City in the councilDuring City in the council, residents can give their opinion on topics that are on the agenda stand. In this meeting there were speakers on the following topics: Answering questions about padel courtsDraft Zoning Plan Umbrella Review Flash Delivery Would you like to leave a message? Look for the rules and registration on in party representatives During this council meeting a new party representative was sworn in: Anthony Uduba for the VVD. Proposal for adoption of preliminary draft Trekvliet bridge underpass for slow traffic (part No-Regret)The development of the Central Innovation District (CID) and the Binckhorst is aimed at a strong densification of homes and employment in these areas. Many new residents, employees and visitors are expected here, who also want to move. Good accessibility is therefore a precondition for the further development of this area. That is why the national government and the region have made agreements about a package of No Regret measures to contribute to the development of the CID and the accessibility of this area.One one of the measures from the No Regret package is the realization of a grade-separated crossing under the Trekvliet bridge for slow traffic, or the Trekvliet bridge underpass for cyclists and pedestrians. The underpass ensures that a missing link on the Trekfietstracé (a star cycle route) in Binckhorst Noord is solved. With the new underpass, cyclists and pedestrians can safely cross Mercuriusweg without hindrance and delay. This removes a major barrier for slow traffic in this part of the Binckhorst. The underpass is also an important link in the future Waterfront Park. This park which is in a 19 meter wide zone on the east bank of the Trekvliet will be crossed by the Trekvlietbrug and Mercuriusweg. The underpass connects the two zones of the park north and south of the bridge.Partij voor de DierenThe Party for the Animals indicated that the party thinks it is good that The Hague is becoming more and more bicycle-friendly, but nevertheless the party was initially critical of this plan. According to the party, it seemed to be a bridge that connects nothing to nothing, although that was also because the plan was initially presented without too much context. Meanwhile, the Party for the Animals was in favor of the plan, provided it is guaranteed that a star cycle route can also be realized on the route. That is why the party, together with the SP, submitted a motion requesting that cyclists and pedestrians be put first in the development of the Waterfront Park and that a direct (star) cycle route be realized for cyclists, including facilities for pedestrians. This motion was passed.Hart voor Den Haag Hart voor Den Haag called it a plan for a beautiful underpass, which looks beautiful on the drawings. But the party doubts whether this underpass will ensure that the missing link in the star bicycle route will be solved, since the tunnel does not connect to this route. That is why the party submitted a motion with the assignment to only agree to the construction of the tunnel if it is clearly indicated in the preliminary design of the Trekvlietbrug underpass that it connects and is part of the Trekfietstracé. If that cannot be guaranteed, the 9.5 million euros that the plan will cost, according to Hart voor Den Haag, would be better spent on a bicycle tunnel at another location, for example the intersection of the Groot Hertoginnelaan and the Conradkade, where thousands of students cycle past every day. Hart’s motion for The Hague was rejected.PvdAThe PvdA called the proposal a good plan and indicated that the party can agree with the proposal. The party wanted to know how safety for cyclists and pedestrians will be guaranteed in the evening. The PvdA also used the debate on this subject to indicate that, according to the party, building a beautiful The Hague starts with answering the big question of how equality of opportunity can be achieved. If we in our city do not finally take the step to accept each other as you are, we can continue to build homes, bridges and beautiful neighborhoods, but The Hague will never become a real home for everyone. According to the PvdA, it is time for us to build bridges together again, just like over the Trekvliet, but in a different way.GroenLinksGroenLinks indicated to be satisfied that work is being done to promote cycling and also thought it was nice that extra water storage is being realized in the plan.SP The SP emphasized that the underpass is part of a package of measures that should not lead to regret. The party stated that it is nice that the national government and the province contribute money to make the Binckhorst accessible, but the route raises questions. Precisely because it is a pricey plan, the SP wants a guarantee that the route connects to the star cycle route. That is why the party co-signed the motion on this subject from the Party for the Animals.The proposal to adopt the preliminary draft Trekvliet Bridge underpass for slow traffic (part No-Regret) was adopted .Proposal of the Board regarding Maria Stuartplein design of public spaceA few years ago, construction started on two residential towers, “Grotius I and II”, on the Maria Stuartplein between the Koninklijke Bibliotheek/Literatuurmuseum, the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Prince Clauslaan. The public space is laid out by the municipality.The Municipal Executive has decided to separate the shelter of the Utrechtsebaan from the layout of the Maria Stuartplein. The council proposal that was discussed in this meeting concerns the layout of the site immediately around the two Grotiustorens, the Maria Stuartplein.

