Meeting documents

Royston and District Committee
Wednesday, 27th July, 2011 7.30 pm


Time:	7.30pm	Place:	Committee Room, Royston Town Hall, Melbourn Street, Royston

PRESENT:	Councillor Fiona Hill(Chairman), Councillor Bill Davidson(Vice-Chairman), Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Jean Green, Councillor A.F. Hunter, Councillor R.E. Inwood, Councillor Gerald Morris
IN ATTENDANCE:	Alan Fleck (Community Development Officer) Stuart Izzard (Community Development Manager) Gemma Mitchell (Play and Sports Assistant) Susanne Gow (Committee and Member Services Officer)
ALSO PRESENT:	7 members of the public, including Royston Town Cllrs L. Davidson, Bob Smith and F. J. Smith, a member of the Press and a speaker.

Item	Description/Resolution	Status	Action
PART I
13	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE No apologies for absence were received for this meeting. However, Councillors Bill Davidson and Jean Green had sent their apologies and said that they would arrive late.	Noted
14	MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Royston and District Committee Meeting held on 22 June 2011 be approved as a true record of the proceedings, and be signed by the Chairman subject to an amendment in Minute 8, Resolution 5 to the Joint Member Panel, set out below: Â¡Â§That the Joint Member Panel be requested, as a matter of urgency, to authorise an investigation into the provision of a crossing on Baldock Road, Royston, in the location of the new Ivy Farm development and the Royston Tennis Club, Therfield Heath, as well as a crossing near Tannery Drift at the Baldock Road/Baldock Street end, as a vital safety measure.Â¡Â¨	Agreed
15	NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS The Chairman informed the Committee that there would be two items of Other Business taken at the end of the Agenda items. Item 13 would be suggestions from Members on the Street Naming for the Ivy Farm development and Item 14 would concern the route to be taken by the Olympic Torch in July 2012.	Noted
16	CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS 1) The Chairman informed the Committee that a letter of thanks for the grant awarded at the last Royston and District Committee Meeting had been received from Councillor Lindsay Davidson of Royston Town Council. The Chairman went on to say that she would like to thank Cllr Davidson for all the hard work she was doing for the Royston 2012 Committee in co-ordinating the Royston Year of Celebrations, which included the 850th Anniversary of Royston Priory and the London Olympic and Paralympic Games. 2) The Committee was informed that there would only be one speaker under Public Participation. Steve Gibbs would address them on the Â¡Â§City Kids are OKÂ¡Â¨ project which was trialled in Letchworth Garden City in 2010 and was a great success in engaging with children and preventing anti-social behaviour. A grant application had been submitted to help with funding this project. 3) Members were reminded that any declarations of interest, in respect of any business set out in the agenda, should be declared as either a prejudicial or personal interest and are required to notify the Chairman of the nature of any interest declared at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda. Members declaring a prejudicial interest can speak on the item, but must leave the room before the debate and vote.	Noted
17	PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Steve Gibbs, the CouncilÂ¡Â¦s Anti-Social Behaviour Officer, thanked the Chairman and the Committee for giving him the opportunity to address them and explain the background behind the submission of the grant application. He handed the Chairman a copy of the evaluation of the pilot Â¡Â§City Kids Are OKÂ¡Â¨ (CKROK) project run in Letchworth Garden City during 2010, which had been successful and had culminated in the Chairman of North Herts District Council presenting certificates to the 14 young people involved. It was proposed that the same project be run in Royston for two months starting in October 2011, with funding assistance from the Royston and District Committee. Steve Gibbs then outlined the objectives and aims of the project, which were mainly to: reduce the gap between the perception that young people commit high levels of anti-social behaviour and the reality that anti-social behaviour levels amongst young people are low; successfully engage young people and older residents to form relationships for the future enhancement of the town; engage and work alongside the local press, with the aim of the press becoming a partner in the project; provide statistical data that supports a reduction in the perception gap; and create a multi-agency partnership (with Youth Connexions, North Herts District Council, North Herts Homes, the Comet, Safer Neighbourhood Partnership Fund, Letchworth Extended Schools, Hertfordshire Police and Blue Skies Consulting). He explained that older people believe that young people are responsible for most of the crime and anti-social behaviour in their area, but as a result of the CKROK project in Letchworth Garden City, there had been an 80% change in this perception. The Letchworth project outline was explained. Young people were not recruited from schools or established groups, and had succeeded in engaging with older residents to: organise a tea dance; undertake several garden working parties; clear land; run cake stalls; work alongside older Letchworth residents to try to improve their quality of life. They also succeeded in reaching personal achievements such as refereeing football matches, gaining their