Agenda and minutes

To agree the minutes of the previous meeting.

The draft minutes from the previous meeting had not been circulated for comments and it was agreed that they would be sent out and signed at the next meeting.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were given on behalf of Councillor Stevens.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

J Rook enquired when the new Air Quality Action Plan will be published.  Cllr Banks advised that due to the impact of Covid 19, the Steering Group had to be cancelled and an interim report would be published at the end of September.

None.

R Connolly presented the Food Service Plan report and asked Committee for any questions.

Cllr Timmis asked three questions; 1) what happens when infectious disease carriers are discovered in the food industry, 2) what is the risk of Covid 19 in food preparation and 3) we are not currently doing food sampling due to a shortage of staff, so can we start recruiting now.  R Connolly confirmed that; 1) the person should go to the Doctors and then Public Health England will notify us, there will be an exclusion policy in place and they can return to work for 48 hours after the symptoms have gone, 2) there is no evidence to suggest that Covid 19 is a risk in the preparation of food, and 3) we currently have two adverts going out in August, plus one other Establishment Management Form (EMF) in process. It has been very difficult to employ people who are interested and have the required degree or qualifications so we have been trying to train up our own staff. 

Cllr Ransley asked if we check school kitchens.  R Connolly advised that we do, we have to inspect all food premises, but generally school kitchens have a high standard.

Cllr Beauchamp enquired how often inspections were undertaken.  R Connolly confirmed that it differed depending on the risk rating; the higher the risk the more often we visited.  The highest risk rating is A where we would visit every six months and the lowest risk rating would be every three years: this would be for a pharmacy or similar type business.  If the A risk rated business had any contraventions we would visit more often and make sure they correct any problems.

Cllr Riddick mentioned that there had been a lot of confusion over the procedures with businesses opening and queried if we have been invited to provide advice.  Cllr Riddick also commented that we were in a good position to recruit staff in all areas of the Council due to Covid 19.  R Connolly shared the positivity on the recruitment and we are hoping that this time there will be more applicants as the employment climate is changing.  R Connolly agreed that the information provided can seem confusing but the Food Standards Agency had produced some good information which is in layman’s terms, plus we are changing our inspection proforma to take account of Covid 19 changes, for example social distancing has been included.  Where we have been asked for advice we have been referring people back to the guidance produced by the government to ensure the information given is consistent.

Cllr Hearn asked about the possibility of us getting involved in track and tracing.  E Walker advised that it’s being dealt with nationally but we are increasingly taking on more complex track and trace at the moment but we are working with lots of different Government agencies.

Cllr Beauchamp queried how often the market traders tests are undertaken.  E Walker confirmed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

The Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) Service was introduced by J Doe and then S Whelen presented the report and asked Committee if they had any questions.

Cllr Riddick queried the figures for the income.  S Whelan advised these were two slightly different points and one figure related to sites promoted through the local plan.

Cllr Riddick raised concerns about the income being £250k, we would hope that would become a standing base to increasing income.  S Whelan confirmed that this was already included.

Cllr Timmis said that PPA works well for Planning Department and the developer but not so well for local communities, there is no meaningful consultation as the decision has already been made.  S Whelan advised that it’s very helpful for developers to engage with Parish and Town Councils, which we would encourage and if there is early consultation you can steer the designs.  Cllr Timmis felt that it was a fait accompli by the time the customer sees it, plus such bodies as environmental groups are not included as consultees..

Cllr Ransley shared Cllr Timmis’ worries about consultation, the Town and Parish Council’s are side lined out of the decision making process.  Cllr Ransley also asked how big a development had to be to have a PPA.  S Whelan confirmed that environmental concerns is a massive part of the PPA, plus one of the key aspects of the signed PPA includes the community engagement via the Community Review Panel.

The Chairman said that we continuously have concerns raised that the Towns and Parish Councils are not involved and asked if they could have a representative on the Community Review Panel.  S Whelan advised that was not possible as it’s for the community and separate to the Council.  There are routes for the Town and Parish Councils already and advised we can look at the way we engage with them so that they feel included.  J Doe confirmed this was about enhancing the community engagement and if we don’t have this we will be bound by more formal statutory requirements.

