Agenda item

Questions to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Sarah Nelmes, from Councillor Sara Bedford

 

9a.       How much did the mandatory planning training held in May cost in total?

            Written response:

            £2021.92

 

9b.       Do you believe that the mandatory planning training was effective, useful and value for money? What alternatives were considered?

 

Written response:

Yes, the training was considered to be effective and useful by providing all members with either a reminder or introduction to making planning decisions and the importance of not predetermining or giving the impression of having done so. We considered asking Officers to deliver the training but due to resourcing/capacity limitations, and that external trainers are able to provide more frank advice than Officers, it was concluded that external delivery would be preferred.

 

9c        Do you believe that it is appropriate to hold the same very basic planning training every year, when other councils require refreshers every two or four years?

 

Written response:

Yes, it is important that all members are given updated advice in respect of planning, including new matters (i.e., legislation/case law) that have happened over the course of the year to ensure that when they make decisions, they understand the right way to do so. It is also a good time to reflect upon decisions of the previous year if there is anything to be learned from those. If there were any major changes to how planning applications are to be considered during the course of the municipal year, Officers would provide an update. I would also consider that training with previous experienced planning committee members mixed with first timers helps spread knowledge and experience because of the discussions that take place in the training session.

 

9d        What is being done to ensure that errors with the elections and the election count do not recur?

 

Written response:

As is usual after an election, a session has been held with Election Agents and another with the elections team to look at what went well and what did not, in order to build any changes into the next elections.  Taking on board some feedback for improvement, overall the majority of feedback has been positive. Changes to be implemented will be communicated to the wider elections staff closer to the time of the next elections.

 

9e        How many communications were sent to Parish Council candidates during the time between their nomination and the deadline for return of expenses? What did each concern and on what date were they sent?

 

Written response:

Where a parish candidate was standing for a political party information was communicated via the district election agent; district election agents submitted election documents on behalf of the parish political party candidates, however, validity notices were posted directly to all parish candidates on 17 April.  The Independent candidate was contacted directly by phone and also sent EC information relating to spending and donations on 15 May by email.

 

9f         Why does the Council continue with the high Perspex screens originally brought in for Covid when most other Councils have dispensed with them?

 

Written response:

The screens provide a degree of noise reduction allowing the count staff to concentrate.  The screens also provide an amount of protection from spilt drinks by guests or counting agents, therefore, allowing drinks to be taken into the count.

 

Question to Leader of the Council, Councillor Sarah Nelmes, from Councillor Oliver Cooper

 

9g        Three Rivers former website prohibited search engines – such as Google – accessing 12,954 pages on the council’s website.  This means that the content of Three Rivers’ former site will be lost, as most of the site has not been cached by Google or the Internet Archive.  This reduces the transparency of former decisions and actions taken by Three Rivers, and destroys former content.

 

            Will the Leader restore the former website briefly and without such a prohibition, so that it may be cached by the Internet Archive, to ensure that Three Rivers’ past isn’t wiped out?

 

Written response:

All news stories from the old site have been imported across to the new site. All previous Council meetings up until 30 April 2023 were also imported, meetings after this date appear on moderngov.threerivers.gov.uk. If the old 'archive' site was left running and continued to be indexed that would cause problems from the confusion of duplicate content and by not signposting where the most recent relevant information is published. The correct 301 header is set to instruct search engines on where to find the new website content. We will still be in the position to supply details of old archived content by request (e.g. for any FOI requests) as this is all backed up and can be accessed when needed.

 

Urgent question to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Sarah Nelmes from Councillor Sara Bedford (allowed under Rule 14(3)

 

9gi       Do you believe that adequate communications took place with residents and Oxhey Jets FC following the traveller incursion onto Council property in Altham Way on Friday 7 July 2023? What more should the Council have done to support those affected and what could be done to improve communications and give greater support in future?"

 

Written response:

The Council was first made aware of the unauthorised encampment at approximately 8pm on Saturday 8 July. As the Member will be aware, the Council does not offer a 24/7 response to such encampments and the procedure requires that action is taken on the first working day following the report.  On Saturday evening Officers immediately notified the Council’s ‘Unauthorised Encampment Work Group’, together with the Local Ward Councillors, the Leader, Deputy Leader and Lead Member for Resources and the Oxhey Jets Football Club. A message was also placed on the Council’s social media pages, stating that the Council were aware of the unauthorised encampment and that Officers would deal with the issue on Monday.

 

It is not considered that any further actions or communications would have been necessary or could have been made to improve the situation.

 

Question to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Narinder Sian

 

9h        The Beryl bikes cycle scheme in Watford recently celebrated its third anniversary having recently amassed over 308,000 journeys across more than 900,000km.  The scheme is a fun, sustainable and healthy way for residents and visitors to get around Watford, without having to rely on petrol or diesel-powered vehicles.  Some 38 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions have been saved; the equivalent of around 2242 litres of petrol or more than 222.4 flights from London to Edinburgh.  Can a feasibility study be requested for extending the Beryl bike scheme from Watford to Rickmansworth via Croxley Green.

Data source: https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/leisure/23363390.watfords-beryl-bike-scheme-celebrates-three-years/

 

Written response:

The Council supports initiatives to encourage Active Travel which allows our residents and visitors an alternative choice to the private motor vehicle and supports the Council Climate Change agenda.  Officers and Members have already initiated new discussions with Watford Borough Council, and I understand that Councillor Sian was personally informed of this by the Deputy Leader, on a potential expansion of the Beryl bike scheme specifically across shared Council boundaries, this would be such sites as Croxley Station, the Aquadrome, Leavesden Country Park, Croxley Business Park and others.

 

Once this is progressed further, and potential sites and feasibility agreed, local ward members would be consulted over docking station locations.

 

Question to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow from Councillor Chris Mitchell

 

9i         France has legislated that all open air car parks must have solar panels installed. Also, CPRE have published an article, “shout from the rooftops, May 2023” stating how this could be such an important contribution to sustainable energy, and they include car parks. I realise rooftops are being considered, but can the use of car parks be included in the review along with the EV installations proposed. I am particularly interested in the community way car park in Croxley Green. Please confirm this can be carried out and I am willing to help out in any way.

 

Written response:

As the Member will be aware, there is no such legislation regarding mandatory installation of Solar Panels in UK car parks. At the present time the Council is investigating the installation of EV charge points in its public car parks. Whilst Solar PV Shelters have been mentioned during those discussions, there are a number of practical considerations to installing a Solar PV Shelter in a public car park. One major concern is the propensity for vandalism within urban environment.