Duke of EdinburghÂ¡Â¦s Awards, undertaking a photographic and painting competition and the project culminated in a celebration event held at a leisure centre involving street dance and Khalsa football amongst other activities. The Comet recorded the events and activities with a regular series of articles in the press. The total cost of the project had been Â£5,150 which was considered to be value for money. Funding had come from the High SheriffÂ¡Â¦s Award, the Police and the Joint Authorities Group. The main cost had been employing experienced youth workers. Steve Gibbs explained that the community safety objectives were to reduce anti-social behaviour and criminal damage and to promote reassurance and confidence. He believed that the Letchworth project had increased the young participantsÂ¡Â¦ self esteem and encouraged them to show respect to older people, not least by listening to them. The Chairman thanked Steve Gibbs for his informative presentation and opened the floor to MembersÂ¡Â¦ comments and debate. Members asked: were young participants chosen for this scheme across the broad spectrum of youth or from offenders? (primarily from those who had committed ASB or who were at great risk of doing so, although they then engaged with the whole spectrum. Letchworth young people who had taken part were in the process of forming the Letchworth Youth Council. They met in different venues across the town, not in one specific location); how are these young people found? (by North Herts Homes, the local Police and a Child UK project); in Royston, the local football club was involved with young people. The Chairman thanked Steve Gibbs again for clarifying the points raised and for attending this meeting of the Royston and District Committee. She stated that the Committee would consider the grant application submitted later in the meeting and make their decision.	Noted
18	PROPOSED COMMUNITY HALLS STRATEGY Report Appendix A The Community Development Officer (CDO) presented the report of the Head of Policy and Community Services. He explained that the Draft Strategy was initially proposed to provide supporting data for the Council if developers challenged the basis of a proposed payment of Section 106 monies. Members were reminded that newly-built halls and centres in North Herts District must meet the CouncilÂ¡Â¦s requirements and the needs of the respective villages (the amount of square metres per resident had been calculated). However, it had become clear that there were many other independently operated halls which significantly contributed to the overall provision and these had been measured and surveyed to gain a clearer picture of their size and condition. The CDO added that Royston Town Hall was not included in the first instance, as it was not owned by North Herts District Council (NHDC), but was later included when the wider survey indicated a shortfall of halls in Royston. With Royston Town Hall included, the shortfall disappeared. Officers were also aware that some operators had little clear financial understanding of the operation of their halls and centres and were unaware of how to set hire charges for their premises. Officers were also conscious that other provision had not been taken into account, e.g. for Scout huts and Church halls which might need refurbishment. The Chairman thanked the CDO for presenting the report and MembersÂ¡Â¦ asked questions and made comments. The CDO was asked how much it cost to produce the report and as he did not know, he stated that he would investigate and bring the information back to the Committee. Members asked why an uplift was required (Planning had recommended 40% of uplift in the area of halls per resident, which seemed to be a suitable figure) and commented that it was hard to understand the rationale for some halls, as they differ to a great extent (e.g. Great Ashby) and even halls which had been updated still required a large sum spent on their maintenance; all hall management committees had received a copy of their particular survey Â¡V some found it less useful than others; did the figures quoted take into account any expansion required to fit the needs of the local community? (yes, correct); it would be good to see the refurbishment of Coombes Community Centre completed (which still lacked storage space) and how long the lease had yet to run; the Section 106 payments were a mitigation for the impact of a development; will the document be used to exert pressure to obtain more funds for community halls to rise in the rankings?; did the figures take into account any increase in the local population? The Community Development Manager (CDM) informed Members that Unilateral Undertakings would be used to enable certain village halls to have improvements. Section 106 monies were released to the Parish Councils for them to decide on the use of the money available within the context of the contribution requirement Â¡V as much evidence as possible was required. Although Royston appeared well down the rankings in Table 8 on p25 of the Strategy Report, this document would be reviewed on a regular basis to assess changes to any assumptions/predictions made, so that revisions kept pace with change. The Chairman thanked the CDO for presenting the report and the Draft Community Halls Strategy and proceeded to the recommendation, which the Committee agreed should be referred to Cabinet at their next meeting on 27 September 2011. RESOLVED: 1) That the Chairman thanks the Community Development Officer for presenting the report and the Draft Community Halls Strategy at Appendix A and the Committee