Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 October 2019 (previously circulated).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 31 October 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

Councillors S. Boulton and P. Zukowskyj declared a non-pecuniary interest in items on the agenda as appropriate by virtue of being 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.

The following question was received and the Chairman responded:

Welwyn Hatfield Council has not followed due Process in Panshanger Aerodrome in the Local Plan or privately in that they were maleficent in permitting disclosure where they were not permitted to do so, as I was not consulted either privately or publicly where you divulged pertinent information from a private and closed meeting between Myself and Thames Water which would favour the development for housing and gravel extraction of Panshanger aerodrome to the company mentioned in the 2013 public question who represents both land owners of Panshanger aerodrome, homes England and Mariposa whereby the data provided was submitted as evidence in the local plan on behalf of both Panshanger aerodrome landowners making their local plan application favourable for development and heralding in Herts County Councils potential plan to gravel extract Panshanger aerodrome and making Herts County Councils plan to extract minerals also favourable; Thames Water updating their position statement following the private meeting between Myself and Thames Water on August 4^th 2017 using the unfinished and unagreed minutes which WHBC took down in the private meeting as a note taker and in that unfinished state would make the Litchfield submission for the landowners and TWU’s update of the position statement favourable in the light of building the 650 housing and gravel extraction of Panshanger aerodrome was also maleficent; and the need to construct the required super sewer which that course of action would negate by providing the incorrect minutes and ushering in this proposed development which TWU’s infrastructure manager wrongly believed that the super sewer was mentioned as a mistake in the 2009 water cycle study and which consequently was an error in all WHBC Infrastructure Delivery Plans since 2012; he made a catastrophic professional mistake and one as the north London infrastructure manager should have known was incorrect but carried on as if it was fact, in the meeting.  Due process corporately by WHBC and its partners was not followed by way of maleficent process.  The actual full minutes which were not recorded by the WHBC note take would have seen Panshanger aerodrome dropped from the local plan and dissolve any housing or gravel extraction plan and Why did this council operate in the maleficence behaviour stated above by not following due process were the community were involved and would seem our time defending the aerodrome has been abused by this corrupt behaviour?’

Answer

The Council’s answer to the question previously asked in November 2013 remains ‘no’.

In response to the question about due process and in particular the minutes of your meeting with Thames Water and the Council on 4^th August 2017, the Council responds as it did in its earlier email to you dated 10^th April 2019, as follows:

You refer to the 4^th August meeting as a ‘private and closed’ meeting. Initially draft minutes were exchanged between Council officers, Thames Water and yourself, and there were three draft versions in existence. No minutes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the Peartree Conservation Area.  The Council consulted on whether to designate the Peartree area as a conservation area from 26 September to 11 November 2019.  This included a letter to all residents in the area and a public drop-in exhibition at Woodhall community centre on 15 October 2019. 

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the Peartree Conservation Area.  The Council consulted on whether to designate the Peartree area as a conservation area from 26 September to 11 November 2019.  This included a letter to all residents in the area and a public drop-in exhibition at Woodhall Community Centre on 15 October 2019.

The consultation generated five responses from statutory bodies and 20 responses from residents and these were summarised within the report.  The report noted that the views of the residents indicated that there is mixed support for the designation of the Peartree area as a conservation area.

The Senior Built Heritage Consultant present at the meeting advised on the historic facts of the Town.  Welwyn Garden City was founded by Ebenezer Howard in 1920.  He called for the creation of planned towns for working families on low incomes.  The architect at that time was Louis de Soissons.  The purpose of the proposal conservation of the area is to manage and protect the special architectural and historic interest of the Town.

Members raised the following points and debated in detail:

·         The difference between a conservation area and the Estate Management Scheme were clarified.

·         The parking issues currently present in Peartree proposed conservation area.

·         Financial impact on households – removal of permitted development rights associated with conservation areas to protect the special architectural interests.

