Contact your Parish Council
Appendix 1 : Example of an unauthorised caravan site covering the matrix methodology
Methodology
|
Consideration |
Score |
Weighting |
Weighted scores |
|
Estimated resource to close case |
3 likely to be minimal resource to achieve resolution, less than 4 person days 2 likely to be average resource, 4-10 person days 1 likely to be significant resource required to resolve, over 10 person days |
X 2 |
6 4 2 |
|
Immunity |
3 immune in 6 months 2 immune in 2 years or not known 1 immunity more than 2 years away |
X 3 |
9 6 3 |
|
Degree of harm |
3 irreparable or serious long term harm to environment or serious risk to public safety 2 significant harm or loss of amenity 1 sufficient harm or loss of amenity so that planning permission would not be granted, or would be granted only subject to conditions |
X 8.5 |
25.5 17
8.5 |
|
Local priorities |
3 high profile developers with more than 3 breaches where notices have been served or formal legal action taken in last 4 years OR in breach of approved conditions 2 all other cases not falling within categories 1 or 3 1 householders OR small businesses where impact of action is high or may result in loss of jobs or business |
X 2 |
6 4
2 |
|
Policy framework |
3 clear policy, legislative or national guidance support for refusing development 2 policy, legislative or national guidance framework for refusing development possibly exists 1 untested or non existent policy, legislative or national guidance framework for refusing development |
X 3 |
9 6
3 |
|
Future impact |
3 situation will deteriorate if no action taken soon 2 situation may deteriorate if no action taken soon 1 situation not likely to deteriorate if no action taken soon |
X 2 |
6 4 2 |
|
Priority |
High 40+ |
Medium 30.39 |
Low 20.29 |
|
Lowest possible score |
20.5 |
|
|
|
Highest possible score |
61.5 |
|
|
Notes A score is given to each consideration, as the importance of each consideration varies they are given weightings which are used to produce the final score (the weighted score column).
Worked Example (unauthorised caravan site)
|
Consideration |
Score |
Weighting |
Weighted scores |
|
Estimated resource to close case |
3 likely to be minimal resource to achieve resolution, less than 4 person days
|
X 2 |
6
|
|
Immunity |
3 immune in 6 months
|
X 3 |
9
|
|
Degree of harm |
3 irreparable or serious long term harm to environment or serious risk to public safety
|
X 8.5 |
25.5
|
|
Local priorities |
3 high profile developers with more than 3 breaches where notices have been served or formal legal action taken in last 4 years OR in breach of approved conditions
|
X 2 |
6
|
|
Policy framework |
3 clear policy, legislative or national guidance support for refusing development
|
X 3 |
9
|
|
Future impact |
3 situation will deteriorate if no action taken soon
|
X 2 |
6
|
|
|
|
Total |
61.5 |
|
Priority |
High 40+ |
Summary
The highest score is taken for each criterion due to the circumstances of the particular case, (i.e. 3 for immunity x weighting of 3 gives a score of 9) this gives the highest possible total score in this case of 61.5 and is therefore top priority.