welcomed the Strategy as a good and positive document; 2) That Members noted the need for a Community Halls Strategy and gave their support for its development and implementation; 3) That all questions and comments raised in the discussion by the Royston and District Committee be noted and actioned where appropriate by the Community Facilities Manager and recommended to Cabinet on 27 September 2011 for resolution. RECOMMENDED TO CABINET: That Cabinet be requested to note the questions and comments raised by the Committee as set out below: a) Is NHDC giving the parish councils a rationale of the work to be done on their halls? b) Did the figures quoted in the report take into account any expansion required to fit the needs of the local community and also other halls not mentioned in the report (e.g. Market Hill Rooms, other rooms in the Town Hall complex and the Masonic and other community halls)? c) Will the Community Halls Strategy be used to exert pressure to obtain more funds for community halls to rise in the rankings? d) Do the figures take into account any increase in the local population, bearing in mind those in the report are based on the 2001 Census? e) Why was an uplift suggested? f) Discretionary rate relief Â¡V important this was retained (e.g. Coombes Community Centre and the Royston Day Centre); g) Has the impact of the Royston Underpass been included? h) The fact that the 20 minute isochrone may not accurately reflect the local situation should be highlighted (e.g. Coombes Community Centre serves the whole town, which took longer than 20 minutes to walk from some areas); i) There was concern on the basis of depreciation figures. REASONS FOR DECISION: 1) To enable the establishment of a strategic position to provide best value for those community facilities operated directly by the Council and those owned by the Council but operated by local community organisations; 2) To establish a strategic position of support to those in the voluntary/community sector who operate community facilities entirely independently, to serve the North Hertfordshire population; 3) To ensure that the standard and design of any new build community facility, as a result of a proposed new housing development in the District, meets Council requirements and those of the local communities that they will serve. This also to encompass scenarios where new housing developments require an increase in services being provided by existing local facilities; 4) To enable an appropriate and affordable rationale to be developed in respect of the operation of the CouncilÂ¡Â¦s own managed halls and also in respect of the support of those facilities owned by the Council but operated by voluntary groups; 5) To enable appropriate levels of community facility provision to be available across the District in relation to current and forecast levels of population up to 2031.	Agreed
19	COMMUNITY PLAY PROJECTS UPDATE Report The Community Development Manager (CDM) introduced Gemma Mitchell, the CouncilÂ¡Â¦s Play and Sports Assistant, who had accompanied him to the Royston and District Committee Meeting, and who was familiar with the area and would assist with any points of clarification needed. He introduced the report of the Head of Policy and Community Services and explained that its purpose was to inform Members on the impact on the children of the Community Play Projects and also the detrimental effect that the cessation of the projects would have, together with some outline costs of maintaining the ServiceÂ¡Â¦s continuation. He gave a detailed background and explained that the Community Play Project had been funded since 2007 by the Big Lottery Fund which had ceased in September 2010 and that there were no external financial resources at all to continue. ChildrenÂ¡Â¦s Services Officers had applied for much-needed external funding but sponsors were, understandably in the current economic climate, reluctant to further fund or to offer new funds for the project. Members were informed that HitchinÂ¡Â¦s Play Projects were likely to continue until Christmas 2011 and those for Letchworth Garden City were funded for another year, through to July 2012. The CDM went through the report and explained the overall picture across Hertfordshire, outlining points for Members to consider regarding funding. The Chairman thanked the CDM for his presentation. She stated that the Committee supported the Community Play Project, had taken on board the points made and would like to help. She then threw the meeting open to Committee debate. Member discussion stressed that the Royston and District Committee was committed to keeping the Community Play Project going for at least another year and one Member of the Committee who was on the Board of the Coombes Community Centre (CCC) offered, on behalf of the Royston Community Association, a reduction in the room hire for Play Projects in the CCC from the normal fee of Â£5,250 p.a. to Â£3,540 p.a. This would, of course, have to be ratified by his colleagues on the RCA and would be officially confirmed. The Committee agreed that it would part fund the Community Play Project at the Coombes Community Centre through to Christmas 2011, to the sum of Â£1,200 via Area Budgets. The Chairman also advised that the Committee were investigating other routes that may provide future funding for the Service to continue after December 2011. RESOLVED: 1) That the Chairman thanks the Community Development Manager and the Play and Sports Assistant for the informative update on the Community Play Projects; 2) That the Royston and District Committee note the steps already taken to protect and obtain funding to safeguard the Play Projects Scheme; 3) That the Committee consider the costs, risks and opportunities regarding the continuation of this Scheme as expressed in this report, and comment accordingly. REASON FOR DECISIONS: The recommendations contained within para 8 of the report are made due to this being the only course of action that can be accommodated within the approved budget.	Agreed