There are other practical considerations regarding the placement of Solar PV Shelters including the layout, capacity and usage of the car park and the effect on any proposed structure. Wherever Solar PV Shelters would be installed, a height-restriction barrier would need to be installed at all entrances; parking bays would need to be aligned to be south-facing. It should also be noted that in heavily used open car parks this may reduce capacity and the ability of shadowing / leaf falls from neighbouring sites would need to be considered.  Maintenance and annual cleaning, together with accessibility to a local grid connection are also areas for further consideration. There may also need to be thought given to battery storage options and any ‘private wire’ agreements, where the energy produced could be sold to adjoining occupiers if not accessible for use by the Council.

In general, the installation of Solar PV Shelters in TRDC’s car parks might be considered beneficial but as the Member indicates, installation of Solar PV in less ‘accessible’ locations remains the priority i.e., roof tops, etc.

At this time there is no formal budget to explore this type of installation, but such a proposal will be consider as part of the Council’s commitment to renewable energy/carbon reduction.

Should a future government open up new funding schemes, PV panels in such locations is worth serious consideration.

 

Question to the Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst from Cllr Rue Grewal

 

9j         Does the Council plan to do anything about the large amount of fly-tipping at the privately-owned Delta Gain car park in Carpenders Park, which has been reported multiple times to the Council and which causes significant harm to neighbouring residents and visitors?

 

Written response:

The land at Delta Gain is privately owned by a company called Orbit property. Residential bins are stored in a public alleyway which runs between a car park and a shopping parade so are subject to passers-by using the bins and dumping around them. Council officers have worked with Orbit for several years to try and resolve issues and keep this area tidy and have recently suggested that the solution to this issue would be a purpose-built bin store away from the direct public eye with a lockable door which is only accessible to residents, however, Orbit have not been amenable to this idea.

Any reports the Council receives are passed directly to Orbit Property who are always quick to action any requests for fly tipping and excess/bulky waste removal.

 

Question to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow from Councillor Oliver Cooper

 

9k        In 2021, the Policy & Resources Committee resolved to oppose the then-proposed Greater London “boundary charge”.  While this was dropped, Sadiq Khan is similarly now extending ULEZ to the borders of Three Rivers, which will have a similar impact on Three Rivers residents – and impact some residents far more than the boundary charge was planned to.  Did Three Rivers District Council respond to the Transport for London consultation in 2022 on ULEZ expansion?

 

Written response:

A letter was sent from the Council Leader in March 2021 detailing the Council’s opposition to the proposed Greater London Boundary Charge.

With regard to the ULEV consultation a response was not sent.  A motion was submitted in February 2023 but never debated, however a new motion is on these papers.

 

Question to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor David Raw

 

9l         At the Infrastructure, Housing, and Economic Development Committee meeting on 15 November to discuss the Rickmansworth West parking scheme, many residents raised the issue of lack of enforcement of the current parking restrictions.  The administration said they would address this.

However, just one PCN was issued in January and two in February on the Uxbridge Road.  Has the Council therefore decided not to fulfil its promise made at that meeting in November?

 

Written response:

The primary purpose of parking penalty charges is to encourage compliance with parking restrictions which are aimed at encouraging sensible and legal parking, reducing traffic congestion on our roads and making our roads safer for all road users. Three Rivers DC have a Parking Enforcement provider who enforce these restrictions around the District.

It is clear from deployment data for Uxbridge Road and the immediate locality that Hertsmere BC continue to visit the area frequently. However, this is just one area of the District with parking restrictions and the Civil Enforcement Officers cannot continually be present in this locality. Hertsmere BC have confirmed their visits and the impact of ‘drive offs’ and business awareness of Civil Enforcement Officer visits.

Public safety is of utmost importance to this Council, but the volume of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) should not be used as a sole measure of a parking enforcement response.

 

Questions to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Philip Hearn

 

9m       What was the rationale for Three Rivers’ administration insisting to Hertfordshire County Council that the way for residents to respond to the LCWIP consultation should be different in Three Rivers than was the case for other districts in the county? What feedback has this Council received on how effective this different approach has been? Does the Lead Member feel that the consultation approach has been clear and easy for residents to use?

 

Written response:

The first question is inaccurate . HCC have confirmed the public consultation  in Three Rivers on the LCWIP has been conducted in the same was as previous LCWIPs with the only difference being the layout of the mapping.  Lessons have been learnt from previous LCWIP consultations and have influenced subsequent consultations to ensure they are robust.  All LCWIP consultations have been conducted online and publicised via posters, members and social media with some public engagement where possible and appropriate. 

Some minor changes have been made to the current consultation as a response to feedback.

 

9n        Does the Lead Member believe that enough has been done to advertise to residents in Chorleywood the potential impact on their lives resulting from the LCWIP proposals? These include the closing to cars of the bridge over the railway by Chorleywood Bottom, the closing to cars of the tunnel under the M25 on Shepherds Lane, making Common Road one way to cars, and the narrowing of the A404.

 

Written response:

Yes, at this stage of the proposals.  As advised, this consultation exercise has replicated other consultations for LCWIPs across the County.  A more detailed consultation exercise will occur on specific schemes if/when an LCWIP is adopted. The member should note that the final LCWIP is an HCC approved plan.

Reference is made within the draft LCWIP to suggested interventions on priority routes, but these are only suggestions at this stage of the process.  No formal designs have been completed as at this stage HCC are seeking comments to assess whether the public are in broad support of improvements being made in in the highlighted areas.  The consultation supports comments and suggestions of other routes and improvements that can enable people to walk or cycle for short journeys more often.

Question to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Oliver Cooper

 

9o        Two years ago, Three Rivers had 58 working public electric vehicle charge points: most of the ten Hertfordshire District Councils.  Now, it has just 43: the seventh-most of the ten and fewer than it’s had in years.  Why has Three Rivers failed to install electric vehicle charge points?

 

            Written response:

Council priorities and funding refocused the work of the Transport and Parking Projects team during covid and an emerging HCC EV Strategy (now expected Summer 2023) and details of new Government funding were awaited.  Further investigation and new EV funding opportunities has resulted in Officers delaying the current procurement exercise for 6 sites for rapid charging points whilst alternative opportunities are considered across the District specifically in the Council’s car parks.  The HCC Strategy is also still awaited.    

 

Question to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Reena Ranger

 

9p        Parking is often displaced from Watford Borough Council’s roads into Oxhey Hall, around Silk Mill Road, due to parking restrictions on the Watford side of the boundary and particularly due to the greater pressure on match day.  What can the Lead Officer do to address Silk Mill Road residents’ concerns that cars from the Watford end of the road, which has tighter parking restrictions are overspilling to the Three Rivers end of the road?