Animal partyThe Party for the Animals indicated that the design contains planting in which native plants are almost completely absent, while the recently discussed coalition agreement states that in new establishments as much as possible native trees and plants will be used. That is why the party submitted a motion requesting that in the further elaboration adjustments be made to the planting plan for the Maria Stuartplein so that there will be a greater proportion of indigenous planting. The motion was passed. GreenLeftGroenLinks was concerned about accessibility. So far, no experts by experience have been involved in this design, and the plan includes two steps. For someone with a disability, this ensures that they cannot use this area carefree. That is why GroenLinks, together with the CDA, the PvdA and the Party for the Animals, submitted a motion requesting that the final design be tested for accessibility, involve experts by experience and interest groups in the field of accessibility and adjust the design accordingly if necessary. to fit. The motion was passed.CDA The CDA called it important that this place becomes a pleasant area to stay. That is why the party is happy that there is a good proposal. The party emphasized that the accessibility of the square and the accessibility for entrepreneurs should be carefully considered. On the latter point, the CDA submitted a motion calling on the municipal executive to improve accessibility to entrepreneurs when designing the square, and to prevent nuisance for catering entrepreneurs during construction. The motion was passed.The proposal of the Municipal Executive regarding the layout of public space on Maria Stuartplein was adopted.

Proposal from the Commission regarding amendment of framework memorandum on subsidy policy in The Hague 2020- 2023The Municipal Accountants Service of The Hague has in its audit report of 26 noted that for a number of grants awarded it is unclear whether the grants are grants or government contracts that must be put out to tender. The Board has sought external advice on this. In response to this advice, the Commission proposes to amend the Framework Memorandum, since the main text of the Framework Memorandum does not sufficiently address the concept of public procurement and the tension between subsidy and public procurement. In addition, the Board has established work instructions in which the distinction between subsidies and assignment (purchasing) can be determined on the basis of criteria.D26D66 indicated that the “framework note on subsidy policy” may not sound very sexy, but it is significant. This policy shows how the community’s money is distributed among institutions, among organizations, across the city. Poetically speaking, the framework memorandum on subsidy policy is according to D160 one of the many ways we bridge the gap between the council and the city. The party urged colleagues on the council that bridge builders achieve more than bombers.GroenLinksGroenLinks was positive about the additional possibilities that the framework policy document has for providing of small grants. The party did have concerns about the regulatory burden, especially for small organizations that apply for multiple subsidies for very limited amounts. 200- 2023 was hired.