20	DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT - VEHICLE PARKING PROVISION AT NEW DEVELOPMENT Discussion only The Chairman requested volunteers from the Royston and District Committee for a working party to be set up to respond to the consultation currently being held on the Draft Supplementary Planning Document for Vehicle Parking Provision. The closing date for receipt of responses was Monday 8 August 2011. It was agreed that the working party should consist of: â€žX Councillor Fiona Hill â€žX Councillor Bill Davidson â€žX Councillor Tony Hunter. The Committee agreed that Members of the Working Party could complete the consultation questionnaire and submit it on their behalf by the deadline, requesting that careful consideration be given to the Royston and District CommitteeÂ¡Â¦s comments and proposals.	Agreed
21	DRAFT NORTH HERTS DISTRICT COUNCIL OFF-STREET PARKING PLACES TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER 2011 Discussion only The Chairman confirmed to the Committee that an email had been sent to the Transport Policy Officer containing their response to the consultation and this included the fact that the Committee could not support car parking charges being applied to Bank and Public Holidays (proposed), Sundays and evenings (should these be proposed) in all Council-controlled car parks in Royston. She reminded Members that Minute 69 of the Royston and District Committee Meeting on 12 January 2011 supported this stance, containing the following reference in Appendix B item 19: â€žX Â¡Â§I9 Â¡V Bank holiday charging in car parks. The Committee were very concerned about this. It was explained that this was more targeted at Hitchin. The Committee felt that the cost of administering and enforcing this would be higher than the revenue received and they felt users would park on nearby streets, causing problems for residents. The officers advised that different car parks within different towns should be treated differently and that what might be relevant in, say, Hitchin, would not necessarily work in Royston. The Royston and District Committee was adamant that they could not support charging for parking in Royston on Bank Holidays.Â¡Â¨ The Committee agreed that it was vital to get across the message that charging for car parking at the times stated would not work in Royston, would increase parking on surrounding roads and would have a detrimental effect on town centre vitality and viability. Royston Town Council had supported this position. Committee Members agreed, asking that this point of view be emphasised to the NHDC Portfolio Holder, Cllr Tom Brindley. It was commented that there had been extremely strong support from retail traders in the town for free parking on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays and in the evenings and that it was necessary to be vocal on this matter to get the point across.	Agreed
22	HIGHWAYS ISSUES 1. The Chairman confirmed to the Committee that the North Herts Highways Partnership-Joint Member Panel (JMP), at its meeting held on 25 July 2011 (Minute 10, Item 12 refers), had approved funding for the gateway feature on the A10 south of Royston; 2. The Chairman confirmed to the Committee that the JMP at its meeting on 25 July 2011 (Minute 10, Item 15 refers) approved funding for the provision of Grascrete at the appropriate location along the Old North Road was agreed, to counter the effects of verge parking at that location; 3. The Chairman confirmed to the Committee that the JMP at its meeting on 25 July 2011 (Minute 10, Item 10 refers) approved funding for the progression of the junction protection scheme at the Warren (design, consultation and implementation); 4. With regard to the construction of a pedestrian crossing in Baldock Street/Baldock Road, the Chairman confirmed to the Committee that at the JMP meeting on 25 July 2011 (Minute 8 refers), the Area Service Manager had agreed to provide a written response (to be included in the next issue of Champion News) that would give a cost estimate for undertaking a feasibility/eligibility assessment to provide a pedestrian crossing, e.g. pedestrian refuge, zebra crossing or pelican crossing.	Noted
23	CHAMPION NEWS AND FINANCE REPORT Main Report Appendix A - Finance Report Appendix B, grant application Appendix C, grant application Appendix D, grant application Appendix E, grant application The Community Development Officer (CDO) presented the report of the Head of Policy and Community Services. He went through the activities with which he had been involved and revealed that he and the Royston Town Centre Manager had carried out a survey of the level of parking in the Town Centre both before and after 3pm, but the results had been inconclusive. They intended to repeat the exercise in the near future. The CDO had assisted with scheduling the visit of the High Sheriff of Hertfordshire to North Herts and explained that they had visited Reed Cricket Club which had served as a model to engage young people in the area. The CDO then took the Committee through the grant applications, as follows: a) The sum of Â£250 was requested by the Reed Parish Plan Working Group to help towards publication of the Reed