Agenda and minutes

To note any substitution of Panel Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rules.

The following substitution of Members had been made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules:

Cllr Gail Ganney for Cllr Sunny Thusu.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Sunny Thusu.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2023 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2023 were confirmed as a correct record.

There were no items of urgent business.

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

Cllrs Kingsbury and Zukowskyj declared non-pecuniary interests as Members of Hertfordshire County Council.

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

There were no public questions or petitions.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Panel received a report from the Assistant Director (Planning). The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 placed a greater emphasis on the production of self-build and custom housebuilding to increase diversity in the housing market and provide greater choice to customers. The Act also placed a duty on local planning authorities to keep a register of individuals who wished to acquire serviced plots of land for self-build and custom housebuilding projects, and to have regard to these registers when carrying out planning and other functions. In accordance with its legal duty the Council had publicised and maintained a self-build and custom housebuilding register since 2016. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required the size, type and tenure of housing for different groups in the community to be assessed and reflected in Local Plan policies. The adopted Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan placed a requirement on sites of 100 or more non-flatted dwellings to provide 2% of serviced dwelling plots and also required plots to be appropriately marketed for at least 12 months before being considered for alternative use.

The Guidance Note had been prepared to provide guidance and information for potential purchasers, applicants and decision makers on how the requirements would apply to development proposals, and what the Council expected to happen in order that plots were offered for sale. The document might be updated from time to time; any fundamental changes would be brought back to the Panel.

Members raised the following points:

·       A query was raised about how people came off the register. Officers explained those on the register were asked each year if they wished to remain on it and they could also contact the Council at any time if they wanted to be removed from it. 

·       A Member asked when self-build came into effect, citing an example of a recent development. Officers replied that self-build was picked up through a Section 106 and would be identified through one of the plans submitted as part of the planning application. Part of the site would be identified for self-build plots which would then come forward through a subsequent planning application.

·       A Member noted the number of people on the register had dropped significantly from 2018 to 2019. Officers explained the Council had not yet delivered any plots because of the position with the Local Plan; now the Plan had been adopted it was expected that more qualifying sites would come forward. Numbers on the register had fluctuated but seemed relatively stable and it was likely that more people would become interested as more sites came forward.

·       A Member noted formatting errors in a section of the appendix which officers undertook to rectify. 

RESOLVED:

(Unanimous)

Cabinet Planning and Parking Panel (CPPP) recommended to Cabinet:

1.               That the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Guidance Note be endorsed; and

2.               That Cabinet give delegated powers to the Assistant Director (Planning) in consultation with the Executive Member for Planning, to update the Guidance Note if required in the future.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Panel received a report from the Assistant Director (Planning). The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was a way of collecting developer contributions from new developments towards the delivery of necessary supporting infrastructure. It replaced S106 to a large extent so rather than it being negotiated in each case, it was a levy per square metre of development that was fixed, transparent and clear to all parties in advance. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council had undertaken previous consultation on proposed CIL rates. It was intended that this would come into effect following adoption of the Local Plan but delays with the Plan meant that this did not happen as envisaged; however, adoption of the Local Plan meant this could now be taken forward. It was independently examined so needed a robust evident base. Levies were underpinned by a series of viability proposals. The Council had commissioned BNP Paribas who had done the previous appraisals, so there was consistency with previous work. Three zones had been identified in the borough where development could support different rates, as set out in the report. It was proposed that two areas be excluded (the new strategic development sites in north west Hatfield and the part of Birchall within Welwyn Hatfield) as they were new large scale developments that would need to provide a lot of onsite infrastructure potentially very early on and were complex, so it was considered more appropriate for this to go through the S106 process. There was a caveat around smaller sites that fell below the affordable housing threshold. If the consultation was approved, it was intended to consult in January and February 2024 over a six week period.

There was a small error in the report as adoption was a function of full Council under national legislation so the third recommendation in the report was withdrawn and officers would come back to Members upon receipt of the Examiner’s report. 

The following points were made during the discussion:

·       A Member sought clarity that the process did not apply to home extensions. Officers confirmed it applied only to the creation of new builds.

·       A Member asked where in the report a CIL hierarchy was referenced. Officers explained the report sought to consult on the charging schedule; further reports about governance structures would come to the Panel once the Council started to collect CIL receipts. The Member sought assurance that the proposal would not detract from housebuilding. Officers said this was a key part of the viability assessment which identified the maximum charge; the assessment was robust and they were confident it would not undermine delivery of houses.

·       A Member asked about a comparison in terms of what was expected to be raised via S106s compared to the CIL and felt it was an oversight that this was not detailed in the report which precluded him from making a decision. Officers replied that while this exercise had not been carried out, developer contributions would be collected in a different way; CIL was not ringfenced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Report of the Assistant Director (Regeneration and Economic Development)

The Cabinet Member for Environment thanked staff for this and the next two reports. It was important that the Council proactively listened to residents, and Members who had parking consultations in their wards were encouraged to meet with the portfolio holder and officers.