·         Members requested the wording ‘clear support’ in paragraph 3.12 be changed to recognise the mixed support designation.

·         Officers recommended an amendment to paragraph 6.3 to state – that the document will be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

·         Discussion ensued the relevance of the responses received from outside bodies for the preservation of the area.

·         Officers advised that efforts to improve the character of the area would not be imminent, it would be gradual and would be implemented as and when planning applications are received.

·         Verge Protection in Peartree area – it was noted that this was already on the work programme for Parking Services Team.

·         Replacement of trees that have been removed over the decades.  It was agreed that talks would be held with the Council’s tree officers in respect of future plans to plant new trees, as this supports the Council’s climate change agenda.

·         A Member raised concern in respect of the low response and requested that further consultation with the residents be held – via letter, drop in session and press to advise the public of the impact of the changes in terms of benefits and consequences.  A discussion took place on the work already carried out by the Planning Department on advising residents and businesses in the area; together with the potential outcome of another consultation.  It was suggested that another consultation could provide the Council with reasons as to why people have said a ‘no’ to the proposal.

·         A question was raised in respect of porches – whereby one half of the porch being privately owned and the other half being Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services), which sets out the results of the informal consultation, the statutory consultation and the recommended course of action.  A total of 570 businesses and residents have been consulted directly.  Twelve objections have been received and shown within this report.

Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) on the amendment of the restrictions in Hatfield town centre car parks.  The report noted that there are five car parks located in Hatfield town centre, which the Council are responsible for (Appendix A).  The Council is building a new car park next year in The Common.  Although additional car parking provision has been made to mitigate the loss of the 148 parking spaces, there will be 90 less spaces during the construction period of the Multi-Storey car park.  Businesses and residents have been consulted in respect of these changes and the Council will ensure that there is adequate parking provision for local workers, deliveries, customers and residents during this time.

The report set out the results of the informal consultation, the statutory consultation and the recommended course of action. A total of 570 businesses and residents had been consulted directly.  Twelve objections had been received and shown within the report (Appendix B).

Members discussed the following points:

·         Concern was expressed in terms of the proposals for The Common car park, it was felt that such discussions should not have taken place at other committees; proposals should have been debated by this Panel.

·         Closure of Link Drive car park was discussed.  The decision had been made at a Business Forum meeting to ensure that businesses have sufficient parking within the town, as it often gets filled with commuters.

·         Members discussed the cross party decision associated with the proposals for the multi-storey car park.

·         It was suggested that Market Square should be redeveloped and the car parks kept as present.

·         The loss of parking bays and disruption to residents and businesses was considered.  It was noted that Link Drive car park was currently unrestricted; if a permit scheme was introduced then only local workers/residents would be able to park here.  Being unrestricted, it provided parking for non-residents.

·         The Officer explained that further changes had been made to increase the number of 3 hours limited waiting bays from 26 to 117 and thus providing a further 61 parking bays to park up to 4 hours.

It was moved by Councillor S. Boulton, seconded by T. Kingsbury and

RESOLVED

(3 for and 3 against) The Chairman exercised his casting vote and it was carried (4 for and 3 against)

That the Panel consider the objections received in 5.1 to 5.12 of the report and in particular the issues raised in Section 16 around equalities and diversity and having considered all the detailed issues in the report including any proposed mitigating actions, recommends to Cabinet to proceed with the amended proposals (Appendix E) and the creation of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for all the reasons set out in the report.

Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) on the proposed installation of double yellow lines as a safety measure on junctions to prevent dangerous and obstructive parking and a verge and footway prohibition to address parking on footways and verges.

Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) on the introduction of Resident Permit Scheme, double yellow lines, verge and footway prohibition and clearway in Aldykes area, Hatfield.

