Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted by Councillor Crystall.

To receive any announcements from the Leader of the Council.

The Deputy Leader welcomed everyone to the meeting and reminded Members and Officers that the meeting was being webcast.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2025.

Councillor Daar proposed, and Councillor Hopewell seconded a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2025, be approved as a correct record, and be signed by the Deputy Leader. On being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2025, be approved as a correct record, and signed by the Deputy Leader.

To receive any Member(s) declaration(s) of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth presented the Gilston Area Monitoring Framework which would be used to monitor the 10,000 new homes being built in Gilston. The S106 agreement contained monitoring obligations with triggers and milestones for onsite infrastructure and payment of financial contributions for off-site infrastructure.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that there was a structured approach with representatives from East Herts Council and Herts County Council to ensure coordination and oversight of the various monitoring activities. She said that once the monitoring framework had been agreed, an annual monitoring report would be produced with the first report published in January 2026.

Councillor Glover-Ward proposed that the recommendations in the report, as amended, be supported. Councillor Brittain seconded the proposal.

Councillor E Buckmaster felt that the report needed more clarification such as a reference to the potential future as a unitary authority. He also said that stakeholders were mentioned but it did not reference elected members and democratic processes. He referred to page 43 which related to land being sold on and said that the community would like assurance that they had the right to be informed when this occurred.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that the developer may wish to have another developer involved and the council could not fetter their commercial decision in that respect. However, the developer had been clear at all community forums that they would stay involved in the process as they were interested in delivering affordable housing and other facilities. She said that she could not see any reason why, once the information was no longer commercially sensitive, the community would not be informed that parcels of land had been sold on to other developers.

Councillor E Buckmaster asked about the rights of members.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that members, along with any stakeholders, will be able to get involved in any Development Management Forums or in Community Forums.

Councillor Dunlop asked if parish councils and Neighbourhood Planning Groups would be involved in the monitoring review group.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that the purpose of the group was more relevant to larger stakeholders such as the Environment Agency. There was a role for parish councils to get involved in the monitoring and in the trust and stewardship group. She said that councillor input was expected in the normal way as they were on the ground and community forums were key and the main conduit for the wider community to input into the developers. 

Councillor Dunlop referred to section 5.3 which related to the continual monitoring to enable issues to be identified beyond the s106 triggers. He felt there should be a business plan around certain targets happening and said it was not clear that this was the case.

Councillor Glover-Ward said any renegotiation would take place directly between the council and developers. She said that she would not expect the community to be at the negotiation meetings.

Councillor Dunlop asked how the Development Management Forums were different to the Community Forums.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth presented the Hatfield Forest Mitigation Strategy and Governance Arrangements report. She said that the forest was the finest example of a small medieval hunting forest in Europe and was in easy reach of East Herts residents. The council, in partnership with Uttlesford, Harlow and Epping Councils and the landowner, have worked to agree the mitigating impacts of detrimental increasing visitor numbers and agreed a tariff in the ‘Zone of Influence’ and transition of fee collection.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that the tariff would be applied to all new residential developments within the zone of influence and that the zone had been designated based on visitor surveys. She said that the Gilston area was excluded from having to pay the tariff due to the extensive green area provided as part of that development.

Councillor Glover-Ward proposed that the recommendations in the report, be supported. Councillor Brittain seconded the proposal.

Councillor Hoskin said he liked the idea of protecting the unique forest and said this seemed ambitious. He asked if there were cost protection measures in place.

The Planning Policy Team Leader said he understood that the stakeholders would continue to meet to ensure the updating of circumstances around the tariff and revisit the zone of influence. He said he would come back to Members with a written answers about the tariff.

Councillor Hoskin asked if the forest would be free to access.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that was correct and it was a natural environment so there was no appetite to charge for entry.

Councillor Hopewell referred to Gilston being exempt from the tariff due to the green space in the development. She asked if this was because residents in Gilston were less likely to visit Hatfield Forest.

Councillor Glover-Ward said the masterplanning for the Gilston site had lots of green space and it was anticipation that residents would visit the green space on their doorstep, instead of travelling to Hatfield Forest.

Councillor Daar asked for clarification on who would pay the tariff.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that developers would pay the tariff.