The Panel received the report of the Assistant Director (Regeneration and Economic Development). The report set out the results of the statutory parking restriction consultation pertaining to Kennelwood Lane and Wellfield Road Car Parks and the recommended course of action.

A Member asked why one hour of free parking for the car park was considered sufficient. Officers replied that it was important to have a variety of parking in the town centre to facilitate different needs; there was free car parking for three hours in the multistorey carpark, and shorter term parking in alternative venues place prevented space being blocked.

RESOLVED:

“The Borough of Welwyn Hatfield (Various Car Parks, Hatfield) (Off-Street Parking Places) Order 2023”:

CPPP:

1.     Considered the objection received in section 5 of the report in addition to the issues raised in section 16 around equalities and diversity;

2.     Recommended to Cabinet to proceed with the creation of the traffic regulation order as set out in the report; and

3.     Noted the delegated powers conferred to the Executive Member for Environment to sign an executive member decision to proceed with the creation of the traffic regulation order provisions as advertised, subject to unanimous recommendation from the Panel.

Report of the Assistant Director (Regeneration and Economic Development)

SHERRARDS WARD PARKING

The Panel received the report of the Assistant Director (Regeneration and Economic Development) which set out the results of the consultation pertaining to parts of Blakemere Road, The Orchard, Walden Place and Walden Road, the statutory consultation and the recommended course of action. The Executive Member for Environment noted this was a good example of how the Council had listened to residents and amended the consultation to better meet their needs. She thanked Sherrards ward councillors who had raised an issue about the tennis club which was reflected in the report. Other Members welcomed the fact that the Council had listened to residents.

RESOLVED: 

“The Borough of Welwyn Hatfield (Various Roads, Sherrards, Welwyn Garden City) (Restriction of Waiting and Permit Parking Zones) Order 2023”

CPPP:

1.     Considered the objections raised in section 5 of the report in addition to the issues raised in section 16 around equalities and diversity;

2.     Recommended to Cabinet to proceed with the creation of the amended traffic regulation order as set out in section 3.7 of the report; and

3.     Noted the delegated powers conferred to the Executive Member for Environment to sign an executive member decision to proceed with the creation of the traffic regulation order, subject to the unanimous recommendation of the Panel.    

“The Borough of Welwyn Hatfield (Various Roads, Sherrards, Welwyn Garden City) (Prohibition of Stopping and Waiting on Verge or Footway) Order 2023:

CPPP:

4.     Considered that no objections were received, in addition to the issues raised around equalities and diversity;

5.     Recommended to Cabinet to proceed with the creation of the traffic regulation order as set out in the report;

6.     Noted the delegated powers conferred on the Executive Member for Environment to sign an executive member decision to proceed with the creation of the traffic regulation order, subject to the unanimous recommendation of the Panel.    

Report of the Assistant Director (Regeneration and Economic Development)

The Panel received the report of the Assistant Director (Regeneration and Economic Development) which set out the results of the statutory parking consultation pertaining to Pine Grove and the recommended course of action.

The following points were made during the discussion:

·       A Member wondered if a series of double yellow lines providing passing places was a good idea for Pine Grove given there was a school on the road, buses used it and some residents had issues about staff parking. Double yellow lines would make it less attractive for staff to park and would reduce the impact on public transport; this would not impact residents as they all had at least three parking spaces per house. Officers said they had considered this but did not feel it was an appropriate solution for the location; double yellow lines would prevent anyone from parking and would push traffic into the surrounding area. Double yellow lines in a section of the road had been proposed to allow free passage of vehicles as it was a public road and occasional parking should not cause significant issues. The Member felt it was important to consult carefully with the bus companies using the road when the scheme was reviewed and noted that residents parking in a way that prevented buses getting through needed to stop. Officers agreed they would speak with bus companies as part of the review.  

·       A Member noted that pressure points for parking were at the start and end of the school day and asked about the timing of officer visits. Officers confirmed there had been more visits than the photographs included in the report; while parking pressures were more acute at school drop off and pick up times, they had needed to find a solution that would work for all road users all of the time.

·       A Member commented that pinch points seemed to occur for only a couple of hours a day when the school was open. Officers advised the consultation had arisen due to residents’ complaints as they felt disadvantaged by parking at the school; the issue was not seen as major which was why a permit scheme was not being considered and double yellow lines at key locations were being recommended. While the double yellow lines would affect all road users, it was not felt they would detrimentally affect residents as the affected properties had off-road parking.

·       A Member reflected on the importance of enforcement and asked whether movable cameras could be used. Officers advised they were in discussion with Hertfordshire County Council to seek permission to place cameras on street furniture.

·       A Member noted residents had been concerned about school staff parking for the duration of the school day, reflecting that this impacted on residents driving to work. He welcomed the proposed solution which would allow traffic to flow, residents to leave for work and improve easy access to the school.  

·       The Chair commented that there had been strong views on all sides and the proposal demonstrated the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.