Initiative proposal Give the seal a resting placeOn 18 November 2020 is the initiative proposal ‘Give the seal a resting place’ of then municipal councilor Mr. Oudshoorn van Hart for The Hague/Groep de Mos offered to the municipal council. The submitter believes that the seal will benefit from a safe resting place on the water, now that the seal is increasingly a regular visitor to the coast of The Hague. However, due to the crowds on the coast, the seals cannot find a safe place to rest. In recent years there have been a few incidents where seals have been attacked by stray dogs and have not survived this attack. The faction of Hart voor Den Haag therefore proposes in its initiative proposal to place a flexible floating pontoon in consultation with seal organizations at a suitable location within the port area of ​​Scheveningen and to place signs where extensive information is provided in places where the seal regularly shows up. is given about the seal and the rules of conduct. VVDThe VVD argued that nature cannot be controlled. According to the party, there were two reasons not to install a pontoon for seals: the price and the location. On that first point, it has now been sufficiently investigated what the costs are and that looks good, so that objection has been dropped. But as far as the location is concerned, according to the VVD, the Board has found that the location mentioned is not feasible, partly due to safety and bathers. That is why the party called on the Hart voor Den Haag faction to hold on to the proposal to discuss once again the question of where a pontoon could be located. The VVD indicated that it could not support the proposal at this time.Animal party According to the Party for the Animals, a pontoon is not necessary, nature is simply welcome on the beach. The party also stated that it is important to rely on expert advice. That is why the Party for the Animals, also on behalf of the SP, the Hague City Party and DENK, submitted a motion requesting that, in consultation with the Animal Ambulance and other seal organizations, see which stretches of beach are suitable for resting areas for seals and how this should be implemented. can be given. This motion was rejected.GroenLinksGroenLinks indicated that the party finds it important that The Hague is not only a nice place for people but also for animals . As far as GroenLinks is concerned, the seals should be able to stay on the beach. The party was pleased that the Board is entering into talks with Stichting A Seal about how seals can be better protected. Finally, the party asked whether parts of the beach where seals like to come can be made dog-free all year round.Heart for The HagueHeart for The Hague Haag indicated that a pontoon should be built on the southern beach. According to the party, there is hardly any shipping traffic there and seals mainly lie there in the winter, so the argument of swimmers who will use this pontoon does not hold, according to the party.SP The SP indicated that a discussion is currently taking place about which bathers are welcome in Scheveningen. For this party, the seals are welcome bathers anyway. The SP also stated that, as far as they were concerned, economic activities or people should make way for them, but according to the party, some other groups still seem a bit hesitant about this. The initiative proposal Give the seal a resting place was rejected.Commission letter: Answering questions about padel courtsIn the meetings of the city council of 10 February and 18 May 2022 construction plans for the construction of padel courts in The Hague have been discussed. In the letter that is on the agenda today, the Municipal Executive addresses a number of questions that have been asked in response to two environmental permits for padel courts that were opened in 2021 have been granted. At the request of the council, this item was again on the agenda.Party for the AnimalsThe Party for the Animals argued that it was difficult is a good place to find padel courts. Close to homes they cause a nuisance, in nature areas they pose a danger to many animals. The party would like the council to make policy on this and not wait for nuisance to arise. That is why the Party for the Animals, together with Hart voor Den Haag, CDA, PVV and GroenLinks, submitted the motion calling for requirements to be drawn up for the arrival of outdoor padel courts on municipal land, taking into account the possible new standards. that should emerge from the consultations with VNG, KNLTB and the Dutch Noise Pollution Foundation, the consequences for nature and the consequences for animals. Until the requirements are laid down, the municipality is asked not to give permission for the construction of padel courts in the open air. This motion was passed.Hart voor Den HaagAccording to Hart voor Den Haag, playing padel creates a long lasting loud sound which causes a lot of inconvenience. According to the party, many municipalities have therefore already adjusted their policy, and there have also been various lawsuits about it. The party wants to prevent that it will also come to this in The Hague, which is undesirable for both entrepreneurs and local residents. Hart voor Den Haag indicated that it is a great supporter of sports and also padel, but according to the party, this sport is better suited for indoor use. The party did not want to put padel above living and living enjoyment. Hart voor Den Haag emphasized that advice from the Association of Dutch Municipalities, the KNLTB Tennis Association and the Dutch Noise Pollution Foundation will soon be published. It is expected that this will lead to advice that 160-160 meters between padel courts and homes. That is why Hart for The Hague submitted a motion requesting that no licenses be granted to padel entrepreneurs before the outcome of the consultation between the Association of Dutch Municipalities, the KNLTB Tennis Association and the Dutch Noise Pollution Foundation is known. This motion was rejected.PvdAThe PvdA indicated that many residents have legitimate concerns, but at the same time want to the municipality in our city also provide space for sports. This requires a difficult and complicated weighing of interests and therefore also good participation with the city. The party wondered what role the council has played in supporting entrepreneurs and what steps the council wants to take to improve participation. On that last point, the PvdA served together with D26, VVD and GroenLinks introduced a motion, in which the municipal executive was requested, among other things, to incorporate new guidelines for the construction of padel courts into the policy and with initiators for padel courts enter into discussions about a better distribution across the city in order to prevent over-concentration of a specific sport in the same neighbourhood. This motion was passed.CDAThe CDA called sport an important facility in the city, but according to the party, the direction is the construction of padel courts is not yet sufficient. The party was pleased that the participation of local residents will be better addressed. The party indicated that it hopes that guidelines will be issued soon so that we can adjust our rules for permits accordingly. In the meantime, it is the municipality’s responsibility to see what we can do ourselves. According to the CDA, in a constitutional state we must of course adhere to our own rules, also when it comes to permits. But we are also a democracy, if the rules don’t work we should be able to see what it takes to adjust them.D19The greater the range of different sports, the more people there according to D66 workout. Moreover, the party emphasized, The Hague is the sports capital of Europe this year. Padel now stands out because it is louder than other forms of tennis. For D18 it is important that the standards for noise nuisance are clear. The alderman’s party also wanted to know whether applications for padel courts have been rejected and whether the alderman can make policy on the distribution of facilities.VVD According to the VVD, padel occupies an increasingly prominent place in the sports offer in The Hague. And that’s good, because it brings more variety to the sports offer in the city. However, according to the party, there is unnecessary polarization in the debate on this. Some opposition members believe that we should not really take into account the rule of law of the permit granting process. And on the other hand, the college seems to be digging in. While it is precisely here that a compromise must be possible. The VVD sees it as the task of the city council to uphold the general interest. And when we look at padel, and the unrest that has arisen due to permit applications in several places in the city, the city council has a duty to see whether the rules we have set, the frameworks we have devised together are actually good enough to be.

GroenLinksGroenLinks indicated that we should also be aware of the effects of padel on the outside world. That is why the party expressed its support for the motions of the Party for the Animals and PvdA.The Hague City Party The Hague City Party gave preference to indoor padel, and submitted a motion asking to investigate whether the municipality can introduce a no unless policy for open-air padel courts whereby permission is only given for outdoor courts if there is demonstrable there will be no nuisance in the area and no alternative realization of padel courts within existing indoor accommodations or halls is possible. This motion was rejected.Conclusion committee debateDraft Zoning Plan Umbrella Review Flash DeliveryInitiation Memorandum Night Vision The Hague: the Power of the Night Sixth Progress Report Social Relief 2022Review the meeting? The full meeting can be viewed at 2023


Comments are closed.