policy had been placed on public consultation for a period of 16 weeks, the feedback received as part of the consultation was set out in Appendix 1 of the report.
5. Members discussed the importance of publicising enforcement action (as referred to in section 3.6 of the report). A discussion took place on methods that could be considered for future publicity including the potential use of CCTV footage.
6. The number of complaints and service requests typically received each year as detailed in section 3.2.3 of the report. It was noted that there were relatively few prosecutions for certain breaches, however, this would be affected by, for example, instances when fixed penalty notices were accepted.
7. Members discussed the effectiveness of the pilot “Tidy Gardens Programme” and highlighted the need for proportionate enforcement action to be taken.
8. Members were supportive of robust enforcement and appropriate publicity of action taken, as set out in the report.
Alternative Options Considered: There were no appropriate alternative options.
DECISION: The Cabinet agreed that the Enfield Enforcement Policy be approved.
Reason: Services such as Environmental Health, Licensing and Trading Standards were required by the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 to have regard to the Regulators’ code (published by the Better Regulation Delivery Office) which specified that the Council should have an enforcement policy and have regard to the principles set out in the Regulators’ Code in undertaking enforcement activities. In addition, other statutory guidance also required that the council had an enforcement policy such as the Food Standards Agency’s “Framework Agreement on Official Feed and Food Controls by Local Authorities”, made under the Food Standards Act 1999.
(Key decision – reference number 4040)