Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2021 (previously circulated).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2021 were approved as a correct record.

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 S. Thusu declared a non-pecuniary interest in items on the agenda as appropriate by virtue of being a Member 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 from Mr Russell Haggar, and the Vice-Chair as Portfolio Holder of Environment, Planning, Estates and Development responded with a response:

“At November’s CPPP, I asked a question about the ongoing Village Green application for Singlers Marsh in Welwyn. The substance of the question was: “Why does WHBC refuse to discuss the application with its local residents, and what is the basis for its claim that the lesser protection of not being a village green is the best situation for Singlers Marsh?”

The council gave a comprehensive answer at November’s CPPP meeting to first half of that question. But its response utterly failed to address the second half. To recap briefly, in an email sent to me on 4th October this year, the council’s Head of Environment wrote:

Our authority has now completed its assessment on Singlers Marsh and whether to retain the Marsh (sic) ongoing status as a nature reserve or becoming a village green. The conclusion of the assessment is that Singlers Marsh is best served under the current arrangements, and the Council will therefore not be supporting the village green application.

My question was, and remains, what is the basis for WHBC’s claim that the status quo at Singlers Marsh serves it better than being registered as a village green?

The council’s representation to the Registration Authority (i.e., HCC) against the village green application consists, as it should, of technical points around the pros and cons of whether Singlers Marsh is, or is not, being used as a de facto village green. I understand the council’s reluctance to enter into discussion about these points while there is a legal process afoot, though it is a matter of some regret that the council did not take the opportunity to discuss these points prior to the process commencing.

However, the question as to whether Singlers Marsh is best served as a nature reserve or as a village green is wholly outside of this process. Since there is clearly no reason to hide behind the legal process regarding this question, might the council see fit on this occasion to answer the actual question?”

Answer:

Thank you to Mr Haggar for this further question.

The Council gave full consideration to the matter and reached the view that the legislative criteria for village green status for the Singler’s Marsh site is not met.  The statutory process, in relation to the village green application, is ongoing and it would not be appropriate for this Council to deal with questions relating - whether directly or indirectly - to the application outside of the formal procedures. It will be a matter for the Registration Authority, Hertfordshire County Council, to decide if the application to register Singler’s Marsh as a village green should be granted or not. The Council has set out its reasons against supporting a village green application to Hertfordshire County Council and this has also been shared with the applicant.

Amendment to the Report from Head of Environment on the Parking Services Work Programme 2022 – 2024.

An Amendment to Report of the Head of Environment on the Parking Services Work Programme 2022-2024. Officers stated that Woods Avenue was included within the South and East Hatfield workstream, and this would be made explicit in the work programme table. Furthermore, Officers stated that the table in the original report had been updated to include Robin Hood Lane/ The Common and Pine Grove to the works programme.

RESOLVED:

(Unanimous)

a)    That it is noted that Woods Avenue was included in the South/East Hatfield works programme area.

(Unanimous)

b)    That Robin Hood Lane/ The Common and Pine Grove be included into the 2022 – 2024 works programme

(Unanimous)

c)     Having unanimously agreed the inclusion of Robin Hood Lane/ The Common and Pine Grove into the 2022-2024 works programme, the Panel recommends to Cabinet that delegated authority is given to the Executive Member of Resources to amend the works programme accordingly.

Report of the Head of Environment on the recommendation from the Parking Modernisation review on the feasibility of introducing ANPR cameras as an parking enforcement measure.

Report of the Head of Environment following a recommendation from the Parking Modernisation Review to enhance parking enforcement using mobile and static Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. Officers stated that the system would be more efficient to deal with parking permit issues, and that tickets would still be given manually under legislation. The static cameras would be outside schools to tackle inconsiderate parking on yellow zigzags and improve road safety. Any tickets issued from the static cameras would be posted to the address registered to the vehicle. Officers stated that signage on the vehicles and the location of cameras would be overt.

Members asked whether any wardens would be lost or if more wardens could be hired in replacement of a vehicle. Officers confirmed that there would be no changes to the enforcement team and that enforcement would be carried out with greater efficiency in the borough with a vehicle as permit areas are expanding. The vehicles are a one-off outlay that would be benefits of being able to get around the borough and cover more areas.

Members sought assurance that the cameras would be protected against vandalism and be insured. Officers assured ways to protect against vandalism would be considered as part of the procurement process, and they would be insured in line with Council policies and procedures.

Members asked about the cost of moving the static cameras and the breakeven on the investment. Members also enquired about how often the static cameras would be moved, expressing some concern that once the static cameras had been moved then people’s behaviour around parking outside school would return to the old way. Officers stated that movement of cameras was included in the budget and the breakeven point would be achieved in a few years. Officers added that these details would be considered during the procurement process, but the assumption would be that the cameras would be moved every few months with research indicating that the cameras helped change behaviour even after being located in a particular location for short period of time.

Members sought clarification on the ticketing process. Officers stated there were two systems. The warden would drive the ANPR electric vehicle in a permit area or carpark, the driver would then issue a ticket to any vehicle that flagged on the system. The vehicle would only be static whilst the FPN was given. Outside schools with the static camera the ANPR system would register and then a ticket would be sent to the address of the vehicle. The latter system would be centrally managed, and resources were in place to deal with any complaints. Members asked about the work being managed. Officer stated that the current team would deliver FPN, the appeals process was managed by East Herts and there would be no additional resources required to operate with the proposed new vehicles or static cameras.

Members raised a question over the time saving of having the vehicles and what the savings would be. Officers answered that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.