Agenda and minutes

To note any substitution of Members made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22.

Councillor K Pieri substituted for Councillor H Bromley.

To note apologies.

Apologies were received from Councillors H Bromley and A Thorpe.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2016 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2016 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

No urgent business had been notified.

To note declarations of Members’ disclosable pecuniary interests, non-disclosable pecuniary interests and non-pecuniary interests in respect of items on the Agenda.

Councillor M Cowan declared an interest as a County Councillor in respect of any relevant business on the agenda.

Councillor M Cowan declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Item 9 on the agenda as a resident of Handside.

Councillor K Thorpe declared an interest as a Housing Trust Tenant in respect of any relevant business on the agenda.

Councillor K Pieri declared an interest in relevant items on the agenda as a resident of Knolles Crescent.

Up to fifteen minutes will be made available for questions from members of the public on issues relating to the work of the Panel and to receive any petitions.

Questions were asked and answered as follows:

Mr P Miller

In Section 16 Welham Green of the Local Plan Public Consultation January 2015 the following is stated in para’s 18 and 21 in reference to the Gypsy and Traveller site GTLAA03 The Willows, Marshmoor Lane which is classed as More Favourable and Employment Site WeG4b Marshmoor which is classed as Finely Balanced.

16.18 GTLAA03 The Willows, Marshmoor Lane is a very small, previously developed site considered to have capacity for a single pitch. It is well contained, and makes no contribution to any of the purposes for including land within the Green Belt. As with GTLAA02, GTLAA03 would not be available if WeG4b was taken forward.

16.21 WeG4b is one of several options for land in the Green Belt at Marshmoor . WeG4b would involve a mixed use development of some new housing (up to 120 dwellings) and a significant amount of land for employment. If the entire site was taken forward for development it would subsume Gypsy and Traveller sites GTLAA02 and GTLAA03, preventing them from being taken forward as well. 

Are the Panel aware that an Appeal Decision Hearing was held on 2 September 2015 by Stephen Brown MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in relation to The Willows, Marshmoor Lane, North Mymms, AL9 7HT Ref: APP/C1950/W/15/3029003.

The appeal was made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission for a replacement dwelling following destruction by fire. 

The appeal was made by ethnic Gypsy Tom Harbour against the decision of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council against planning application ref. S6/2014/1867/FP dated 20 August 2014 which was refused by notice dated 6 November 2014.

The appeal was allowed on 22 February 2016 and planning permission was granted for a replacement dwelling following destruction by fire at The Willows, Marshmoor Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield  AL9 7HT in accordance with the terms of the application and the plans submitted with it, subject to  conditions.

Site GTLA003 is stated as being ‘Previously Developed’, this is clearly not now the case.

Will the Panel now confirm that WeG4b will not be taken forward in accordance with the statements in the Local Plan Public Consultation Section 16 Para’s 18 and 21.

RESPONSE

Planning permission was recently granted on appeal for a replacement dwelling at The Willows. The dwelling is to be located on the southern part of the site. It is the northern part of the site that has been promoted for Gypsy and Traveller development (site GTLAA03).

The development allowed on appeal does not preclude development on site WeG4b.

Cabinet Housing and Planning Panel has yet to  make a decision on which sites to recommend to take forward for allocation in the Local Plan.

Mr M Bailey

Question 1

Does the council believe that parking is adequate in Harwood Hill and what will the council be doing moving forward  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Report of the Director (Finance and Operations) setting out the results of the informal consultation, the formal consultation and the recommended course of action for Little Heath.

Members received a report which provided details of the results of the informal consultation, the formal consultation and the recommended course of action for Little Heath.

Six objections had been received to the proposals, as detailed in paragraph 3.6 of the report.

Members knew the area and commented on some of the issues with regard to the narrow roads and the lack of space for crossovers and hardstandings.