 

Written response:

The effect of other neighbouring Council’s parking policies for new development and their own parking restrictions is increasingly leading to displaced parking on roads in the Three Rivers Council area.  These specific concerns along Silk Mill Road have been raised with Officers and added to the Parking Management Programme request list.  When this list is reviewed a scheme in this area may be considered.  It should be noted a parking scheme was introduced on other parts of Silk Mill Road in 2019.

If there are specific safety concerns these need to be directed to Hertfordshire County Council as the Highways Authority.

 

Question to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Ciaran Reed

 

9q        A resident has informed me that, once again, the Council are failing to provide replacement brown bins for ones that have broken. Given the increase in charges for garden waste collections this year, does the failure to provide the service that residents are paying for represent another case of Lib Dem Three Rivers District Council being bad with residents' money?

 

Written response:

The question is factually incorrect as the Council do provide replacement brown bins for those that are broken. Regular audits of replacement bin stocks are undertaken, however, there are limits to how many excess bins we can store at any one time due to the size of the depot. Supply chain issues and delays in production, delivery in recent months have also had an impact on the timeframe in which bins are then delivered to residents however officer try to deliver bins within 20 days of a request being received and in most cases are successful in doing so.

 

Questions to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Andrea Fraser

9r         The Eurobins on Northway are consistently overflowing and often block the pavements.  Bins should not be kept on the pavements which are meant to be kept clear. What measures will TRDC be taking to address the issues with these bins so that residents and visitors alike will not have to all past overflowing, rat infested bins when walking through the town centre.

Written response:

Of the 22 bins located along Northway, only 4 are owned and serviced by Three Rivers District Council. These four bins are used by residents for containment of residual waste. An enforcement officer has, in response to this question, visited the site and reported that at the time of the visit all bins were empty and were not blocking the footpath. The Council has no enforcement powers with regard to bins blocking footways. This responsibility sits with Hertfordshire County Council as the Highway Authority.

 

9s        The administration announced at the beginning of the year there would be a consultation on car park pricing in April? Why has this not happened yet?

 

Written response:

I do not recall this statement or claim made and indeed due to purdah no consultations would be started in election periods, even if this was the case, work on a parking review including charging continues and will be considered in due course.  Any proposals will initially be presented to the relevant Service Committee and/or Planning and Resources Committee.

Question to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Joan King

 

9t         The Lead Member advised me at the Full Council on 21 February in respect of provision of double yellow lines at road junctions in Oxhey Drive that “officers are currently looking at how the schemes can be delivered and will update members as soon as possible”.  Was he aware then that there would be no further communication until 19 May three months later, that this is a disappointing and that he failed to answer the question specifically in relation to whether further consultation was required and it now appears that double yellow lines at the junction with Gosforth Lane which are as desperately needed as at all the others may not be included any scheme being currently progressed a slow place?

 

Written response:

Members will be aware the Senior Transport Planner left the Council at the end of January 2023 and subsequently the remaining Officers have had to find an alternative resource to progress parking schemes across the District.  The proposals for junction protection have been progressed along Oxhey Drive and are at the final Statutory Notice stage having been out to public consultation. This was the consultation members were notified of.

The current scheme does exclude the junction of Oxhey Drive and Gosforth Lane.  Other parking measures were being considered along Gosforth Lane and this junction was considered a comprehensive part of those proposals.  However, Officers have been made aware of Member concerns and receipt of HCC funding and are now progressing this specific junction improvement as a separate scheme.

 

Questions to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Stephen Cox

 

9u        When is the Lead Member to be advised, or was advised of the results of the statutory stage of consultation regarding the provision of double yellow lines at road junctions with Oxhey Drive which presently don’t have them and which finished on 16 June and when will this information be supplied to Ward Councillors, if as we expect, it won’t be simultaneous?

 

Written response:

The Local Improvement parking schemes Statutory Notice parking consultation responses are currently being reviewed by the Council’s retained Highway Engineer.  It is anticipated final confirmation on decisions to progress these local improvement schemes will be shared with the relevant Ward Councillors in July.

 

9v        The Lead Member advised me at the Full Council on 21 February in respect of the further consultation required on the Gosforth Lane parking scheme “that officers are currently looking at how the schemes can be delivered and will update members as soon as possible”.  Was he aware then that I would receive no such communication until 3 June over three months later and that is only because I initiated it and is he aware of my displeasure that despite advising this authority that the double yellow lines at the junction of Gosforth Lane and Oxhey Drive which are as vital as all the others needed to proceed, I was surprised to learn that no such accommodation had been arrived at and what does he intend to do about this situation?

 

Written response:

Due to the departure of the Senior Transport Planner at the end of January 2023 and the current difficulty in recruiting to this role alternative resource has had to be found to progress current parking schemes, which has unfortunately led to delays.

 

Whilst the current scheme, recently out for Statutory Notice consultation, does exclude the junction of Oxhey Drive and Gosforth Lane, this Gosforth Lane/Oxhey Drive junction is now to be progressed.

 

Questions to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Stephen King

 

9w       On 12 May, the then Lead Member and high-ranking officers were asked specifically to tackle the on-going issues regarding refuse collection at Forfar House in South Oxhey which I raised at Full Council last year, although there are also similar issues nearby at Erskine House.  The questions posed were:

1. What are the access arrangements/issues for refuse vehicles?

2. What vehicles are used, standard size or should a smaller vehicle be deployed?

3. Can more of the 'bulk' green bins be provided and if not, why not?

4. What action have you taken as the Lead Member to address the whole issue with Thrive Homes as clearly unfettered access by Uncle Tom Cobley and all?

5. Do you wish to meet on-site with representatives of Thrive Homes, councillors and residents to discuss a way forward and if so could you ask officers to arrange such?

The then Lead Member asked officers to respond later but provided no answers.  Having not had a response this was chased again on 7 June and ended up with the new Lead Member.  To date no response has been received from officers.  Why is this so and can our questions finally be answered which we know is not this Council’s forte?

 

Written response:

The Lead member and high-ranking officers are fully aware of ongoing issues with various mansion blocks in South Oxhey and officers continue to work alongside Thrive Homes to identify and implement resolution of not just the immediate issues but also the underlying issues which are causing the problem.

Officers from the waste services department have made several visits to the area, specifically on this matter and have on numerous occasions had to send dedicated teams to clear the area (emptying of bins and clearing rubbish from the ground). Environmental Enforcement Officers have also attended on numerous occasions ensuring that all bins are clearly labelled and educational information on refuse and recycling has been distributed to all properties, again on several occasions.

