Meeting documents

Hitchin Committee
Tuesday, 13th September, 2011 7.30 pm


Date:	Tuesday, 12th July, 2011	Time:	7.30pm	Place:	The Gudwara, Wilbury Way, Hitchin

PRESENT:	Councillor Judi Billing (Chairman),Councillor Paul Clark (vice- Chairman)Councillor Mrs A.G. Ashley, Councillor David Billing,Councillor Joan Kirby, Councillor Bernard Lovewell, Councillor Lawrence Oliver, Councillor Deepak Sangha, Councillor R.L. Shakespeare - Smith and Councillor R.A.C. Thake.
IN ATTENDANCE:	John Robinson - Strategic Director of Customer Services Norma Atlay - Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance Liz Green - Head of Policy and Community Services Anthony Roche - Senior Lawyer Louise Symes - Project Manager - Planning Policy and Projects Peter Underwood - Community Facilities Manager Margaret Bracey - Community Development Officer Hannah Parsley - Play Development Officer Nigel Schofield - Committee and Member Services Officer
ALSO PRESENT:	At start of the meeting approximately 15 members of the public and 3 speakers at Public Participation.

Item	Description/Resolution	Status	Action
PART I
30	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE An apology for absence was received from Councillors: Clare Body, Lisa Courts and Alan Millard.	Noted
31	MINUTES Data/Hitchin Committee/201109131930/Agenda/Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 June 2011 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chairman.	Agreed
32	NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS The Chairman advised that there would be two additional Public Presentations at Agenda Item 5: 1. Keep Hitchin Special and 2. Hitchin Bridge Club	Noted
33	CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1)The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, including those making a presentation at Public Participation, to representatives from Hitchin Town Hall Limited, to Hannah Parsley the NHDC Play Development Officer to her fist Committee Meeting and thanked those who had attended Town Talk. Hitchin Sea Cadets would attend a future meeting. (2)The Chairman reminded Members 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 that they were required to notify the Chairman of the nature of any interest declared at the commencement of the item on the agenda. Members declaring a prejudicial interest should leave the room and not seek to influence the decision during that particular item.	Noted
34	PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - KEEP HITCHIN SPECIAL The representative from Keep Hitchin Special (KHS) - Mr Robin Dartington - thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. Mr Dartington referred the Committee to the paper distributed to Members at the commencement of the meeting which was the response by Keep Hitchin Special to the report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance (Agenda Item 6) On behalf of Keep Hitchin Special Mr Dartington thanked officers for the report and the detailed responses to the issues initially raised by KHS at the meeting held on 7 June 2011 and printed as Appendix A to the report. Unfortunately, there remained in the view of KHS several points of concern both in the responses and in the report itself. Mr Dartington advised the Committee that KHS in practice would not want to be a member of the Churchgate Liaison Forum and that it was very disappointing that the Forum had achieved relatively little to date. It was the view of KHS that school visits by Simons Developments could be an unacceptable commercial exploitation of children. KHS were very concerned over the delays of some 12 months to the project which could extend to 18 months if a scheme was to be published this November. KHS were aware that there were cut off dates in the Development Agreement and that it would be essential that the Project Board did not allow an extension to the project or the intermediate cut off dates. KHS also did not accept that the Local Planning Authority was independent of other decision making bodies at NHDC. Also, that KHS were not at all content with the final decision on any scheme resting with the Project Board and that the Hitchin Committee should seek assurances that only Cabinet and then Full Council should approve any final scheme proposed by Simons. With regard to Hammersmatch it was now clear that Simons Developments were in discussions with the leaseholder but should the refurbishment proceed then this would make the Churchgate Development unviable due to the estimated increased value of Â£4M after refurbishment. Also, KHS sought the publishing of any Plan B that had been prepared by the Project Board, which should not omit any enhancement of the market or car parking scheme following refurbishment of Churchgate. Also, KHS considered that an update on Compulsory Purchase Order Strategy was needed because if a CPO was successfully resisted and Hammersmatch did not wish to enter into a private sale then the whole Churchgate Development scheme would prove to be a waste of time and money. In conclusion KHS were surprised at the statement that only some of the residents of Hitchin objected to building on car parks and that letters to the press were perhaps only â€˜the tip of the iceberg'. In order to correctly measure the opinion of such development KHS strongly recommended to the Hitchin Committee that they support a wide ranging survey of Hitchin residents concerning the proposed construction of buildings on NHDC car parks. RESOLVED: (1)That the Keep Hitchin Special representative be thanked for the presentation; (2)That the comments and points raised by Keep Hitchin Special in respect of the report at Agenda Item 6 - Churchgate and Surrounding Are Development be noted.	Noted
