Agenda item

To consider any questions submitted by Members of the Council, in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(b).

Members submitted questions on the following:

(A)        Planning Applications

(B)        Transport, Parking Enforcement and Safety

(C)        Communication to Members

(A)        Planning Applications

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(b), the following question had been submitted by Councillor Steve Jarvis to Councillor David Levett (Cabinet Member for Planning and Enterprise):

“Why have the Council’s officers been asking developers to submit planning applications for sites identified in the Local Plan in advance of the Examination in Public of the Plan?”

Councillor Levett replied that the question assumed that that Planning Officers had been approaching developers to submit planning applications as described.  As Planning Officers had not been approaching developers in this way he would be unable to give the reasons why.

Councillor Jarvis commented that he had been advised by a developer that he had been asked by NHDC to submit a planning application in advance of the Local Plan Examination in Public.  He wondered why a developer would state this if it were not true.  In realising that Councillor Levett would be unable to answer this, as a supplementary question, Councillor Jarvis asked if Councillor Levett would like to speculate on an answer?

Councillor Levett replied that he had spoken to Planning Officers and had received assurances that no such advice had been provided to developers.  If Councillor Jarvis had any evidence that it had occurred, then he asked that it be given to him.

(B)        Transport, Parking Enforcement and Safety

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(b), the following question had been submitted by Councillor Judi Billing to Councillor Ray Shakespeare-Smith (Cabinet Member for Policy, Transport and Green Issues):

“Could the Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport and Green Issues outline what arrangements are being put in place to ensure that we have the capacity to fulfil our responsibilities for transport, parking enforcement and safety including liaising properly with the County Council on such issues for the benefit of the people of North Herts?”

In terms of parking, Councillor Shakespeare-Smith replied that NHDC had adopted Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers in January 2005.  In respect of on-street parking enforcement, the Council acted on behalf of Hertfordshire County Council (the highway authority) under the terms of an agency agreement between the two authorities. As the parking authority, NHDC was also responsible for the management and enforcement of its own off-street car parks.

The Council had an adopted parking strategy which was under review at present. 

The Strategy sets out the Council’s policy for the management and implementation of parking where required across the District.  The Council had a programme of town wide parking reviews for each of its towns.  As part of the reviews, the Council would seek to address some, but not all, on street parking issues.  These were mainly in relation to parking issues in close proximity to the town centres and railway stations. 

The County Council was responsible for highway safety matters and in some instances would also implement on street parking restrictions as part of county councillor highway locality budgets.  This split function could be confusing and officers were seeking to improve working and responding to queries with the County Council going forward.  Officers from both authorities meet quarterly to discuss new and on-going schemes emerging from the urban transport plans.

In terms of enforcement, NHDC had 10 Civil Enforcement Officers, a Parking Team Leader and Parking Manager, who actively managed parking enforcement across the District in accordance with the Parking Strategy.  He was confident that the current level of staffing was sufficient for the levels of enforcement.

In terms of Strategic Transport matters, Councillor Shakespeare-Smith stated that this was business as usual.  On strategic matters, such as road and rail, HCC would lead on these with NHDC input.  NHDC, along with HCC, were members of the following consortiums which met as required.  Both officers and Members attended these meetings:

·       East West Rail consortium; and

·       A1(M) consortium.

NHDC was also involved in specific projects such as:

·       The A1 Strategic corridor Study (this is the Highways England smart motorway upgrade between Junctions 6 and 8); and

·       HCC Local Transport Plan Review and the Northern Hertfordshire Growth Plan.

At an officer level there were ongoing meetings with HCC with regard to:

·       North Herts & Stevenage Officers Steering Group – to discuss transport schemes at local level emerging from the Urban Transport Plans – officers meet twice a year; and

·       Highways Liaison Meeting – this is the meeting run by HCC to update Members and Parish Councillors on transport schemes and future initiatives in North Herts – this meets twice a year. 

In respect of resourcing and progressing the transport work and parking review, Councillor Shakespeare-Smith explained that this was a difficult market to recruit to in finding suitable transport professionals.  He was working with the respective Heads of Service to ensure that adequate resources were put in place going forward.  In the interim, he had asked officers to investigate using consultants to progress outstanding areas of work.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Billing asked:

“When will all the outstanding TROs, HBARs, Yellow line appraisals and waiting restrictions and liaison with Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) on a regular basis at their meetings with NHDC Members actually be able to take place, and which aren’t happening at present?