The Council’s refuse and recycling crews have significant access issues at this location due to badly parked vehicles, as often several large vans mount the kerb and park along the side of the service road which leads to the bins. Crews also regularly experience access issues as a result of vehicles parking directly outside the bin stores which does not allow enough room to wheel the bins out to the lorry. Where the refuse crew is unable to empty the bins on the scheduled collection day due to these issues, they always return (often on multiple occasions) and try again later in the week. Officers are in the process of determining what the effective measure may be (signage, barriers, other parking restrictions) to install at this location to deter vehicles from blocking access.  There will be budgetary implications for such action.

As per the TRDC refuse policy, each household is entitled to 140 litres of waste, collected on a fortnightly basis all three blocks are already receiving a much larger overall capacity than stated on our refuse policy, whilst also receiving a weekly collection. The refuse and recycling bins are emptied by a standard size refuse truck, and this is not something we are currently able to change at present given the current vehicle fleet capacity.

Regular meetings are now taking place between Council and Thrive officers to discuss the ongoing issues and facilitate collaborative working to keep on top of the situation.

 

9x        Can I congratulate the Lead Member on the provision of parking bays at Ballater Close and Birstall Green in South Oxhey and can the Lead Member advise the locations at which others will be provided in this financial year?

 

Written response:

Officers are continuing to investigate proposals for School Mead, Abbots Langley under the current Programme.  There are no other programmed locations at the current time.

 

Questions to the Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, from Councillor Sara Bedford

 

9y        Will the Lead Member please confirm that the Council has neither earmarked sites for development in the Green Belt nor agreed a Local Plan?

 

Written response:

The emerging Local Plan is currently at Regulation 18 stage, effectively this is the preparation stage of the plan. It can involve multiple consultations seeking views on what ought to be contained in the draft Local Plan. These consultations can cover a range of issues from the vision and objectives of the plan, the policies that the plan may contain, and potential development sites that could come forwards for allocation.

 

At this stage none of the sites that have been consulted on have been allocated and as such cannot  be considered ‘earmarked for development’. This has been confirmed in writing by the Chief Executive.

 

As has been agreed by Council a further Regulation 18 is set to take place later this year on a revised approach to the Local Plan which will not match the government’s target housing figure and this approach was agreed by all councillors last December.

 

At the Regulation 19 Stage the Council consults on its proposed final draft of the Local Plan.

 

It is only at this stage that the Council will have agreed the version of the Local Plan they wish to submit to the independent Inspector for examination. The Council’s Local Development Scheme sets out that the Regulation 19 stage is expected in the autumn of 2024.

 

Indeed, even then the final allocation of sites will not be known until the Government Planning Inspector make their report and as the councillor knows back in 2011 the Inspector overruled this Council and allocated three sites it had not included.

 

9z        Can the Lead Member confirm that the content of the most recent consultation on sites proposed by developers and landowners was agreed by Conservative Councillors?

 

Written response:

At the Full Council meeting on 13 December 2022 the recommendation from the Policy and Resources Committee on the Local Development Scheme, with an amendment proposed at the meeting, was agreed unanimously by all Councillors present including the Conservative Councillors. At the Policy & Resources meeting on 5^th December, prior to this council meeting the Conservative councillors at that stage declined to support the recommendation for further public consultation.

 

In addition, Full Council also received at the meeting the recommendations from the Local Plan sub-committee and P&R Committee on the Regulation 18 consultation which allowed the Council to consult on the additional sites.  These recommendations were again agreed unanimously by all Councillors present at the meeting including the Conservative Councillors.

 

9aa      Where are the site(s) of the 1,100 homes that the Conservative MP for South West Herts says have been agreed in an AONB?

 

Written Response:

This I believe refers the totally misleading information issued by the South West Herts Conservative MP.

 

Any sites promoted by landowners and/or developers through the Local Plan in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) were rejected by officers earlier in the process. There were therefore no sites in the AONB included in the Regulation 18 Sites for Potential Allocation consultation. Neither have there been any recent planning applications approved in the AONB. 

 

The two planning applications for developments of 800 or 300 homes in an area of AONB in Chorleywood, as per my report, were rejected by this Council on 23 March. The site promoters have appealed this decision.

 

Question to the Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, from Councillor Matthew Bedford

 

9bb      Can the Lead Member confirm what further public consultations are planned in relation to sites for potential future housing development; and when these consultation plans were made public?

 

Written response:

The Council’s revised Local Development Scheme was adopted at Full Council on 13 December 2022 and agreed by all Councillors present. This set out that the Council will be consulting further on its preferred (lower) housing numbers in the autumn.  This council also agreed a further Regulation 18 consultation, again supported by all Councillors on some additional sites. That consultation was undertaken in February/ March and results from that and earlier consultations will be considered alongside our agreed new approach for a lower housing for Three Rivers. Once the details of this have been considered by the Local Plan Sub-Committee and Council this will be what goes out to further consultation.

Following this the timetable sets out that the Regulation 19 draft Local Plan is expected to go out for consultation in autumn 2024.

 

Questions to the Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, from Councillor Andrea Fraser

 

9cc      At the SaveTheHighStreet.Org presentation in 2022, businesses requested that Three Rivers talk to landlords and shop owners to support them in making Rickmansworth High Street look more attractive.  Landlords were to repaint buildings and provide shop front signage, and TRDC were to paint railings and remove graffiti. What steps have TRDC taken to fulfil these requests?

 

Written response:

I believe that the Member is referring to SaveTheHighStreet.Org Online Conference Event hosted by SaveTheHighStreet.Org and held on 23 November 2022. This event was held to discuss the findings of the SaveTheHighStreet.Org/Three Rivers Local Champion Survey Data. A series of recommendations were made as a result of the survey. Having consulted with Officers, I am unable to specifically identify where TRDC committed to remove graffiti from any specific locations as part of the survey or meeting – however, where and when reported these issues would usually be dealt with on a ‘business as usual’ approach by the Council. Has the Councillor reported any issues to the Council? One survey response made reference to ‘beautify railings’. Again, subject to requirements, railings and other street furniture will be attended to when need and budget allows. Some of these, if not all will, be the responsibility of Herts County Council and your local County Councillor has a dedicated budget that can be used towards such items.

As far as the overall package of survey recommendations, the proposals arising from the SaveTheHighStreet.Org work were to identify the issues and suggest how these could be addressed. The survey was in effect a ‘wish list’ from local businesses and High Street traders, rather than a developed and budgeted work programme. TRDC also recognise that the recommendations included roles for other key stakeholders and interested parties.

 

9dd      Due to the administration not presenting any business to the General Public Services & Economic Development Committee, it is now not due to meet until October.  This is despite several key issues being progressed elsewhere and requiring scrutiny in Three Rivers.