The recommendation within the report had been prepared based on officer visits to the area and residents’ requests.  The primary objective of the scheme was to improve the road safety around junctions and there was an existing risk of road traffic collisions and injury to pedestrians.

Member asked whether there had been any correspondence with the local pub.  They were informed that there had been no objections forthcoming.

RESOLVED

That, having considered the objections, to recommend to Cabinet to proceed with the creation of the Traffic Regulation Order to provide a junction protection scheme.

Report of the Director (Finance and Operations) setting out the result of the four informal consultations, the formal consultation and the recommended course of action in respect of junction protection in Knightsfield and Haldens.

Members received a report which provided details on a proposed Junction Protection Scheme for Knightsfield and Haldens.

The purpose of the proposals was to discourage parking too close to junctions, parking inside bus stops and possible locations for constructing new parking spaces in the verge and nearby open spaces.

The report set out the results of the four informal consultations, the formal consultation and the recommended course of action.

A total of eight formal objections were received from the four areas and these were summarised in the report.

Members were informed that efforts had been made to increase the number of parking bays in the area, but the Planning Department had refused an application for eight parking bays. 

It was noted that, should the Panel approve the recommendation within the report, work would not take place until a decision had been made on the provision of additional parking bays about which discussions were taking place.

It was agreed that the junction protection should go ahead, but that the provision of additional parking bays be deferred pending discussion between Parking Services and Planning..

RESOLVED

That, having considered the objections, to recommend to Cabinet that, subject to resolution of the issue with parking bays, a Traffic Regulation Order should be created for the junction protection scheme.

Report of the Director (Finance and Operations) providing details of the proposed work programme in the Handside Ward.

Councillor M Cowan left the room for the duration of this item.

Members received a report which detailed the proposed a programme of investigation of parking issues in the area which had been identified in the parking questionnaires completed by residents and some businesses in September 2015.

Consideration was being given to issuing evening and weekend season parking permits for residents.

It was noted that it was intended to separate town centre parking issues from those in the rest of Handside.

Members were informed that Parking Services proposed to consult with residents in the following order:

1.    Longcroft Land and the surrounding roads (East of Parkway)

2.    Welwyn Garden City town centre

3.    North of Barleycroft Road and Applecroft Road

4.    The remaining roads in the ward.

RESOLVED

To recommend to Cabinet to adopt the work programme proposed for Handside Ward, on the investigation of parking issues.

Report of the Director (Finance and Operations) setting out the results of the informal consultation, the formal consultation and the recommended course of action for Cuffley single and double yellow lines project.

Members received a report which provided them with the results of the informal consultation, the formal consultation and the recommended course of action for parking services work in Cuffley.

The report advised that the introduction of double and single yellow lines had been proposed and outlined in the consultation.  Residents had requested that some of the proposed lines be removed and others added and Officers tried to include these requests in the recommended proposal.

Further consultation during the six month monitoring period would take place regarding possible amendments to the order in a number of roads which would feature Cranfield Crescent and Homewood Avenue.  A residents’ scheme could be introduced in these roads.

Members were informed that, where a residents parking scheme was introduced, visitor vouchers could be obtained which were provided at cost price, approximately 50 pence daily.  Concessions were available for Doctors and Carers, the latter of which were provided with free parking.

RESOLVED

To recommend to Cabinet to proceed with the creation of the Traffic Regulation Order for a junction protection scheme, as amended, in response to objections received.

Report of the Director (Finance and Operations)  outlining the process to be followed when seeking approval for parking improvements.

Members received a report which detailed the process that Parking Services would follow when seeking approval to carry out parking improvements.

The main change to the policy was detailed in paragraph 3.9.  This stated that informal advice would be sought prior and then there would be a formal application.  This would ensure that the process was transparent for members of the public.

Further discussions would take place on the policy, which would include transparency of decision making.

Report of the Director (Finance and Operations) which introduces the final draft of the proposed Delivery Plan for Welwyn Hatfield Community Housing Trust’s activities in 2016-2017.