35	PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - NORTH HERTS ETHNIC MINORITY FORUM The representative from North Herts Ethnic Minority Forum - Mohamed Alam - thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. Mr Alam advised the Committee that the Forum provided a service to the local community including the ethnic minority for Hitchin and Lecthworth. Some of the services were English courses, numeracy and literacy courses, IT courses, advice on housing, social security benefits, education and job skill training. Part of the training was by the use of computers and these were becoming less reliable. The donation of 12 training computers from North Herts College had been very welcome. However, the screen monitors for the computers were over ten years old and needed replacement by upgrading with new LCD monitors. Mr Alam confirmed that a grant application for Â£946 for the replacement monitors was before the Committee at Appendix B, Agenda Item 14 and that he hoped that the Committee would look favourably on the request for financial support. RESOLVED: (1)That North Herts Ethnic Minority Forum representative be thanked for the presentation; (2)That a decision on the grant application be taken at Agenda Item 14 - Champion News and Finance Report.	Agreed
36	PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - HITCHIN BRIDGE CLUB The representative from Hitchin Bridge Club - Mrs Margaret Eddleston - thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee and that she would respond on the Community Halls Strategy, its affect on Community Facilities in Hitchin which in turn could affect inter alia Bancroft Hall of which Hitchin Bridge Club were a main user. Mrs Eddleston recognised that a lot of effort had been made to produce the Strategy but she stated that there were decisions and assumptions in the Strategy that were not based on evidence and that recommendations if implemented would have a detrimental effect on the provision of Community Centre space, especially in Hitchin. The first and perhaps major problem was the decision to use a value of 0.1 square metres of floor space per person in North Hertfordshire, which was not achieved in larger urban areas of North Hertfordshire but greatly exceeded in the rural areas. This value was much less than the local authorities comparison table used in the report and indeed was based on an example not akin to Hitchin at Great Ashby and that a more local example of 0.25 square meetings per person indicated what could be provided. Mrs Eddleston strongly challenged the statement that there would be an uplift of 40 per cent of available Community space available in Hitchin. The information in Appendix A was incorrect in that some venues listed were not for hire at all and some of the listed venues were used to capacity and were in fact seeking additional space. Concern was also expressed that only data for NHDC managed halls was used in the Strategy without any reference to other Community Centres and village halls, not withstanding that many Hitchin facilities and nearby village halls were all heavily used but had not exceeded 70 per cent usage. Of even more importance to local groups in Hitchin was the impact of the re-development of Hitchin Town Hall which was not discussed in the Strategy. Mrs Eddleston addressed next the impact of population growth in Hitchin in that the core area would see the biggest expansion but no new facilities had been provided and in fact three local facilities had been replaced by housing i.e. Gainsford Memorial Hall and the Caldicott Chapel and Gymnasium and that the projected growth should in fact justify a new community hall but there remained the possibility of the demolishing of Bancroft Hall. This would exacerbate the lack of provision of community hall provision in the central parts of Hitchin and yet new developments invariably have new halls proposed under Section 106 contributions. Mrs Eddleston concluded her presentation with reference to Policies25, 26, 28 and 29 of the Council and urged the Council to reject any proposal to demolish Bancroft Hall and Council should explore with urgency the best and most cost effective way of meeting the community need for this building, its replacement, rebuilding, restoration or improvement to current standards and legislation. The Chairman thanked Mrs Eddleston for the constructive, reasoned analysis and criticism of the Draft Community Halls Strategy and the potential effect on Hitchin residents and the provision of Community facilities which was supported by the Committee. RESOLVED: (1)That the representative from Hitchin Bridge Club be thanked for the presentation; (2)That the comments made by Mrs Eddleston on the Draft Community Halls Strategy be noted.	Noted
37	CHURCHGATE AND SURROUNDING AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, HITCHIN - UPDATE AND RESPONSE TO KEEP HITCHIN SPECIAL PRESENTATION Report Appendix 1 Appendix 2 The Project Manager - Planning Policy and Projects (PM) presented the report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance which provided an update on this project together with a response to the issues raised by Keep Hitchin Special at the meeting held on 7 June 2011 (Minute 17 refers). The PM advised the Committee that the Council had extended the lease of Hitchin Market to Hitchin Market Limited for two more years concluding at 31 July 2013. Members noted that there was break clause within the lease to allow for any agreed development. The PM referred the Committee to Appendix 1 which contained a copy of the presentation made by Keep Hitchin Special (KHS) and to Appendix 2 (the Information Note at 7 June 2011) and advised that the numbered paragraphs used by KHS were used in this report for clarification. The PM stated that the whole KHS paper had been reviewed with summarisation of paragraphs in the report followed by the Council response. The Committee noted that the Council absolutely refuted the suggestion made by KHS that there were published misrepresentations of fact . Much information had been published into the public domain in the last 14 months and the FAQs pages on the NHDC web site were updated at regular details and all information was correct at the time of publication, with any variances or events corrected as soon as possible. The PM advised that any information not in the public domain was for commercial sensitivity reasons. The PM advised the Committee that the Planning Brief was adopted by the Council as a planning