Meeting documents

Royston and District Committee
Wednesday, 1st December, 2010 7.30 pm

  Printer Friendly
 Date: Wednesday, 13th October, 2010 Time: 7.30pm Place: Coombes Community Centre, Burns Road, Royston
 PRESENT: Councillor Fiona Hill(Chairman), Councillor H.M. Marshall(Vice-Chairman), Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor A.F. Hunter, Councillor R.E. Inwood.
 IN ATTENDANCE: Louise Symes (Projects Manager)
Helen Leitch (Landscape and Urban Designer)
Alan Fleck (Community Development Officer)
Susanne Gow (Committee and Member Services Officer)
Mehron Kirk (Building Design Partnership)
Jenny Wilson (Building Design Partnership)
 ALSO PRESENT: 10 members of the public including four Royston Town Councillors, two members of the Press and the North Herts District Council Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport, Councillor Tom Brindley.
Item Description/Resolution Status Action
PART I
41 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Grimes, and Councillor Marshall sent apologies for his late arrival, as he was coming straight from a meeting in Letchworth.

Apologies were also received from the Royston Town Centre Manager Geraint Burnell, and Royston Town Councillors Beaver, Davidson and Freeman.
 Noted   
42 NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS

No Minutes were approved at this Special Meeting. Those of the last meeting will be agreed at the 1 December 2010 meeting of the Royston and District Committee together with these Minutes.
 Noted   
43 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman welcomed everybody to the meeting, including the Press, the North Herts District Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport, members of Royston Town Council and members of the public.

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   
44 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Nobody had registered to speak under Public Participation, but using her discretion the Chairman invited Mr Terry Hutt to speak. Mr Hutt had presented a petition containing 28 signatures relating to the Fish Hill Square Enhancement Scheme to Royston Town Council and this had been passed to the Chairman of the Royston and District Committee on 28 September 2010, for registration with North Herts District Council.

Mr Hutt thanked the Chairman for allowing him to speak and stated that he would like to reinforce the petition by making several arguments against the proposed Fish Hill Square Enhancement Scheme. Mr Hutt brought up the following points: concrete seats were uncomfortable; traffic pollution would affect people sitting in Fish Hill Square; there was too much traffic in the Square; removal of some car parking and disabled car parking spaces; Angel Pavement would be better with a roof over it; the need for extra bus routes; proposals made for the enhancement of Fish Hill Square were outrageous.

The Chairman thanked Mr Hutt for giving his views on the Enhancement Scheme, and explained that: items such as material for seating, and car parking, would be dealt with in the consultants' presentation; the North Herts District Council does not own Angel Pavement, so is unable to do anything about changing Angel Pavement into a covered walkway. Work on its refurbishment in terms of improvements to the footway would begin in 2011. Mr Hutt's demand for extra bus routes was not within the remit of the Fish Hill Square Enhancement Scheme and the funds for the Scheme had been specifically allocated, together with the maintenance budgets.
 Noted   
45 FISH HILL SQUARE ENHANCEMENT SCHEME - DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR AGREEMENT FOLLOWING PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Report
Appendix 1
Appendix 2

The Project Manager (PM) took the Royston and District Committee through the findings of the public consultation on the draft proposals for the Fish Hill Enhancement Scheme and explained that Members were requested to agree the final design scheme for Fish Hill Square enhancement now that public consultation had come to an end. This would allow Building Design Partnership (BDP) to proceed with a detailed design plan in consultation with NHDC and Members' agreement was sought on the next stage in the project programme relating to further work.

The PM introduced Mehron Kirk and Jenny Wilson, representing BDP, who between them presented the final design with an alternative option and the next stages in the project programme.

The PM informed the Committee that exhaustive consultation had been carried out via publicity and Press and with businesses, residents and retail outlets and that 150 written representations had been received, with about 200 people turning up at the launch. Schools and surrounding parish councils were also informed about the consultation. The general feeling in Royston appeared to be that this Enhancement Scheme would benefit Royston, bringing people into the Town Centre and benefiting businesses there. The main comments recorded were generally supportive of the concept and design and the new square being used as a public space for different purposes. There were mixed responses to the potential loss and relocation of parking and as to whether parking should remain in the Square; some car park spaces should remain and some be moved to Market Hill; and that car parking should be completely removed. Most were in favour of retaining some spaces in the new square and relocating others along Market Hill.

Comments were received on the street furniture: to remove clutter in the area; for seating granite blocks could be considered; most people were in favour of having some trees; for the proposed sculpture feature, the response was 50/50 for and against.

Improvements to Jepps Lane were very important, as this was a link to the High Street. Granite setts were suggested as the type of material to be used. The option of relocating the car parking adjacent to the new square was suggested by the Town Centre Manager on the grounds of providing more space for public events other than by closing the car parking in the Square.

The financial resources to be used for this Scheme came from Growth Area Funding (GAF) money to be used specifically to improve town centres, housing and transport issues such as cycle ways and could not be allocated to other projects. The Council had to be seen to be spending these funds and this was a good opportunity to deliver a well-designed that would benefit the whole of Royston town centre for the future.

Finally, the Committee was informed that the decision had to be made at this meeting on the design option for the new square. Mehron Kirk and Jenny Wilson presented the two design options.

The Committee questioned the BDP representatives, first asking whether Church Lane could be included in the Enhancement Scheme. Members were told that due to the limited budget, Fish Hill Square could be enhanced to a good standard, but there were not enough funds to do the same to Church Lane. What was possible with the money available was for the Lane to be deep cleansed and have minor enhancements, with some improved street furniture. One concern put to the BDP representatives was whether any Health and Safety issues would be taken into consideration and this was confirmed. Mr Kirk took Members through the process of building up elements of the plan, starting with the floorscape and adding to the picture trees, street furniture, drainage, kerbs and the sculpture. He explained that the aim was to achieve a good balance between cars and people, with good use of the space. Small scale events could be held in the area without the need to close off car parking spaces and the final view was that of a real town square.