In particular, an extra meeting has just been called of the High Street Recovery Board at Hertfordshire County Council, so how will Three Rivers be able to consider, let alone execute, any let alone execute, any potential immediate action needed regarding the High Street?

 

Written response:

Officers will progress work and carry out business as usual within their delegated powers.  If any urgent business arises as a result of decisions around ongoing projects or other matters that require a Member decision there are detailed processes in place that enable urgent decisions to be made including additional Committee meetings.  Meetings will not be held if there are no business and no decisions to be made.

The agreement to not go ahead with the July meeting was agreed not just by the administration but the leaders of all the political groups including Cllr Fraser’s own. In addition, at each meeting the work plan is considered by the Committee and members can suggest or propose items. No members had suggested items for the Jully meeting.

If actions are agreed by the Rickmansworth High Stret Recovery Board (a joint board with HCC) then officers, depending on if they relate to TRDC issues will be able to implement them. As I understand the most recent board meeting did not require any decisions to be considered by this Councils committee system.

 

Question to the Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, from Councillor Oliver Cooper

 

9ee      As a proportion of market rents, what are:

a)           the average social rent and

b)           the average affordable rent

secured as conditions of planning permission in Three Rivers?

If precise figures are not available, approximately what proportion of market rent would the Council expect each to be?

Written response:

As a proportion of market rents, the average social rent is around 50-60% of market and the average affordable rent around 80% of market. Core Strategy Policy CP4 (the Development Plan) allows us to secure 45% of all new housing as affordable housing, and of that, 70% as social rent and 30% as intermediate.

Questions to the Lead Member for Housing, Public Health and Wellbeing, Councillor Andrew Scarth, from Councillor Sara Bedford

9ff        Has any further thoughts been given to allowing pets by arrangement in some temporary accommodation provided by the Council? If not, why not?

 

Written response:

A detailed response was provided at Full Council on 22 December 2022 regarding the rationale for not allowing pets in temporary accommodation. It was confirmed that the Council cannot commit to allowing pets in temporary accommodation.

 

9gg      What are the Council’s procedures regarding the response to reports of noxious smoke and unusual burning at a residential property?

 

Written response:

The Councillor will be aware of the Council’s process for responding to complaints about burning at a residential property as a detailed email exchange took place in June 2023 with Officers. An overview of our process for domestic bonfires is as follows:

1.      Complaint is acknowledged and the residents asked to keep a diary log over a period of 7 to 14 days (depending on how often the bonfires occur).

2.      For domestic bonfires and where we can obtain contact information for the person burning, an advisory letter/email is sent advising them that we have received a complaint and outlining the action that can be taken by the local authority. If reports state the bonfires are occurring consecutively, we will try to obtain a telephone number and call them.

3.      Where completed record sheets are returned and it is considered that there is a smoke problem, we will attempt to visit the property to witness the smoke emission.

 

Question to the Lead Member for Community Partnerships, Councillor Steve Drury, from Councillor Reena Ranger

 

9hh      A number of Councils provide pre-application advice to licensing applicants to ensure that applicants are applying for the correct licence, with the correct terms and conditions.  This can create a budget surplus, whereas – currently – applicants often spend the money on external consultants.  Has Three Rivers considered, or will it consider introducing this service line?

 

Written response:

Offering a pre-application licensing service has previously been considered, recognising the benefits in streamlining the application process for certain license type and possible income generation. However, given the size of the department and workloads it has not been pursued nor is it considered that the circumstances have since changed to re-consider introducing the service at this current time. Furthermore, any formal pre-application service would potentially mean that all informal advice offered would have to cease in favour of a paid service which must operate on a cost recovery basis, which could impact on the perception of service provision by our customers.

 

Question to the Lead Member for Resources, Councillor Keith Martin, from Councillor Sara Bedford

9ii        How many business properties are registered by the Council?

 

            Written answer:

            2117

 

Of these how many qualify for:

a) small business relief

b) Retail, hospitality or leisure relief

C) Rural rate relief

d) full or partial charitable or CASC relief

e) empty property relief

f) transitional relief

g) supporting small business relief

h) hardship relief, or are

i) exempt buildings

 

In the case of:

a) how many receive full relief?

d) how many receive full relief?

 

Written response:

a) small business relief 475

b) Retail, hospitality or leisure relief 438

C) Rural rate relief 0

d) full or partial charitable or CASC relief 130

e) empty property relief 212 empty, 51 of those receiving relief

f) transitional relief 1,651

g) supporting small business relief 249

h) hardship relief, or are 0

i) exempt buildings 22

 

In the case of:

a) how many receive full relief? 369

d) how many receive full relief? 1

 

9jj        What was the total amount of NNDR payable in 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24?

 

Written response:

2021/22 £26,476,722.23

2022/23 £28,527,917.26

2023/24 £33,185,389.27 

 

9kk      What was the average % increase in NNDR payable between each of 2021-22, 2022-23 and due in 2023-24? Please include ALL properties and not just those paying full or partial NNDR 2022-23

 

Written response:

2021/22           14.8%

2022/23           8.5%

2023/24           14.5%

 

Question to the Lead Member for Resources, Councillor Keith Martin, from Councillor Chris Mitchell

9ll        There was an update on the Red Cross Building in Croxley Green at the Local area forum in Croxley Green on the 15 June 2023. Following a robust discussion, it was agreed at the meeting that Three Rivers would set up a meeting urgently with the Parish Council to discuss the facts surrounding the Hall and the current situation. One reason being to dispel the many rumours that circulate through Croxley Green. It was noted the residents feel very strongly about the value of the hall, and they want to know what is happening and want to be involved. It was felt that there has been a serious lack of consultation in the decisions reached in the past few years.

Please can you commit to consult fully from here on with the Parish Council and in due course any interested community groups in securing the future of this valuable asset of community value for the residents of Croxley Green. Three Rivers to be open to all options for its future including retaining the existing building for community use. 

 

Written response:

As has been agreed a meeting  between interested parties is set to be held on 14^th July to discuss issues.

 

Questions to the Lead Member for Resources, Councillor Keith Martin, from Councillor Paul Rainbow

 

9mm   Some Croxley Green residents received an email asking why Three Rivers District Council had allowed the Red Cross Centre in Barton Way to become so dilapidated. Is this statement accurate?

 

Written response:

This is inaccurate for two reasons. Firstly, as is standard with TRDC leases it is the responsibility of the leaseholder, not TRDC, to maintain the building. Secondly. the state of the building remains within the terms of lease.  If the state of the building was such that the terms of the lease were breached, TRDC would issue a notice to the leaseholder, setting out what work was required to be completed and by when. As there has been no such breach, no notice has been served.

