Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, The Campus, Welwyn Garden City, Herts, AL8 6AE
Contact: Gurdip Paddan
To note any substitution of Committee Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19 – 22.
The following substitution of Panel Member had been made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22:-
Councillor G. Michaelides for J. Cragg.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J. Cragg.
To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2019 (previously circulated).
The Minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2019 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY MEMBERS
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.
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME AND PETITIONS
The following questions were received and the Chairman responded:
1. Pauline Perkins
Our Planning Consultant (Deloitte) has been informed by the Programme Officer that the updated LUC Stage 3 Green Belt report is scheduled to be made available for publication by the Council in the second week of March.
Would the CPPP please confirm on what date the updated LUC report will be made available on the Council’s website?
Our Consultants LUC have advised that the updated report will be available for forwarding to the Programme Officer on 18 March 2019. Once the Inspector has authorised it for publication on the examination web pages it will be published.
2. Alan Perkins
Paragraph 1.2 of Agenda item 7 informs the CPPP that the Council has received 66 new sites in the Borough in response to its most recent Call for Sites. However, there is no indication of the location, scale, capacity, suitability or sustainability of any of these site, individually or collectively.
Can the CPPP please provide a list of these sites and state how many of these new sites are within or adjoining a settlement excluded from the Green Belt (as described in the HELAA) and, based on 25 or 30 dph, how many new homes would be achieved if all of the sites, which are within or adjoining an excluded settlement, are allocated?
The information required to answer this question, in principle, for the benefit of Members of the CPPP and the public at this meeting should be within the knowledge or judgment of the Council’s planning officers at this time.
Consultation on the sites will not take place until after the local elections has taken place it would therefore be premature to publish a list of sites now as this will form part of the consultation.
As indicated in the programme it will be several months before the HELAA has been completed and an assessment of site suitability and capacity has taken place.
3. Neil Bedford
The Council has received tenders from consultants to carry out a Green Wedge study and a Landscape Sensitivity study. This has not been reported to the Cabinet Planning and Parking Panel in advance.
What is the purpose and methodology of this Green Wedge and Landscape Sensitivity study and when will the details of that methodology be made available to this Panel and the public with the name of the appointed consultants?
The purpose of the commission is:
Firstly, to undertake a robust comparative assessment of landscape sensitivity to built development within Welwyn Hatfield. A strategic level assessment is required which considers both landscape and visual aspects of sensitivity. This will ensure that the Council is able to assess sites on a consistent basis as the current landscape sensitivity work is not comprehensive.
Secondly, to review land in the Borough between settlements and examine the case for designating green wedges to keep land open. The study will need to assess the sensitivity of land between settlements to development and ... view the full minutes text for item 129.
Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) submitting the Local Plan which is currently undergoing public examination by an independent inspector for agreement of the way forward and timetable to progress the Plan.
Members considered the report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the Local Plan – next steps. The Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan has been submitted and is currently undergoing public examination by an Independent Inspector. The Inspector had indicated that the plan does not currently meet the objectively assessed need for housing.
In December 2018 this Panel agreed a new timetable for progressing the Local Plan which included a call-for-sites exercise to help identify possible new sites for housing development. The 66 entirely new sites and 77 re-promoted sites that were submitted far exceeded expectations, which means that it is not possible to conclude the intended consultation stage before purdah starts on 26 March 2019. This will result in a short delay to the agreed timetable, such that presentation of results and recommendations to Members could take place in September 2019 and examination hearing sessions could take place in December 2019.
The Council had received a letter from the Inspector asking the Council to consider a quicker timetable than the one originally submitted to him. This report therefore set out options on how the Panel could proceed.
The report also identified recent revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the consequential need to prepare a housing delivery action plan.
The following points were raised and discussed:
· A comment was made in respect of the number of dwelling per annum as stated within the Local Plan approximately – 600 per annum. The Officer explained the methodology as per the Governments Standard Housing Methodology and it was noted that 870 dwelling would be required unless there is an adopted Local Plan.
· A Member asked why the call for sites list was not available to the public and why was there a delay? Officers explained that this was due to the purdah period. A further question was put forward regarding purdah period, as this period had not commenced. It was clarified that such information would be available after the election.