Parish Plan. The Committee discussed this grant application and endorsed it, as they considered that parish plans can unlock other forms of funding; b) The sum of Â£1,800 was requested by the NHDC ChildrenÂ¡Â¦s Services Team as 50% of the rental cost of Coombes Community Centre for The Hang-Out Youth Club. The CDO reminded Members that the Agreed Criteria was Â£1,250, which they then agreed. Royston Bid Group would be invited to contribute. c) The sum of Â£50 was requested by the Rotary Club of Royston towards funding their tactile map project. The map was to be produced in cast metal and be both an aid to the visually impaired and a work of art, possibly to be sited near The Cross. This grant award was agreed by the Committee, who hoped that their support in principle would encourage other organisations to give the project financial assistance; d) The sum of Â£1,000 was requested by Steve Gibbs of NHDC Internal Budgetary Support towards the City Kids are OK project presented to the Committee under Public Participation (see Minute 17 above). The project would run over two months starting in October 2011 and Members had been impressed by the presentation, seeing this as a positive move for young people in Royston. They agreed to support it in principle. The Chairman thanked the Community Development Officer for his hard work and efforts for the residents of Royston and for his support for herself and the Royston and District Committee. RESOLVED: 1) That the Committee endorses the actions taken by the Community Development Officer (CDO) to promote greater community capacity and well-being; 2) That the Committee notes the budgetary expenditure, balances and carry forwards from the Development Budgets set out in Appendix A; 3) That the Committee considers and agrees to grant the sum of Â£250 to the Reed Parish Plan Working Group for the publication of a parish plan; 4) That the Committee considers and agrees to make a grant award of up to Â£1,250 to the NHDC ChildrenÂ¡Â¦s Services Team in support of the Hang-Out Youth Club under the ChairmanÂ¡Â¦s discretion; 5) That the Committee considers and agrees to grant the sum of Â£50 to the Rotary Club of Royston towards a tactile map of Royston Town Centre; 6) That the Committee considers and agrees to grant the sum of Â£1,000 as internal budgetary support for a Royston-based Â¡Â§City Kids Are OKÂ¡Â¨ project; 7) That the Community Development Officer be thanked for his actions, which had promoted greater community capacity and well-being for the residents of Royston. REASON FOR DECISION: 1) To ensure that the Committee is kept informed of the work of the Community Development Officer; 2) To inform Members of the financial resources available to the Committee. The report draws attention to the current budgetary situation, assists in the effective financial management of the Royston and District CommitteeÂ¡Â¦s budget and ensures actions are performed within the AuthorityÂ¡Â¦s Financial Regulations and the guidance in the Grants procedure; 3) The awarding of financial assistance to voluntary organisations and the use of discretionary spending allows the Committee to further the aims and strategic priorities of the Council; 4) The allocation of funds will improve the services provided by local organisations and groups that are available and accessed by members of the community.	Agreed
24	OUTSIDE ORGANISATIONS - MEMBERS' REPORTS Coombes Community Centre The Coombes Community Centre is progressing well and a new CCTV camera will shortly be installed. Priory Memorial Gardens It was reported that the Priory Memorial Gardens had won a prestigious Green Flag award for the work that had gone into it, one of only two awarded in North Hertfordshire. It was considered an honour and a real achievement for the town of Royston.	Noted
25	STREET NAMING ON THE IVY FARM DEVELOPMENT The Chairman informed the Royston and District Committee that this item was part of the consultation on street names on the Ivy Farm Development, Baldock Road, Royston, and it was in no way a final decision. The Committee felt that the main road should have a connection with ivy (e.g. Ivy Way, Ivy Road, Ivy Lane etc). Names suggested were: â€žX Latin names as suggested by the developer, but this was thought to be inconsistent when mixed with an English name (not supported by the whole Committee); â€žX botanistsÂ¡Â¦ names relating to ivy (Bosse, Hibberd, Loudon, Moore, Nicholson, Pall, Rehder, Schelle, Tobler, Voss and Weston); â€žX butterfly names (single names were thought more suitable Â¡V Brimstone, Gatekeeper, Peacock and Comma); â€žX wildflower names (especially the celebrated Pasque flower) â€žX names relating to the above, in the language of RoystonÂ¡Â¦s twin towns in France, Germany and Spain (La Loupe, Grossalmerode and Villanueva de la Canada); â€žX possibly names relating to horse racing; and â€žX possibly names relating to golf (those being activities carried out on the Heath). The Committee remarked that, whilst recognising the virtues of previous mayors and councillors from Royston, it would be more appropriate to make a selection from the above list.	Agreed
26	ROUTE OF THE OLYMPIC TORCH The Chairman asked the Royston and District Committee for its endorsement to include a request for the Olympic Torch to go through Royston, to be included in a letter currently being prepared for the London Organising Committee for the Olympic & Paralympic Games (LOCOG) from the Baldock and District Committee. The Committee gave its unanimous approval. The Chairman thanked Members and officers for their hard work and support for Royston.	Agreed