Councillor Shakespeare-Smith reiterated his comment regarding resourcing, in that it was difficult to find suitably qualified professionals.  However, he was working with officers to get these officers in place.  Of the parking reviews in the District’s 4 major towns, 3 of these had been completed, with the Royston Review yet to be concluded. 

Upon completion of this review, the process would start again.  Part of this process was the invaluable contribution that District Councillors could make, as they became aware of issues of immediate concern to local residents.  District Councillors were able to raise such issues both with their County Councillors and with him as NHDC Executive Member responsible for Transport.  The issues could then be placed on a list and assessed to see if appropriate action could be taken.

(C)        Communication to Members

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(b), the following question had been submitted by Councillor Ian Albert to Councillor Ray Shakespeare-Smith (Cabinet Member for Policy, Transport and Green Issues):

“Could the Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport and Green Issues outline his views for ensuring that councillors are kept informed by officers of matters of importance to their roles as effective ward councillors, so that they are not mostly informed of such matters by the press, community groups or constituents?”

Councillor Shakespeare-Smith replied that he did not accept the premise on which the question was based.  He referred to the part of the question which stated “…so that they are not mostly informed of such matters by the press, community groups or constituents?”.

Councillor Shakespeare-Smith commented that everything discussed at NHDC Council and Committee meetings in one way or another impinged upon the residents of North Hertfordshire.  The documentation contained in agendas was never reflected in any response that Members might see in the press or from local community groups.  The information that Members received weekly in the Members’ Information Service outlined various matters, such as CCTV reports, press releases, planning applications and decision, and many other items.

Councillor Shakespeare-Smith stated that the above documentation was not provided to Members by local community groups, constituents or the press.  There were other sources of information available to District Councillors, as Members were able to phone officers to discuss any matters of concern.  They also had access to their County Councillors for matters relating to the County Council.

Councillor Shakespeare-Smith considered that the premise that Members were mostly informed of issues by local community groups, constituents or the press was, in his opinion, totally false.  However, what Members were informed about were small issues that sometimes appeared as headline news in the local press or that constituents from time to time contacted them about.  It was regrettable, but inevitable, in an organisation the size of NHDC, with over 3,000 statutory responsibilities, that situations arose of which the Council was unaware, and was therefore not always in a position to inform councillors.

Councillor Shakespeare-Smith concluded by reassuring Members that NHDC took criticism and questions about its services seriously, and always tried to address these to the best of its ability.

Councillor Albert referred to particular issues where he felt that communications to Members should have been better, such as Bancroft Park, Hitchin Town Football Club, Radcliffe Arms planning application, Funfair location on Ransomes Recreation Ground, Hitchin Swimming Pool and North Hertfordshire Museum/Hitchin Town Hall, and the recent Hitchin Air Quality survey.  As a supplementary question, Councillor Albert asked if a cultural change was necessary at NHDC to ensure that systems were put in place to ensure that councillors were informed (by e-mail if necessary) when urgent and important issues arose so that they were not made first aware of such issues by reading local newspapers?.

Councillor Shakespeare-Smith did not accept that the organisational culture referred to by Councillor Albert existed at NHDC.  He referred to the Member/Officer protocol on working relationships contained in the Council’s Constitution, which detailed the responsibilities of councillors and officers.  If Councillor Albert believed that officers were not abiding by that protocol then it would be an issue that the Council would need to look at most carefully.

Councillor Shakespeare-Smith responded to two of the examples quoted by Councillor Albert.  In respect of Hitchin Town Football Club, no reference had been made in the press article to the fact that the Football Club had let out a substantial parking area on its own land for use by Avis Cars.  In respect of Hitchin Swimming Pool, he reminded Councillor Albert that they both been present at the Hitchin Committee meeting where that item had been presented, and which later appeared as a complaint on the front page of the Comet newspaper.  The presenter of the complaint admitted himself that his immediate response was to use social media to “vent his spleen” and, as a consequence, he received a large number of “followers”.  What he had failed to do was to phone the Council or Stevenage Leisure Limited to report the complaints. How was the Council therefore able to respond to a complaint which had not even been reported to it.

Councillor Shakespeare-Smith concluded by stating that items were often seen in the local press which did not give the full story, and that this should be borne in mind by members when reading articles.  He encouraged Members to phone appropriate officers to receive the full details of items which appeared in the local press.