 

9nn      Some Croxley Green residents received an email suggesting that TRDC intends to build a six or seven storey block of flats on the site of the Red Cross Centre. Concerned and worried residents will be keen to know if TRDC is planning to build a six or seven story bock of flats there. Is it?

 

Written response:

TRDC has never suggested or stated that there is any intention to build a six or seven storey block of flats on the Red Cross Centre site. There never has been and never will be any such intention. Croxley Green residents can be assured that anything they might hear or read suggesting that a six or seven storey block of flats is to be built on the site is wrong.

Hope that this accurate statement, rather than a rumour with no factual foundation assures Croxley Green residents that TRDC never has and never will seek to build a six or seven story block of flats on this site.

 

9pp      Urgent question to the Lead Member for Resources, Councillor Keith Martin Councillor Sara Bedford (allowed under Rule 14(3)

 

Do you believe that enough was done to protect the Council's assets at the former Sir James Altham site and also to protect the assets of Oxhey Jets FC following the traveller incursion on the evening of Friday 7 July? What should be changed to ensure a more supportive response on any similar incursions in the future?"

 

Written response:

The unauthorised encampment was established on the former Sir James Altham swimming pool car park. This car park is well used by patrons of the Oxhey Jets Football Club and users of the Council’s 3G pitch off of Altham Way. The car park is also currently partly occupied by a contractor’s compound in connection with an external insulation project operating in South Oxhey. It would not be possible or appropriate to block this car park area off without causing detriment to the users of the car park and the contractors using the site compound.

 

Upon receiving a report regarding the unauthorised encampment, the Head of Property contacted the General Manager of the Oxhey Jets Football Club and shared his personal mobile number in the event that any further urgent actions might be required between Saturday evening and Monday morning. It is not considered that any changes are required to the process at this time.

 

Whilst the Council are in the process of seeking to recover possession of its land, Members will be aware that the Police can exercise powers in the event that urgent intervention is required.

 

 

Written questions provided to the Leader and Lead Member were taken as read along with the written responses provided.  To view the written questions and written responses (item 9 on the summons -please see the link below

 

Agenda for Full Council on Tuesday, 11th July, 2023, 7.30 pm - Modern Council (threerivers.gov.uk)

 

At the meeting the Leader and Lead Members were asked some supplementary questions on the written response provided with the responses provided at the meeting and after the meeting indicated below.

 

Councillor Sarah Nelmes, Leader of the Council, from Councillor Sara Bedford

 

9a        No supplementary question.

 

9b.       Supplementary question:

What other providers of training were considered? How was the choice made? A number of errors were made at the session I attended with the trainers getting confused on pre-determination and also brought up the 6 tests for conditions wrongly and did not cover costs.

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

Following one of the previously leading providers of planning training closing business following the Covid Pandemic, there are very few providers of planning training with a specific focus on public sector or councillor training. Prior to 2021, training for Members had been given by Planning Officers. However, a combination of resourcing and capacity limitations, along with the benefit of external delivery bringing with it an increased breadth of experience, resulted in training being procured externally since 2021. This was procured via the Planning Advisory Service (PAS - part of the Local Government Association - LGA) although more recently the trainers were procured directly rather than through PAS. Given the limited availability for other external providers, and that PAS are part of the LGA, Officers did not consider other providers for this training.

 

There has been limited feedback given regarding the planning training, and whilst it is acknowledged that some comments in the training session may not have been clearly communicated, Officers were in attendance and had no concerns that the sessions were giving inaccurate or misleading advice that would prejudice Members ability to make decisions.

 

In respect of the breadth of the training, this is designed to give people with no knowledge about the planning system a basic introduction to ensure they are able to make well informed decisions. It is not possible (or appropriate) to cover all circumstances or elements of the planning system in a short introductory session. Officers request from Members details of further matters they require training on during the year but also expect Members to approach them should they have specific questions and queries.

 

9c        Supplementary question:

What updated information was supplied to Members, what decisions were examined from the previous year and is it not a concern that the training assumed that Members of the Planning Committee who sat on the Committee in April did not know what a material consideration was?

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

The training is primarily aimed at Members with limited experience of the planning system, but Officers consider there is value in all Members receiving annual training to ensure they are appraised of any major updates or changes to the planning system, and to give a helpful reminder of matters that may not come up frequently. In the past year there have been few major changes to the planning system and thus the content of the training but planning is constantly in the news with ‘emerging’ changes which may be announced and take effect – for example the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill or amendments to the NPPF, as well as particular appeals or court cases of note, and the annual opportunity to provide updates. There is no suggestion that Members who sat on Committee in April do not know what a material consideration is, but equally there are occasions throughout the year where matters are raised that are not material to planning which suggests a reminder is better than none.

 

9d        Supplementary question:

Only two working days’ notice was given of the meeting to agents, did you know that one vote that was originally classed as spoiled was allocated to the incorrect candidate when added back and are you aware that one result was only saved from being declared for two losing candidates when party representatives noticed just prior to declaration?  Do you think this is appropriate.

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

The above statements will be taken into account in the planning of future elections.

 

9e        Supplementary question:

The Parish Candidates, Party representatives were not advised they were responsible for communicating with any party candidates and are you aware that the incorrect date for the submission of Parish election expenses was circulated post-election which could of led to the Parish candidates who received it submitting their expenses incorrectly later. 

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

Under Procedure Rule 14(4) it will take a little longer to draft a reply as that officer has left the Council so will need to access emails.

 

9f        Supplementary question:

What material was the screen made out of which only allowed sound to move in one direction?

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

The screens are made of acrylic, and the sound does not travel in one direction.

 

Leader of the Council, Councillor Sarah Nelmes, from Councillor Oliver Cooper

 

9g        Supplementary question:

Would you please reconsider restoring the former website, including the 13,000 pages that were blocked from being indexed, in such a way that it can be indexed by the Internet Archive.

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

All statutory and current relevant information has been transferred to the new website and is available to residents and customers. One of the objectives of the new website was to provide greater clarity, accuracy, and consistency of information to customers when they search for information or services, which is in alignment with the Customer Experience Strategy 2023-26 objectives. Maintaining out of date data on the website increases the risk of causing confusion by providing incorrect and misleading information to customers. I refer to my previous answer confirming that old archive content will be able to be provided on request.

 

Leader of the Council, Councillor Sarah Nelmes from Councillor Sara Bedford (allowed under Rule 14(3))

 

9gi       Supplementary question:

What can be done on learn lessons from this to ensure that residents get a better response in future.