Cllr Rogers endorsed that the consultation had no regards for Parish Councillors. They know the areas better, so would welcome a review of options for engaging better.  Cllr Rogers asked how much weight was given to the Parish Council on applications.  S Whelan replied that if the Parish Council comments on something that’s not a material planning matter we are unable to put any weight on it, but if it’s a material consideration we can put more weight on it. 

Cllr Hobson said that Hemel Hempstead did not have Town or Parish Councillors and asked if Ward Councillors could be consulted.  S Whelan replied that Ward Members are encouraged to comment.

Cllr Beauchamp asked what the costs were to the developer for a PPA and queried the cost per session for the Community Review Panel which is £3,300.  S Whelan confirmed that the fee for the developer is a bespoke fee for each scheme and that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

P Stanley introduced the report and asked Members for any questions.

Cllr Silwal mentioned that since 2006 there are 546 live cases, but only 53 live cases where formal action has been taken.  P Stanley advised that we use a range of tools at our disposal and dealing with them formally with a Notice is not always appropriate. Firstly it may not be a breach and if it is a breach it may not be harmful and it wouldn’t be expedient to take action. Also, we have to make sure we are able to defend a Notice. 

Cllr Silwal asked why there was still a live case from 2006.  P Stanley confirmed there are about 8 or so approaching 10 years old. If we have served an Enforcement Notice, unfortunately after 10 years it’s too late to take action.  It can take a long time to go to court, or an amended planning application may have been submitted.

Cllr Riddick said that the numbers show 550 cases per year with 380 solved, leaving 170 unresolved and asked if that increasing gap gets carried forward and queried whether the service is unable to cope with demand with the resources available.  P Stanley said that the difference is actually a minus, so it’s actually a positive difference in recent years where we’ve been increasing our live case load, which, to a degree, is linked to resources.  We have made a lot of changes in the team which means we are more efficient in dealing with additional caseload, with one less officer.

Cllr Timmis commended the department, highlighting that they do a great job.  Cllr Timmis asked about the provision of the service over the weekend.  P Stanley confirmed there was no on call service out of hours. However, we sometimes do a pre-emptive service, for example with Bovingdon Market where residents had raised concerns.  If we are aware in advance we can go out and deal with it but we don’t have an on call service.

Cllr Hearn also said what excellent work the team does and suggested that perhaps this team could do with an additional member of staff.  The Chairman said he had already noted this and was himself going to put forward this suggestion this evening.

Cllr Riddick thanked the team for their good work, including dealing with Bovingdon Market at 5am in the morning.

J Doe noted the number of questions about resources would report back to Committee with a view. 

Action: J Doe

The Chairman mentioned this was a vital service for the Council and that there is not much point in having conditions on planning applications if they can’t be enforced. The Council needs to find the resources. The Chairman asked the Cabinet Members present tonight to convey the message to the next Cabinet meeting.

The report was noted.

The Chairman raised concerns about this lengthy document being published at the last moment when much the content is the same as the report that had been presented approximately a year ago. Members were very concerned with this matter and should have had more time to consider the report.  The Chairman also thanked Members who had already sent comments before this meeting and said that he will forward them to the Portfolio Holder.

J Doe advised that the report has come back to Committee following additional work and A Robinson and S Mendham would go through the changes and would be happy to take any comments.

The Chairman mentioned he was not happy because the introduction to this item states that if the SPD is not approved, the current standards will continue to apply. But what if we approve it in a modified form? In addition, point 1.5 implies that it would not become immediate policy.  J Doe confirmed that if the Council did not approve this policy the fall-back position will be to continue to use the current standards. If they approve it, the policy will become valid.  In terms of point 1.5, any policy has to be embedded within statutory basis of the Local Plan 2004 which would mean the current one, where national standards were about maximum standards.  We are now looking at minimum standards, so this means that we can adopt this as an interim form of guidance, which doesn’t fully comply with the policies of the 2004 Local Plan but will be an effective way to require local developers to do so on a non-statutory basis.  We are preparing our new Local Plan with the intention of that being adopted by the end of 2022 and this policy could be adopted in the new Local Plan.  We have bought this forward now at the request of Members because an urgent review of parking was needed.

