Agenda item

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.

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 B objection at 3.2.4 – a question was raised whether it would be possible for residents to maintain the crossovers and whether this was something that other Councils delivered. 

·         Discussion ensued on cross-overs and whether the distance was reasonable.  It was noted that some residents were of the opinion that they should be allowed to continue parking on the four formal and three informal cross-overs.

·         Had there been a parking survey conducted?  Officers explained that there had been a spot check survey conducted and results were available on the website but not a seven day survey.

·         It was noted that the size of the garages was outdated, as vehicles had changed and that garages should be built for purpose.

·         The Panel was sympathetic to resident’s concerns and the requests received but it was agreed that the ethos of the Garden City should be maintained.

·         Some Members agreed that the resident’s concerns should not be dismissed and that this matter should be deferred and reconsidered.

·         Disabled advisory bays should be upgraded as they do not always serve their intended purpose.  The Officer explained that these bays will be monitored.

·         An open forum meeting was suggest so that resident’s questions could be answered.

The recommendation in the published report was:

1.    That the Panel consider the objections received in sections 3.1.1, 3.2.4 and 3.3.7 of the report, in particular the issues raised in Section 15 around equalities and diversity.  Having considered all the detailed issues in the report including any proposed mitigating action; recommends to Cabinet to proceed with the creation of VPO order as amended (Appendix C attached to the report) for the reasons set out in the report.

2.    That the Panel recommend to Cabinet to the principles as outlined in Section 4 when consulting and introducing VPOs within the Borough.

It was moved by Councillor G. Hayes and seconded by Councillor P. Zukowskyj that the recommendation be amended to the following wording:

‘I propose and seek a seconder to defer this decision today due to an unusual strength of feeling by members of the public.  As it is unusual, I propose an open forum meeting be held for residents so they can have their questions fully answered so there is no confusion when this matter is brought back to this Chamber’.

On the amendment being put to the meeting there voted:

FOR approval of the amendment – 7

AGAINST approval of the amendment – 4 and the amendment was carried.