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

As with any unauthorised encampment, the Officer Work Group will meet to review ‘what went well’ and ‘what could be better next time’. As part of this review, Officers will look at the communications and reporting of such incidences to see if any improvements can be made.

 

Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Narinder Sian

 

9h        Supplementary question:

             Can you indicate which forum the feasibility study is likely to be presented at.

 

             Supplementary response

             Details would go through the General Public Services and Economic Development Committee.  We are in discussions with Watford BC.

 

Question to the Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Chris Mitchell

 

9i          Supplementary question

             For the Community Way car park in Croxley Green is there potential for solar panels and could we set up a meeting with officers to see if the car park could be used a pilot.

 

             Supplementary response

             Would be interested in an exploratory meeting at this time just to hear what the proposals are.

 

9j          No supplementary question.

 

Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Oliver Cooper

 

9k         Supplementary question

             What will be the impact on people going to Mount Vernon and the access road which is included in ULEZ and thought we had not fed back on those people being excluded or was it fed back in another way.

 

             Supplementary response provided by Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst

             Both the roads to the hospital are excluded from ULEZ and it was included in the original letter which went to the mayor.  The access roads are excluded.

 

Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor David Raw

 

9l          Supplementary question

On the parking and PCNs should the administration not take more responsibility and check the service being implemented for us.

            

Supplementary response:

             There are constant checks and if you are to take the area as a whole or Uxbridge Road in isolation Hertsmere are visiting one to three times a day.  From the data up to end of June we have had 351 visits to the area and to adjacent roads.  We are not able to put CEOs there around the clock as we do not have that level of resource.  In 2014 when the laws were changed, in order to remove things like spy cars, local councils were required to physically put the PCN on the windscreen of the offending vehicle.  As things stand that is still the case so we are reliant on CEOs being there.  People do park in the area for a very short time which makes it very difficult for the CEOs to be able to place a ticket on the offending vehicle.  On CCTV if the Council was minded to write to the Government to move on this that may a potential avenue. 

 

Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Philip Hearn

 

9m       Supplementary question

             The map and survey for the LCWIP consultation was put forward by TRDC officers to align with the Councils future vision for consultations so would the Lead Member apologise for the misleading answer to the question.

 

             Supplementary response

             The response was provided in consultation with HCC.

 

9n        Supplementary question

Can the residents be assured that any who will be impacted will have a letter through their door informing them of any changes before they are implemented.

 

             Supplementary response

             The stage we are at the moment is very much a draft stage.  There has been some misinformation put round.  Filters can disrupt traffic, but people have been referring to them as road closures.  They referred to the Governments gear change on their new vision for cycling and walking document from 2020 and which does refer to filters as being a way of reducing through traffic.  Please do not refer to them as road closures because some vehicles can get through such as cycles and motorcycles.

 

Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Oliver Cooper

 

9o        Supplementary question

What has been done different here compared to other Districts and what factors have been applied in Three Rivers which has meant we have not bid for funding for Three Rivers and installed electric charging points here which did not apply to other Councils.

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

Recent funding available, including the On Street Residential Chargepoint Scheme (ORCS), is only for on street EV charging point (EVCP) installations aimed at residential use.  The approach that has been pursued by Three Rivers DC to date has been for off street EVCP in its car parks and for rapid chargers which are aimed at enhancing our town centres and for visitors rather than residents.  Different approaches have been pursued elsewhere across the County. As explained above Officers are currently considering alternative opportunities including how funding can be accessed.

 

Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Reena Ranger

 

9p         Supplementary question

If displacement is a known problem will the Lead Member review the boundary roads and will they write to neighbouring authorities to ask for notification of schemes to be implemented with potential overspill consequences for our residents.

 

             Supplementary response

             We are working through a programme with reduced resources.  All the schemes brought to our attention recently have been noted but we have to work to the plan.

 

Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Ciaran Reed

 

9q         20 days is a huge amount of time to go without a functional brown bin so does this Council provide compensation for the time people don’t have their bin which they have paid for and would the Lead Member consider bringing this in.

 

             Supplementary response:

             If you can provide details of anyone waiting longer than 20 days, we can get responses arranged.  We have been aiming for 20 days but we have issues at the moment with the supply chain and there is only a certain number of bins we can store.  We were one of the earliest to introduce this level of recycling and a lot of the bins we had are coming to the end of their life.

 

9r         No supplementary question

 

Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Andrea Fraser

 

9s         Supplementary question

Can the Lead Member confirm that parking charges will not go up in Rickmansworth in the next 12 months.

 

             Supplementary response:

Not in the budget to increase.

 

Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Joan King

 

9t       Supplementary question

Is the Lead Member aware that officers were already aware of this but were reminded by myself of the HCC funding for double yellow lines and should officers have been aware.

 

          Supplementary response:

Was only brought to my attention recently and officers have been working hard to expedite this.  I thank them for their time in doing this and they are trying to get this moved on speedily.

 

Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Stephen Cox

 

9u        Supplementary question:

When is the Lead Member to be advised or was advised of the results of the statutory consultation as the answer only refers to when Ward Members would be advised.

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

The Lead Member is still to be advised. Officers are still awaiting final feedback on the statutory notice consultation from their consultants (Hertsmere BC).  Once received it will be discussed with the Lead Member and the Ward Members advised soon after. 

 

9v        Supplementary question:

Can the Lead Member advise, given that the Gosforth Lane scheme is only set to be implemented in part, when the next consultation dealing with the limited weight proposals which had been identified and the double yellow lines in Otley Way will be held?

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

Officers have not yet confirmed a date, but I am aware there was a recent site visit to discuss the situation and proposals with Ward Councillors and Officers.  Hertsmere BC Officers are currently reviewing the outcomes of this meeting and will be preparing further plans to share with Ward Councillors.  I would expect a public consultation on further proposals in the Autumn.

 

Lead Member for Public Services, Councillor Paul Rainbow, from Councillor Stephen King

 

9w       Supplementary question:

Can the Lead Member confirm that the answer to Point 3 is no, 4 none and 5 no and does the Lead Member accept that regular meetings are all very well but are you keeping on top of things and what is needed is a solution.

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

As has been previously explained in the original response in relation to question 3 the bins at this location have been assessed as appropriate in size should they be used properly. As such, at this time, further bins will not be provided.  In regard to question 4 again as previously responded on my instruction officers of this council have repeatedly made additional and special collections to clear and cleanse this area, they continue to work in partnerships with Thrive to seek to work with the local community to address the underlying behavioural issues which are causing the problems. Officers have met, both off and on site, on a number of occasions to discuss ways forward but of course I would be happy to meet with interested parties if it is felt that this will add value. As Lead Member I am regularly briefed on this matter and agree that a longer-term solution is required as this situation as well as being unacceptable for those residents who are subject to the impacts of thoughtless behaviour of others misusing this bin area is additional pressure on our Council waste service.