· The two options available to the Panel were considered together with the potential risks to the Council. It was agreed that Option 1 would be best as Option 2 had risks attached as illustrated within the report. Further clarification was sought from Officers in respect of Option 2.
· Option 1 – as per the report stated: ‘The Panel can agree changes to the previously agreed timetable, to acknowledge that public consultation on new sites will now take place after the local elections in May and to accept that this will push back the presentation of results and recommendations until September 2019 and examination hearing sessions until December 2019. Officers will then write to the Inspector on this basis and seek to book his time for the examination hearing sessions. A detailed timetable to achieve this option is set out in the Appendix 3 attached to the report. It should be noted that there are a number of dependencies and unknowns which could result in slippage’.
· It was agreed ... view the full minutes text for item 130.
Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on consultation on an expanded airport and future operations.
Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the Heathrow Airport Airspace and future operations consultation. The report noted that Heathrow Airport is currently consulting on three key topics; airspace changes for an expanded three-runway airport and future operations for an expanded airport.
The consultation can be viewed at
The deadline for responding was 4 March 2019. Officers have asked whether this response can be submitted on 8 March 2019 following this Panel meeting.
It was noted that Hertfordshire County Council’s own report on this consultation has stated that “Whilst is it likely that Hertfordshire will not need to substantively engage with much of the content of the consultation, the design envelope swathes are a matter that parts of the County will probably wish to respond to as a numbers of swathes traverse the County. Consultees are being asked to identify anything within these swathes which they believe future flightpaths should avoid – and the reason(s) why. Officers are currently liaising with borough/district council colleagues in relation to how Hertfordshire should best respond to the consultation. At this stage it appears that individual boroughs/districts would be best placed to identify those parts of their areas requiring protection, perhaps supported by a general comment from the County Council in relation to protection of communities and recognition of significant assets (such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Hatfield House, for example). In addition, the County Council and a number of boroughs/districts will want to make representations that future flightpaths should be designed so as to ensure they do not compromise the ability in the future for departures from London Luton Airport over Hertfordshire to climb higher quicker – i.e. that Heathrow flightpaths do not ‘hold down’ aircraft departing from London Luton.”
Members commented on the number of flights from Luton airport, noise levels, flight paths and safety issues. Other points raised related to air pollution together with health issues.
It was agreed that the response be strengthened and highlight the environmental issues raised by the Panel.
That the Head of Planning and Corporate Director in consultation with the Executive Member for Planning be authorised to respond to this consultation as set out in the report, plus any further points agreed by the Panel.
Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on arrangements for responding to consultation on Hertfordshire County Council’s Proposed Submission version of the Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan.
Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan proposed submission consultation January 2019. Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) had published it proposed submission version of the Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan (MLP) for consultation which closed on 22 March 2019. Once adopted this Plan would replace the policies contained within its existing Minerals Local Plan (adopted in 2007) that covered the period between 2002 – 2016.
HCC had previously undertaken a number of consultations on what should be contained within the Mineral Local Plan and site selection methodology. The last consultation was considered by Members of this Panel on 8 February 2018 and this could had raised a number of concerns.
The latest consultation was the formal regulation 19 consultation stage and the Council’s response would need to focus on any soundness or cross boundary strategic issues relating to the Duty to Cooperate.
The main body of the report highlighted the key issues whilst the proposed Council’s response had been included in Appendix A to the report. As set out in the main report a response would also be made to Policy 9 of the Plan stating that reference should be made in the Minerals Local Plan to the jointly agreed strategic allocation of Birchall Garden Suburb.
The report noted that in response to the last consultation the Council expressed concern about the cumulative impact of three sites in West Hatfield being allocated in the Plan and the potential impact on the quality of life of residents in this area.
Members discussed the total aggregates provision for plan period plus seven years thereafter and clarification was sought on extracting sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the County for future developments. A Member also highlighted that substantial amounts had already been extracted over the last 60-70 years and probably very small pockets left at the sites in question.
A Member raised the issue of the sites noted in the Memorandum of Understanding and Officers explained that these were prepared with the information available at the time.
Members expressed concern that the impacts of the Minerals Local Plan had not been assessed as part of the A414 strategy and that this should be referred to in our response.
