Agenda and minutes

Cabinet Planning and Parking Panel
Monday 13th January 2020 7.30 pm

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

Contact: Gurdip Paddan 

No. Item



To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2019 (previously circulated).


The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 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.




Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) on the review of the Parking Services Work Programme for 2019-2021. The reason for this review is that the Council has received a large number of requests across the Borough, including from some residents in Pine Grove, Brookmans Park for their area to be added to the work programme.




Additional documents:


Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) on the review of the Parking Services Work Programme 2019-2021.  Throughout the year, the Council receives requests for parking restrictions and/or improvements. Once received, these are recorded on the Parking Services investigation list for consideration for a future parking work programme.  The parking work programme is important, as it provides a transparent plan of how the parking services team will undertake parking consultations and any subsequent improvements, at different locations across the Borough over a period of time. This is particularly key in managing the different expectations of residents and businesses, who want to see parking improvements in a certain area.


The report noted that up to 10 December 2019, the Council had received 683 parking requests from residents and businesses, which have been recorded on the investigation list for the future parking work programme.  


It was noted that 242 of the above requests would be addressed as part of the existing work programme; leaving 441 requests to be considered for the future work programme. 


On occasion, 106 contributions can be made available as part of the planning process for new developments. This money can be used to design and consult affected parties in a specific area on possible parking displacement. The first two projects are The Comet and High View (Appendix A).  Recruitment for the new Parking Officer would be starting in April 2020. Officers explained that additional resource had been made available and The Comet and High View would be their first projects.


(Work Programme) Recommendation 2.1:


Members raised and discussed the following points relating to recommendation 2.1:


1.      An amendment was tabled, to extend the map in Appendix A (High View), which covers Woods Avenue, including the Birds Estate, through to Hazel Grove, The Wades, Southdown Road to Travellers Lane.  Officers explained to extend the work area further to include Drakes Way, Cherry Way and Shallcross Crescent, down to Southway as proposed by Councillor Zukowskyj, would mean having to remove an area off the current work programme.


2.      The Panel agreed to add the area proposed by Councillor Zukowskyj Appendix B, when an opportunity presented itself to add the suggested extended area to the parking work programme.


(Pine Grove) Recommendation 2.2:


The report noted that residents in Pine Grove had been consulted by the Borough Council on parking proposals in 2015.  This was mainly in response to concerns around safety at the junction of Chancellors School and Pine Grove. At that time, most of the responses opted for a single yellow line opposite the junction with the road to the school and the introduction of ‘school keep clear’ marking.  Residents were also asked if the restrictions went far enough; of the 31 responses only 12 stated that they did not go far enough.  Based on the majority of residents accepting the proposed changes, no further consultation with residents or the school were carried out.


Members then discussed the following points relating to recommendation 2.2:


1.    The Chair  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.