 

9x        Supplementary question:

If the School Mead parking proposals are unfortunately on hold and are not able to be progressed this financial year, what is the plan and what are the next two locations to be investigated on the priority list for car parking bays.

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

A further Work Programme is required to determine the next schemes to be progressed, there are currently no further schemes identified. 

In the absence of a Transport Planner this further review of priority schemes has not progressed at the current time.

 

Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, from Councillor Sara Bedford

 

9y        Supplementary question

What is your view of the leaflets that have been circulated across the district over the past 6 months claiming these decisions are already made and the Council has approved sites for development.

 

            Supplementary response

            Total disgrace and is not true.  It is clear the lead opposition is running a campaign of lies to hide the fact that the Government want Green Belt housing built but are refusing to allow local decision to be made by Councils hence the appeal decision in Surrey last week where the Government Inspector overruled the Council on a Green Belt site.  No effort is being made to get the NPPF changed at this time.  We will be putting forward a Local Plan which will not meet the Government targets but will protect Green Belt.

 

Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, from Councillor Sara Bedford

 

9z        Supplementary question

Why do you think opposition Councillors are saying the Council refused to consult until the Council forced them but clearly from the minutes this is not the case.

 

            Supplementary response

            I can only suspect it is confuse residents.  It was the case at the Policy and Resources Committee the lead opposition refused on 5 December to back the consultation and only when we came to Council did, they change their mind. We have always supported consultation and continue to do so.

 

Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, from Councillor Sara Bedford

 

9aa      Supplementary question

The Council are not seeking to build £1,100 houses in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is that not, correct?

 

            Supplementary response

            That is correct and despite the member of parliament being written to when the leaflet became apparent, they have not responded on the incorrect information.  The planning applications referred to in the leaflet in Chorleywood were both refused planning permission in March 2023.  I hope the Government Inspector will support the Council in turning down these applications.

 

Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, from Councillor Matthew Bedford

 

9bb      Supplementary question

Can you comment further on the results from the recent Regulation 18 additional sites consultation and the additional call for brownfield land.

 

            Supplementary response

            Unfortunately, no more brownfield sites have been put forward by the site owners or promoters but a couple of small additional sites have been proposed and will be coming back to the sub-committee as part of the process for reviewing what we bring forward to the public.  We are looking to progress to a final Regulation 18 consultation, with a lower housing number, based on what the Council thinks is right and protects much more of the Green Belt but allows for some growth for social and affordable housing and new infrastructure over the next 18 years.  Our target is likely to be 50% less than the Government target.  Council should be proud of its consultation as evidenced by the 20,000 comments received to the two Regulation 18 consultations.  No decisions have been made on potential sites and had already ruled out over 250 potential sites that had been suggested by site promoters. 

 

Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, from Councillor Andrea Fraser

 

9cc      Supplementary question

On the save the High Street consultation I was wondering why the Council had not actioned some of the suggestions that were made

 

            Supplementary response

They were not suggestions they were options for the council to look at in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce and some of the suggestions are outside the scope of this council.  In relation to the charges the £1 charge for 2 hours in Rickmansworth with the first hour free is the cheapest in the entire country where charges are made and has not been increased since it was first introduced 5 years ago. 

 

Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, from Councillor Andrea Fraser

 

9dd      Supplementary question

Will the Leader of the GPZ call an extraordinary meeting to consider the recommendations on the different opening times requested by the retailers to help them out as they struggle with the current opening times presented to the Board recently.

 

            Supplementary response:

            The Board is a joint board set up by HCC and I am one of the representatives from TRDC along with the HCC member for the area and BCC.  Meetings are called on ad hoc basis and I am yet to see any minutes or proposals from the recent meeting. I understand HCC are keen to complete the trial exercise to see what the results are and as you aware at the public meeting the initial figures were showing an increase in footfall in the high street and a much longer dwell time than in previous years.  We need to receive the data and review that along with the responses and the different views of everyone.  It will be for the Highways Authority, the County Council to make their decision jointly. 

 

Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, from Councillor Andrea Fraser

 

9ee      Supplementary question

Should the Chair of the planning committee not have made statement on affordable housing, considering their interest in the planning training.

 

            Supplementary response

I would want to check and verify the information you have provided. This council is clear on local planning policies we wish to secure 45% of all new housing as affordable housing but the Government allows developers to have get out clauses on affordability as a means of not providing affordable housing. 

 

9ff        No supplementary question

 

9gg      No supplementary question

 

9hh      No supplementary question

 

9ii         No supplementary question

 

9jj         No supplementary question

 

9kk      No supplementary question

 

Lead Member for Resources, Councillor Keith Martin, from Councillor Chris Mitchell

 

9ll         Supplementary question

Will the meeting be as described in my original question?

 

            Supplementary response

It will and we have agreed the agenda.

 

Lead Member for Resources, Councillor Keith Martin, from Councillor Paul Rainbow

 

9mm    Supplementary question

Does the Lead Member believe that the use of terminology such as “so dilapidated” is unfair on the tenant who is responsible for maintenance?

 

            Supplementary response

It is not helpful because if the building was in that state and I am assured it is not a notice would have been served on the leaseholder to repair the building.

 

9nn      Supplementary question

Does the Lead Member believe that it is misleading to put out such information.

 

            Supplementary response:

If I received an email from an authoritative force and it had something which I believed to be accurate then it has the potential to mislead.  One of the reasons for having the meeting on Friday is to make sure we have authoritative information provided to residents so they can be clear on what is happening. 

 

9pp      Lead Member for Resources, Councillor Keith Martin Councillor Sara Bedford (allowed under Rule 14(3)

 

Supplementary question:

What could have been done to protect the car park and make it more difficult for the travellers to get in, such as what was done with the tree trunks at the Aquadrome car park. 

 

Wished to put on record that the Head of Property and Major Projects had been superb in the support they had provided to the South Oxhey Jets.

 

Supplementary response provided after the meeting:

As part of the post removal review, the Officer Work Group will also consider if any proactive deterrents or measures could be put in place to better protect this site and other Council-owned sites. There are some specific user-based challenges with this site. As the Member will be aware the car park is regularly used by the Oxhey Jets Football Club and part of the site is currently occupied by a Contractor who is undertaking an insulation project in the area. The Contractor regularly receives deliveries of materials from larger good vehicles, which might find it difficult to navigate any physical preventative measures – Officers will look at what can be done to act as a deterrent, whilst still enabling reasonable use of the site.