Agenda and minutes

Cabinet Planning and Parking Panel
Thursday 4th October 2018 7.30 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, The Campus, Welwyn Garden City, Herts, AL8 6AE

Contact: Gurdip Paddan 

Items
No. Item

The Chairman announced the sad news of the death of Councillor M Perkins, Leader of the Council. The Panel stood to observe a minute's silence.

91.

SUBSTITUTIONS

To note any substitution of Committee Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19 – 22.

Minutes:

The following substitution of Panel Members had been made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22:-

 

Councillor J. Boulton for H. Bromley

Councillor H. Bower for S. Glick

Councillor R. Trigg for J. Cragg

92.

APOLOGIES

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H. Bromley, J. Cragg and S. Glick.

93.

MINUTES

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2018 (previously circulated).

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2018 were deferred, as clarification was sought.

94.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY MEMBERS

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

Minutes:

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.

 

95.

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME AND PETITIONS

Up to fifteen 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.

Minutes:

The following questions were received and the Chairman responded:

Question from Jodi Weston

 

Could the timeframes please be clarified on how these planning meetings are scheduled and agendas confirmed?

 

I attended the previous meeting in July 2018 when we were made aware that the proposal to implement a verge protection order in the close was being postponed for discussion at a later meeting.  However since July there has been no further contact until a week before the rescheduled meeting is due to take place when residents are advised that further questions can be submitted and/or it is possible to attend.  It seems a very short period of time to ask the residents to consider the new information received and make the necessary plans to be able to attend the meeting to hear the discussions.  I am a working parent of a young daughter with a husband who works in London and subsequently who is rarely home by 1930.  As such childcare needs to be organised and this takes planning.  It would also be fairer, in my view to allow more time for consideration of the new information received rather than have to rush through this process.  Is it not possible to give residents more time?  Are these meetings scheduled at such short notice to render this impracticable? 

 

Answer

The legal requirement is to provide 5 working days’ notice for the agenda and reports to be published and made available on the Committee pages of the Council’s website.

Letters were sent to all affected parties notifying them of the date of the committee meeting within these timescales.

 

This particular consultation has been in progress for over a year and all residents directly affected have been consulted on proposals during this period.

Residents during this process, requested that they should be allowed to continue parking on the four formal crossovers, which are classed as public highway. The Council has listened to these requests and together with County have agreed to treat Parkway Close as a special case and allow parking to continue in these areas as long as a valid permit/voucher is displayed during the days and times which the scheme operates. Therefore, the proposals have been amended what was formally advertised, this has made the scheme less restrictive.

 

Question from Daniel Barcroft

 

Can you prove that the four remaining crossovers you are proposing to exclude from the A03 parking zone in Parkway Close were “unsanctioned additions” made at a later stage, with evidence such as an original plan or other documentation?  If you cannot prove it then you cannot use that unfounded assertion as rationale for excluding them.

 

Answer

Any modifications sanctioned by the Council would have followed a process that first of all obtained the necessary approval from the County Council who are responsible for their maintenance; followed in turn by the necessary planning permission. Vehicle crossovers would then have been constructed to the correct standard.

Hertfordshire County Council has confirmed the areas that you are referring to are pedestrian  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

96.

ST ALBANS CITY AND DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN PUBLICATION DRAFT CONSULTATION DOCUMENT, SEPTEMBER 2018 pdf icon PDF 90 KB

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the Council’s response to the St Albans City and District Local Plan Publication consultation document.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on St. Albans District and City Council’s (SADC) published Local Plan Publication document 2018, which was out for consultation between 4 September and 17 October 2018.  Once adopted, this Plan would cover the period between 2020 to 2036 and would replace the policies contained within its existing District Local Plan (adopted in 1994) that covered the period between 1981-1996.

 

As the Plan is at the formal Regulation 19 stage the Council’s response would need to focus on any soundness or cross boundary strategic issues relating to the Duty to Cooperate.

 

The report noted that the NPPF Revision was published in July 2018 and would apply as SADC were intending to submit their Plan for examination after 24 January 2019 (Para 214). This required strategic plan-making authorities to collaborate, to identify and address strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.  The main body of the report highlighted the key issues for this Council whilst the proposed Council’s response had been included in Appendix A attached to the report.

 

Members noted that it was not possible to state the accurate number of dwellings needed for St Albans under the government’s standard methodology as the government have announced that they will be consulting on changes to the methodology which are likely to be in place when the St Albans Local Plan is at examination.    With a number of key pieces of evidence having yet to be completed and therefore it was not possible to fully assess the proposals set out in Regulation 19 consultation.  Therefore the Council will make a number of holding objections which it hopes to resolve before the submission of the St Albans Local Plan for examination.

 

Members agreed that the Council’s response should be robust.

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    That the Panel agrees to the proposed response to the SADC Local Publication consultation document (2018) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report and indicate any further issues that Members wish to see included in this Council’s response.

 

2.    That the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to agree the final response to the consultation with Councillor S Boulton, Planning Policy.

 

97.

INTRODUCTION OF VERGE PROTECTION ORDER IN VARIOUS ROADS, HANDSIDE WARD, WELWYN GARDEN CITY pdf icon PDF 109 KB

Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) on the proposals for the creation of a verge protection order in various roads in the Handside Ward of Welwyn Garden City.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Panel considered the report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) on the introduction of Verge Protection Order in various roads, Handside Ward, Welwyn Garden City. 

 

The report noted that the Council began consulting with residents in the four areas which are described as Parkway A, B, C and D.  The proposals included the introduction of two new Resident Parking Permit Schemes (RPPS) and merging two existing residents’ parking schemes into one.  In addition, the Council’s proposals included introducing a Verge Protection Order (VPO) to cover verges, footways and vehicle crossovers (VXOs).

 

The VPO covers 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.  Yellow line waiting restrictions also share the same boundary.

 

The Council receives a significant number of requests to deal with people parking on the verge and pavements.  At present, enforcement of parking on the pavement has been the remit of the Police as this could be classed as obstruction, however this was being regarded as a low priority for the Police due to other work pressures.  Vehicles parking on the verge and green areas are reported through to the Council and the Street Warden Team who monitor and place notices on vehicles parking in such areas, requesting that they refrain from doing this.  Without a VPO in place, there would be no means to effectively and robustly manage vehicles parking in these areas.

 

The report set out the results of the informal consultation, the statutory consultation and the recommended course of action.  A total of 258 properties and businesses had been consulted.  The report also outlined the amendments the Council are proposing and the objections which were received in response to the advertised VPO.

 

It was noted that 25 objections had been received relating to the VPO proposals (attached as Appendix A to the report).

 

Councillor Cowan spoke on Parkway Close in respect of the reduced number of parking spaces and resident’s opinion on the proposals and why life was being made difficult for these residents.  Reference was made to a potential petition which was not acknowledged as a petition due to having less than 50 signatures. He added that the changes made since the last proposal did offer a few more spaces but raised the point as to why some crossovers were acceptable to park on and others were not. He suggested that as the proposal was not being welcomed by some residents that this matter be either deferred or rejected.  He also commented on the letter sent out to residents from the County Council, which was discreditable.

 

The Chairman explained the procedure of the Panel meeting, as a number of comments were being made by the public present during the deliberation of the meeting.

 

The following points were raised and discussed:

 

·         Clarification was sought on the consultation that took place; in particular the process and the recommendation being presented to Cabinet.

·         Parkway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.