The Chairman accepted those points and agreed that Members were dissatisfied with the maximum standard and wanted a more sensible policy that could be applied in planning, but he was concerned that this standard won’t be implemented immediately as a policy.  J Doe confirmed it would be enacted as a policy, but Officers were trying to be clear with Members that supplementary planning policy has to have its basis in adopted Plan policy. If Council does approve this policy we will be taking it forward to Developers as a requirement. When the new Local Plan comes out it will have a full statutory basis.

A Robinson summarised the report.

Cllr Silwal asked about point 4.2 car ownership levels.  A Robinson confirmed that point 4.2 was seeking to illustrate that there hasn’t been much of an increase in ownership levels between those two periods and the evidence base is largely derived from the Census between 2001 and 2011.  We do rely on evidence that is collected at a national level and that’s what has informed in part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

N Polden presented the Annual Air Quality Update and asked Members for any questions.

Cllr Hobson asked why it is taking so long dealing with air quality, especially in Apsley, and asked why we can’t do more and what’s being done about cycling options.  N Polden responded that it was frustrating and we do need to come up with solutions. Regarding trying to set emissions standards, we have put bids in to Defra for funding. Also it’s difficult to stop people driving and we have to put in the infrastructure for people to cycle safely,so it’s not a quick fix.

Cllr Silwal asked if we could add tree planting to the priorities for 20/21.  N Polden advised that he was aware that we were planting trees under climate change policies, but this was neither a proven or unproven solution for air quality and would continue to be looked at through climate change.

Cllr McDowell said that one accurate nitrous oxygen measurement in Northchurch had been mentioned and to downgrade all our other measurements due to one discrepancy, doesn’t make sense scientifically.  N Polden said that when we carry out diffusion tube monitoring there is plus or minus 20% of the actual mean, to overcome this we have a continuous analyser located in the district, with which we compare the performance of the diffusion tube and then it’s corrected for that bias.  This technique is recognised in the national guidance by Defra and they see the results to check they are accurate.

Cllr McDowellasked whether additional real time monitoring would be of benefit or improve accuracy, plus there is quite a lot of mention of PM2.5 in the report, and asked if this was something we need to look at.  N Polden advised that we only need one analyser. They are expensive to run and maintain, so we need to have some plans to replace when they need renewing.  N Polden added that with PM2.5 it is included the annual report that we have limited PM2.5 monitoring across Hertfordshire and again it’s a very expensive pollutant to monitor, what we’ve found is that where we have monitoring in place, it aligns quite well with the national monitoring undertaken by Defra.

Cllr McDowell said that there is a  reference in the report to High Street and New Road but there is only one monitoring piece of equipment in Northchurch.  N Polden advised that High Street Northchurch was the continuous analyser and New Road was the diffusion tube.

Cllr Beauchamp said ithe report mentioned the interlink and improving bus services and queried how we will be doing this.  N Polden advised that it wasn’t the services that will be improved, it was the air quality through emission standards.

Cllr Taylor highlighted that most of the problems have been caused by vehicles but there are not suitable options for electric vehicles and asked what can be done to support this.  N Polden replied that low emissions vehicles were part of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

The Chairman asked for items that need to be added to the Forward Plan.

Cllr Hobson requested that we consider a report towards the end of next year, giving her sufficient time to research, on the use of plastics and plastic recyclables and their disposal.  The Chairman said timeframes are not required at the moment, just proposals for inclusion.

J Doe mentioned that the Draft Local Plan is on the agenda for the September meeting, along with other items.  The Local Plan discussion will be quite detailed and is likely to require a lot of Committee time and may evoke a lot of community interest, so J Doe requested that Member Supportshould seek to find an alternative date for a meeting just to deal with the other items planned for the September meeting, such as the Performance Reports and Public Space Protection Order The Chairman asked J Doe to email him on the proposal.

Action: J Doe