In March 2018, Parking Services wrote to residents in the Aldykes area of Hatfield to seek their views on parking options in their area.  This was partly based upon past and present requests that had been received from some residents in the area who highlighted parking concerns from local workers and university.  Also there was a need to provide suitable parking arrangements in the area to accommodate the construction of a multi-storey car park in Hatfield as displacement could occur into nearby roads when parking is limited.  Initially 1,146 residences were consulted in 2018.  The original consultation received less than 20% responses for some roads.  In May 2018, residents were given a further opportunity to share their views.  At this stage, Parking Services reminded residents that the Council was proposing to install double yellow lines as a safety measure on junctions to prevent dangerous and obstructive parking and a verge and footway prohibition to address parking on footways and verges.  Further to this, it had been identified that a number of suitable locations which could be converted into additional parking spaces, had been completed or planned to be completed by the end of October 2019.

Members noted the concerns raised by some residents in Woods Avenue having to park in Sycamore Avenue or Briars Lane due to no parking spaces near their property, there is also the influx of university parking within Woods Avenue.  In March 2019, an additional consultation had been carried out with the 54 Woods Avenue residential properties.  This consultation had 70% of response voting in favour of a resident permit scheme.

RESOLVED

1.    Although the majority of responses opted for resident parking permit scheme to operate Monday to Saturday, the Council is recommending that the scheme operates Monday-Friday.  This is due to the responses received to the adjacent Hatfield town centre car park amendment consultation, which proposes that the parking permit restrictions are applicable only Monday to Friday.  Therefore it is recommended that Aldykes corresponds with the Hatfield town centre area and operates Monday-Friday 9am to 5pm.

2.    That the Panel considers the objections received in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.27 and in particular the issues raised in Section 16, around equalities and diversity having considered all the detailed issues within this report including any proposed mitigating actions, recommend to Cabinet to proceed with the amended proposals (Appendix C) and the creation of the Traffic Regulation order (TRO) for all the reasons set out in the report.

Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services), which sets out the results of the informal consultation, the statutory consultation and the recommended course of action for French Horn Lane area, Hatfield East Ward.

Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) on the introduction of verge protection order in various roads, French Horn Lane, area, Hatfield East Ward.  Within the next year work is due to start on the redevelopment of Hatfield Town Centre, including proposals to construct a new multi-storey car park in The Common car park.  The redevelopment is likely to cause a degree of parking displacement both during and after the construction of the new car park.  Residents and businesses in the roads surrounding the town centre were being consulted on parking restrictions on how to minimise the effect of any displacement.  The consultation area of ‘French Horn Lane’ initially covered 23 roads to the south and east of the town centre.  The consultation area was later expanded to include Oaklands Wood and St Albans Road East.

The French Horn Lane area has been divided into five separate areas for further consultation and detailed parking designs.  The entire consultation included 880 properties.  All of the five areas had been consulted separately on waiting restrictions, with a new range of measures recently approved for implementation.

The Council receives a number of requests from all over the Borough, to address the issue of vehicles parked on the verge and pavements.  Until recently, enforcement of parking on the footway was within the remit of the Police as this could be classed as an obstruction; however this was now regarded as a low priority for the Police due to other work pressures.  The introduction of Verge Protection Order (VPO) would provide the Civil Enforcement Officers with the means to effectively and robustly enforce vehicles parking on the verge or footway, by issuing a Penalty Charge Notice.  It was noted that a VPO covered the limits of the public highway, extending from the centre of the road to the highway boundary, which in many cases is the boundary of the private property, this could include verges and/or pavement.  Yellow line waiting restrictions also share the same boundary.

A Member raised the issue of the verge damage in the said areas and what justification there was for resolving the issue before dealing with the Peartree area.  The Officer explained that it was an exception, as work was already being carried out in the French Horn Lane area.  Also due to staff change over there had been some delays and timescale changes.

RESOLVED

That the Panel considers the objection received in 4.1 and in addition the issues raised in Section 15 around equalities and diversity.  Having considered all the detailed issues in this report including any proposed mitigating actions; recommends to Cabinet to proceed with the creation of a traffic regulation order the reasons set out in the report.