Jenny Wilson added that the preferred masterplan (referred to as Option 1) put out to consultation, showed eight car parking spaces with a good expanse of roadway without feeling hemmed in and trees on the western edge, whilst the sunnier eastern side was reserved for pedestrian use.

Option 2 had car parking allocated to the edge of the Square and reduced the number to five spaces, with a slightly more enclosed feeling to it. The roadway appeared slightly less efficient and there was one tree less, but as with Option 1, there was a clear view retained for the CCTV camera.

Materials and elements - asphalt was proposed for the road surface, being faster to lay and less costly; granite was put forward for the pedestrian area, being durable and easy to maintain. Granite setts could be laid smoothly in Jepps Lane and resin-bound gravel was proposed for around the base of the trees, as it was permeable.

Members were advised that as part of agreeing the final design these were split between Category A and Category B items. Category A was complete in terms, taking into consideration comments received from the consultation and referred to the layout, overall design and access requirements. Category B needed a little more work in relation to the traffic issues, naming the square, the proposed sculpture in the square (via consultation with schools etc.) and to what uses the space could be put.

Other Category B items still to be resolved were:

 Granite benches with timber seats
 Tree planting
 Tree lighting
 Bicycle stands
 Car parking - there were currently 14 car parking spaces in Fish Hill Square and the Masterplan showed the relocation proposals. The Committee were shown how service vehicles could move easily in the area. The restricted zone could be extended to include Fish Hill Square as well as John Street.

Mehron Kirk then proceeded to lay before the Committee the next steps for the proposed works programme, as follows:

 It was proposed that the design be frozen at this meeting (13 October);
 Early December - applications for Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs);
 Early January 2011 - full set of contract documents sent out to tender;
 March 2011 - contractor appointed;
 May 2011 - work to start.

The Committee were advised that further investigation of the drainage in Fish Hill Square and Church Lane was required, the detail components had to be agreed with Herts Highways and Anglian Water and a detailed package would then have to be prepared for the appointed contractor.

The Chairman opened the meeting to Committee questions and debate. Several Members expressed a preference for design Option 1 and comments were made and questions asked (replies in brackets), such as: the granite benches should definitely have durable timber seats; how long would John Street be closed off for the work to be done? (it was planned to use only Sunday workings with the asphalt); would parking in the Square be short term? (yes, as is the rest of the area, currently); echelon parking would mean that two parking spaces were lost and cars would have to reverse out, whereas the suggested design did not have these safety issues; parking studs, as in Letchworth, looked better than painted lines for car parking spaces; café culture was growing everywhere and design Option 1 would encourage this and be beneficial to Royston, moving the town forward; the Town Centre Manager was pleased that the alternative Option 2 was being considered. He also advised that he had been approached by organisations and arts groups for a small space in which to put on exhibitions and events etc.; the Chamber of Commerce was concerned about narrow footpaths, especially outside the bakery (space was needed in the roadway for large vehicles and emergency services to manoeuvre, but widening the footpaths in this location would be investigated); this was a positive step, using ring-fenced funds; drainage options; how had comments from the general public been categorized? Had all points been taken on board (both sets of comments had been analysed and then set against each other); how had temporary and permanent seating been planned for the Square? (permanent seating would be closer to the buildings, temporary/café seating would be further into the public open space); if this scheme did not proceed, the benefit to Royston would be lost; had a decision been made on the trees to be planted, bearing in mind falling leaves - perhaps evergreen? (no decision had been made on tree species, but whilst deciduous trees shed their leaves in the autumn, evergreens shed their needles all year round and having thicker trunks would form more of a visual obstacle in the square); it should be kept in mind when making a decision on the sculpture the nuisance of pigeons and the mess they generated; would it be possible to involve members of the art fraternity in Royston when making a decision on the sculpture; could the chosen design be tall, durable and vandal-proof?; exact siting of the sculpture; the new space in the square would be ideal for flea markets; specifics of whether the budget would be exceeded if Church Lane were to be included in the enhancement scheme (cost of the scheme, excluding Church Lane, would come within the budget but to include Church Lane would exceed the budget by 25%. However, Church Lane could be deep cleansed, the signage and lighting renewed, all within the current budget).

The Chairman stated that in paragraph 6.5, the latter part of the last sentence must read " . . . but should funding become available in the future the enhancement of Church Lane must be a priority" not, as currently: "may be a priority".

The Chairman thanked the representatives from BDP for their comprehensive presentation and the Royston Town Councillors for their input to the discussion.

The Project Manager offered to explore the options mentioned and return with the findings to the next meeting of the Royston and District Committee on 1 December 2010 and this offer was accepted by the Members.

RESOLVED:
1) That the Royston and District Committee agreed the proposals for the enhancement of Fish Hill Square described in Category A: Final Design Scheme and Programme, set out at Section 5 of the report and as presented at the Special Meeting on 13 October 2010 and recommend to the Project Board that this design be adopted;

2) That the Royston and District Committee recommend to the Project Board the list of additional work required as set out in Category B, under Section 6 of the report, including options on street furniture and that officers report back on the outcome of these at the next meeting of the Royston and District Committee on 1 December 2010;

3) That in paragraph 6.5 of Category B: Items for Further Consideration, the word "may" in the last line be changed to "must".

REASONS FOR DECISION:
The final design is the result of a significant amount of consultation and survey work. Agreeing the final design will allow for the issuing of the contract tender documents, thereby keeping the project to programme.
 Agreed   
Published on Monday, 8th November, 2010
8.35 p.m.