The motion to support the recommendation, having been proposed and seconded, was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – to recommend to Council that:

(A)   The final version of the National Trust Hatfield Forest Mitigation Strategy (version 6, attached at Appendix A), which includes the Site Access Management and Monitoring Measures (SAMMS), is approved as a basis for seeking a financial contribution for mitigation at Hatfield Forest;

(B)   The apportionment of the SAMMS between the four LPAs via a hybrid method, taking equal account of both the percentage visitor impact and the proportion of new housing relative to existing within the ZoI, is approved;

(C)   The apportioned SAMMS tariff for East Herts District Council is set at £540.07;

(D)  The tariff is applicable to new residential dwellings with immediate effect, subject to transitional arrangements to agree appropriate legal, financial and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

That the application for the designation of Stocking Pelham Neighbourhood Area, submitted by Stocking Pelham Parish Council, be supported.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth presented the report on the Stocking Pelham Neighbourhood Area Designation. She said that Neighbourhood Plans were an opportunity for the local community to produce planning documents for the local area to influence future development. The Stocking Pelham area designation covered the whole of the parish council area.

Councillor Glover-Ward proposed that the recommendations in the report, as amended, be supported. Councillor Wilson seconded the proposal.

Councillor Daar said Neighbourhood Plans were great for involving the local community. She asked for clarification on the funding for these plans now as the government had stopped funding them via grants.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that once an application had been made, the council had a duty to take it through the process. She said that it was down to the parish council to determine the funding for it.

The Planning Policy Team Leader said that parishes had been made aware of the funding being removed and they hadn’t raised it as a concern.

The motion to support the recommendation, having been proposed and seconded, was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – That the application for the designation of Stocking Pelham Neighbourhood Area, submitted by Stocking Pelham Parish Council, be supported.

The Deputy Leader presented the report on the refreshed LEAF priorities for 2025/26 and said the document set out the joint administration’s strategic priorities. She said that there were sub objectives and actions under each priority.

Councillor Goldspink proposed that the recommendations in the report, as amended, be supported. Councillor Dumont seconded the proposal.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that whilst not all targets had been achieved, she felt that the Joint Administration had achieved a lot in the last two years and thanked council officers for all the hard work they had put in to achieve the administration’s aims.

The motion to support the amended recommendation, having been proposed and seconded, was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – to recommend to Council that the refreshed LEAF priorities and new objectives be adopted.

To move that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the discussion of item 9, Appendix A on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act.

That the Parking Enforcement Contract be awarded to bidder B, following a tender process, subject to Welwyn-Hatfield Council Cabinet also approving the outcome of the tender process.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability presented the parking enforcement contract award. He said that the contract looked at four key areas; on street parking, off street enforcement, licensing and the management of the fully based IT system and dealing with car parking pay and display machines. He said there was a comprehensive list of tasks for the new service provider as it was essential to keep parking in the district working and making sure residents can enjoy convenient parking.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability said that the contract tender was on behalf of Stevenage and Welwyn Hatfield. He said that the current contract expired in 2026, and he was confident that there was enough time to go through the process. He said that there was a clear winner in bidder B for a six-year contract with one additional extension of three years.

Councillor Hoskin proposed that the recommendations in the report, be supported. Councillor Daar seconded the proposal.

Councillor E Buckmaster thanked the parking team who were responsive and had come out to help with parking issues.

Councillor Hoskin added his thanks and said that he had spent a day with the enforcement team and said they were sensible in the way they dealt with issues and often advised people on parking rules instead of issuing tickets straight away.

The motion to support the amended recommendation, having been proposed and seconded, was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED - That the Parking Enforcement Contract be awarded to bidder B, following a tender process, subject to Welwyn-Hatfield Council Cabinet also approving the outcome of the tender process.

That the Executive reviews and comments on the draft Statement of Gambling Principles, and approves a final draft for public consultation.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth presented the revised draft Statement of Gambling Principles which had to be reviewed periodically. She said that East Herts had a low number of gambling licences and very low numbers of complaints relating to gambling.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that since the last statement, there had been no changes to legislation and the Licensing Committee had reviewed the document at its meeting on 18 June 2025 and did not propose any amendments.

Councillor Glover-Ward proposed that the recommendations in the report, be supported. Councillor Dumont seconded the proposal.

The motion to support the amended recommendation, having been proposed and seconded, was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED - That the final draft Statement of Gambling Principles be approved for public consultation.

To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration and is not likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information.

There was no urgent business.