Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Regeneration and Economic Development)

At this point in the meeting, Councillor Thorpe and Shah returned to the meeting, and Councillor Gilbert left the discussion following his declaration of interest.

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Director (Regeneration & Economic Development) on Introduction of Resident Permit Parking Scheme, Other Waiting Restrictions and Verge and Footway Prohibition, in Various Roads, Sherrards Ward, Welwyn Garden City.

In October 2022, the Council undertook a parking survey with residents in Sherrards Ward, Welwyn Garden City. 2,485 households were consulted. Following feedback, adjustments were made to the proposals and 69 objections had been received (out of   1,170 households); 49 to the verge and footway parking prohibition and 18 to the residential permit zone. Minor changes to the proposal were then made, as set out in the report. 

The following points were raised during the discussion:

·        It was highlighted that while no one wanted parking on grass verges or curbs, but that there was a need for parking. It was felt that not enough had been done to provide alternative provision.

·        It was suggested that if Hertfordshire County Council were to be written to this should have been done before the proposals were brought to the Panel.

·        Officers highlighted that in terms of Greenfield, initially 58% of respondents were in favour of verge and footway protections; when the proposals were sent out there were no responses against them but a large number of objections were received after the notice of intent was published, which was a late stage given the initial two consultations. It was clarified that the Council can conduct works to increase parking where the Council owns the land. All the grass verge in Greenfield was adopted highway and following the feedback received from residents, Hertfordshire County Council would be written to.

·        The Council could review land it owned to introduce additional parking.

·        A member highlighted that Appendix D had a cut off piece of text, and clarity was sought on what residents were being asked if they supported; it was confirmed residents were asked whether they supported the principle of parking restrictions.  It was felt that the response received had a large number of those against the application, although there were more in support. Officers clarified that Appendix D showed the response rate for or against the proposal, and the initial consultation received a higher response rate.

·        A member felt that the attendance from residents at this committee showed there was a need for this to be reviewed further.

·        It was felt that the consultation process should be simplified (for example, residents could simply be asked whether or not they wanted parking restrictions) which in turn would increase responses to consultations. Officers clarified that the initial data gathering had a range of options which officers then investigated. The second consultation presents a limited number of options for consultation. These two processes take place several months apart.

·        A member queried what the review process was, and when this would take place. Officers confirmed that when parking restrictions were implemented, a monitoring process would take place within 6 months, and any unintended consequences could lead to changes in the parking restrictions. A feedback form is published on the Council website 3 months after implementation and would remain there for 3 months. Residents could find these on the Council’s website and residents would be written to.

·        It was queried whether when this was implemented, could the written confirmation to members could this include links or a QR codes to the feedback surveys. Officers confirmed this could be explored.

·        It was queried how officers would respond if residents fed back that they could not park near their house. Officers highlighted that each situation was unique which was why there was a post implementation review. A verge protection order in a specific location could be removed if it was causing issues if the Council and Executive Member felt this needed to be addressed.

·        It was asked whether there were any compromises that could be reached, for example if there could potentially be exceptions for cul de sacs that were not pathways, and what alternative arrangements were being put in place for residents. A lengthy consultation had taken place, and the review period would allow the Council to make further changes, and re-consult in line with the legislation.

·        It was queried how disabled people would have bays implemented. Officers confirmed that the disabled bay scheme falls under the remit of the County Council.

·        It was noted that residents had communicated that they desired parking restrictions put in place as it was the view that restrictions were being put into neighbouring roads. Residents therefore were no longer in support of the restrictions. Officers stated that they could only form options based on the consultation response data.

·        Officers clarified that a number of requests had been received for this area, and at the time officers wrote to residents the majority of residents were in favour.

·        It was asked whether it was fair to say that the majority of residents wanted the proposals set out in the report. Officers could not confirm what residents had agreed, or disagreed with, within the proposals. Proposals had been modified based on the second consultation and reflected what had been requested on a road by road basis.

·        It was felt that both the residents walking the road and the residents wanting to park in the road needed to be considered.

·        It was clarified that if there was a verge protection order in place; someone parked on the verge could receive a fine.

·        Hertfordshire County Council was responsible for dealing with parking obstacles in verge protection areas.

·        It was queried how many times significant changes or reverses had been made to parking restrictions following the 6 month review. Officers said several schemes had been amended; this was subject to feedback received.

·        It was queried whether a hard copy of the feedback form could be circulated to residents. It was confirmed this request could be accommodated.

·        It was queried when the last parking scheme was implemented which did not have a verge protection order attached to it. Officers confirmed this was implemented as default in 2016 for all roads which are 4.5 metres or over.

·        Officers had a list of the addresses where consultation letters were sent; follow up letters were sent where a response was not received. Newspapers adverts were used for the notice of intent.

·        The Chair queried the implications if the scheme was not passed at the meeting. Officers confirmed that if 50% or more Panel members agreed the proposals this would then go to Cabinet for a decision. If more than 50% of the Panel objected to the scheme there would be discussions with the Executive Member and a decision would be made as to whether to revisit the scheme and carry out further consultation or whether the scheme would fall away.

Resolved

1)     (7 in favour):

THE BOROUGH OF WELWYN HATFIELD (VARIOUS ROADS, SHERRARDS, WELWYN GARDEN CITY) (RESTRICTION OF WAITING AND PERMIT PARKING ZONES) ORDER 202X” That the Panel considers the objections received in Section 5 in addition to the issues raised in Section 16 around equalities and diversity and recommends to Cabinet to proceed with creation of the advertised traffic regulation order as set in Sections 3.6 and 3.7 of this report.

2)     (6 in favour)

THE BOROUGH OF WELWYN HATFIELD (VARIOUS ROADS, SHERRARDS, WELWYN GARDEN CITY) (PROHIBITION OF STOPPING AND WAITING ON VERGE OR FOOTWAY) ORDER 202X” That the Panel considers the objections received in Section 5 in addition to the issues raised in Section 16 around equalities and diversity and recommends to Cabinet to proceed with the creation of the traffic regulation order as set in Section 3.7 of this report.

The report would therefore be recommended to Cabinet for discussion and approval.