Councillor Zukowskyj expressed concern at the proposed response suggesting that North West Hatfield should not be allocated for mineral extraction as windfall applications very rarely deliver significant quantities of minerals which are a non-renewable resource.
The Panel agreed the recommendation and Members approved that the final response be confirmed in consultation with Councillor H. Bromley in place of Councillor S. Boulton.
It was moved by Councillor H. Bromley, seconded by Councillor S. Kasumu and
(9 for and 2 abstentions)
1. That the Panel agrees the proposed response to the Hertfordshire Mineral Local Plan Consultation (2019) as set out in Appendix A to the report and;
2. The Panel agrees that the final response be confirmed by the Head of Planning in consultation with the ... view the full minutes text for item 132.
Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) on proposals for and objections to the introduction of waiting restrictions in various roads, Cuffley.
Members considered the report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) on the introduction of waiting restrictions in various roads, Cuffley. The report noted that residents and businesses in parts of Cuffley were consulted upon on street parking restrictions proposals in 2018. When concluding the works programme for Cuffley, all requests made before October 2018 were also looked at, including a request for double yellow lines on sections of roads where obstructive parking was causing traffic flow issues. This included requests from Colesdale and Brookside Crescent.
The result of the informal consultation, the statutory consultation and the recommended course of action was set out within the report. A total of 323 residents and businesses had been consulted. One objection had been received; noted in Appendix A attached to the report.
The Officer explained the situation at Station Road and Maynard Place, Theobalds Road and Colesdale.
The report noted that there had been one objection pertaining to Brookside Crescent mainly to the proposal for double yellow lines. The proposals had been brought forward due to several requests from residents who live directly by the section of highway where lines have been proposed. And it relates to a short section of yellow lines on the bend of the road where the turning range is limited for larger vehicles particularly refuse trucks.
It was moved by Councillor H Bromley, seconded by Councillor A. Chesterman and
That having considered the objection received and in particular the issues raised around equalities and diversity and all the detailed issues in the report, including any proposed mitigating actions, the Panel recommends to the Cabinet to proceed with 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 proposals for and objections to the introduction of waiting restrictions, resident permit parking and verge protection in various roads, Hatfield.
Members considered the report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) on the introduction of waiting restrictions, a resident permit parking scheme and verge protection order in various roads, Roe Green, Central Ward, Hatfield.
The report noted that in recent years a large number of complaints had been received from residents in the Roe Green area of Hatfield about people parking in the residential roads when visiting the Galleria rather than pay for parking in the Galleria car park. The Council in October 2016 started the parking consultation in the Roe Green area of Hatfield. The scheme was split into two, with Area One including the roads to the west of Lemsford Road being engaged in the first round. As a result of the consultation, on the 3 July 2017 a resident permit parking scheme (RPPS) together with additional waiting restrictions was introduced in various roads in Roe Green. The resident parking permit scheme operated on Monday to Saturday from 8am to 6pm. Following the successful implementation of the scheme, a number of complaints continued to be received from residents concerning vehicles either parked on the footway or grass verge. A further letter was sent to residents informing them that they would be consulted on a verge protection order (VPO) during the second round of consultation.
The Council received more and more requests all over the Borough, to address vehicles parking on the verge and pavements. Until recently, enforcement of parking on the pavement 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. Without a VPO in place, vehicles parked on the verge and green areas were reported through to the Council and the Street Warden team monitored and placed notices on vehicles parking in such areas, requesting that they refrain from doing this. The introduction of a VPO would provide the Civil Enforcement Officers with the means to effectively and robustly enforce vehicles parking in these areas, by issuing a Parking Ticket.
In January 2018the Council started the parking consultation in Area Two with the remaining roads predominantly to the east of Lemsford Road, Hatfield.
The report set out the results of the informal consultation, the statutory consultation and the recommended course of action. Approximately 1800 properties and businesses had been consulted. The report also outlined an amendment the Council was proposing and the objections which were received in response to the advertised Orders.
Twelve objections had been received relating to the proposed RPPS. One objection had been received relating to the proposed VPO; as shown in Appendix A attached to the report.
A Member commented on the parking operational times of Monday to Saturday from 8am to 6pm and whether this long period could be split into two. The Officer explained that the proposed operational days and time was based on the majority response from residents and it would be monitored ... view the full minutes text for item 134.