Members received a report which introduced the final draft of the proposed Delivery Plan for Welwyn Hatfield Community Housing Trust’s (the Trust) activities in 2016-2017.

A series of briefings for Members was being organised.

RESOLVED:

To recommend to Cabinet the approval of the final draft Delivery Plan for 2016-2017 as set out in Appendix A to the report.

Report of the Director (Finance and Operations) which introduces the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan 2016 to 2046.

Members received a report which introduced the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan 2016 to 2046.  The Plan sets out the framework for delivery of services and improvements.

It was noted that detail had not yet been provided regarding changes from Government in the Housing and Planning Bill and how these would impact on the Plan.

Members noted that the Trust sought to retain housing stock at 9,000.  This would be achieved by replacing Right to Buy properties through the Affordable Housing Programme. A full delivery plan would be produced in June 2016 for the Affordable Housing Programme. Officers advised that Right to Buy figures were lower than expected.

Whilst this would be a thirty year plan as required by government, the key focus is for the first five years of the plan which would be refreshed annually.

Members raised the following points:

·         The closing and opening figures on page 312 were not consistent

·         Page 313 would be more helpful if it included net income in addition to total income

·         Page 324,  9.2 – to include information about the Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016 to 2021.

·         Page 326 appears to include repayment of additional debt.  Officers confirmed that an assumption had been made in the Medium Term Financial Strategy that additional borrowing would take place, primarily to cover the shortfall created by the mandatory rent reduction.  The Plan would be updated to ensure this was clear.

·         The report gives a positive message and the Business Plan is ambitious.

·         Was there a possibility that Housing Associations in the area would look to merge to achieve economies of scale?  Officers responded that there were ambitions within the Trust to look at opportunities of this nature as this would overcome issues of quality management and communication.  Management Services could be offered or indeed taking on of housing stock from Housing Associations.

RESOLVED:

To recommend to Cabinet approval of the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan 2016 to 2046, subject to the points raised at the Panel meeting.

Report of the Director (Governance) seeking agreement that the Head of Planning, in discussion with the Executive Member for Planning, be authorised to agree a response to the consultation, taking into consideration comments from the Panel.

Members received a report which provided them with information on the technical consultation on implementation of planning changes.

Officers highlighted the potential impact of the changes being proposed to:

·         Fees

·         Permission in Principle

·         Brownfield Register

·         Small Sites Register

·         Neighbourhood Plans

·         Local Plans

·         Planning Performance

·         Competition

·         Section 106 Dispute Resolution

The report detailed the proposed responses to the consultation.

Members commented as follows:

·         There was some concern regarding the loss of democratic control.

·         Permission in Principle was a foolish concept and could result in development being held up.

·         Allowing competition for planning applications could result in decisions being taken by outsiders who did not know the area.

·         Removing validations from the power of Planning Authorities could result in fewer Planning Officers as Junior Planners they would not gain the experience needed to progress in their careers, so resulting in too few Planning Officers to deal will bigger applications.

·         Fees do not cover the cost of providing the service – the Council should be looking at ways to gain the power to set fees at a level to cover costs.

·         Introduction of registers could result in problems should anything not be registered correctly.

·         The Small Sites Register sounds like “garden grabbing” which was something that the government previously said they wanted to avoid.

Members asked whether the announcements in the budget negated some of the proposals.  Officers agreed to look into this.

Members requested Officers to strengthen the responses to the consultation to reflect the viewpoint that the proposals were not sound.

RESOLVED:

To authorise the Head of Planning in conjunction with the Executive Member for Planning to respond to the consultation.  The response to reflect the comments made by the Panel as above.

The Board/Committee is asked to resolve:

That under Section 100(A)(2) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be now excluded from the meeting for Item XX on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of confidential or exempt information as defined in Section 100(A)(3) and Paragraph 3 (private financial or business information) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended).

In resolving to exclude the public in respect of the exempt information, it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.