Policy Document in November 2005 and as such was a relevant document for the Local Planning Authority but any decision to adopt a planning policy did not bind the Council as landowner, even though it was used to inform the procurement process which appointed Simons. The Committee noted that it would be up to the Local Planning Authority to decide -based on all applicable planning considerations including this planning brief - what would be acceptable for the site. Also, that Simons would be required to justify any departure from the Churchgate Planning Brief when they submitted their planning application. The PM then addressed the point raised about the possibility of the Churchgate Project Board making a decision on a potential scheme without public consultation. The PM advised the Committee that the Project Consultation Strategy would include more public consultation on any proposed scheme prior to a planning application - this process would permit the Churchgate Project Board to consider the response to public consultation. The PM stressed that the Local Planning Authority would retain 100 per cent independence irrespective of the fact that the Council was a development partner with Simons. In response to several points raised by KHS the PM confirmed that Simons were awarded the contract to redevelop the Churchgate shopping centre and surrounding area but this did not apply to any specific scheme, and to date no decision had been taken on any scheme. With regard to discussions with the current leaseholder of the Churchgate Centre, Simons had confirmed to the Council that they were in contact with the leaseholder only and not the agent for the leaseholder as claimed by KHS. Any proposals for the development at St Marys and Portmill Lane Car Parks would be the subject of a planning application and Simons would continue to work with key stakeholders and technical organisations for pre - planning applications prior to the submittal of any planning application. The PM was able to clarify the role of the Hitchin Area Committee in that the NHDC Constitution did not allocate responsibility to any Area Committee to report to Council on any matter affecting their area. This of course did not preclude an Area Committee from making recommendations to either Cabinet or Council. There was and would continue to be a regular dissemination of information via Committees, the Churchgate Liaison Forum, the NHDC website for FAQs and material available at Hitchin Library for inspection and the PM was please to assure the Committee and all those present that there would be further public consultation on any proposed scheme from Simons. The PM, Strategic Director and Senior Lawyer (SL) then replied to the three main points raised by the KHS representative at Public Participation: 1. Timetable for development: The completion of 12 months consultation did not end that phase of the project.-, as the Council had always stated that consultation would be longer if required. The Project Board at each meeting would rigorously review the timetable and question Simons as to progress against the timetable and milestones. The dates of the specific cut off dates in the timetable could not be made public due to commercial sensitivity as it would be unfair for Simons in their negotiation with other organisations. 2. Independence of Local Planning Authority: The Project Board would report to Cabinet which in turn would be open to Scrutiny and advice from the NHDC Monitoring Officer on independence from the Local Planning Authority. There would be no linkage in any decision made on a planning application and any other NHDC Committee, Cabinet or Council. The SD confirmed that Hammersmatch were able to proceed at soon as they wished with refurbishment as this was an entirely separate matter to the Churchgate Development was a commercial decision for Hammersmatch. The SD confirmed that Simons had ongoing discussions with Hammersmatch. 3. Compulsory Purchase Order: The Senior Lawyer advised that a CPO in full or in part was a Statutory Process and would be invoked at the appropriate time should a CPO be required by Simons. Consideration of a CPO would be premature at this stage as the process would only be considered for application if Simons were unsuccessful in any negotiations with a relevant landowner, including the Churchgate leaseholder. The Committee discussed at some length the presentation by KHS and the officers responses both in the report and at the three specific points above. The SL advised the Committee that any changes to the project plan would be examined very closely by the Project Board and that this was all hypothetical at the moment. In response to an enquiry on the length of consultation the SD advised the Committee that consultation would continue for â€˜as long as it takes'. The SD in reply to a question about the problems of a scheme not proceeding clarified that a Contingency Plan B was an ongoing consideration at any meeting of the Project Board depending on any change to the risk assessment, and that if there was any revision to the Strategy Council would be notified. A Member considered that the management of risk should be in advance, not as it occurred. The SD advised that the assessment of risk was constant at meetings of Project Board and that Plan B may not be required. Another Member queried â€˜the quiet period' and the lack of consultation with local schools. The PM confirmed that consultation with local secondary schools was underway and accepted a Member request to ask Simons to contact other schools such as John Henry Newman and Highfield. In response to a Member request to clarify a paragraph in the report the SL confirmed that the outcome of the exhibition last year indicated a range of views with regard to building on St. Marys car park and that the paragraph in question responded to KHS stating that the â€˜the public objected to that in principle'. The SL identified three groups of replies i.e. Rejection in principle, no objection but concerns over visibility of St Marys Church and the gap between buildings and those who had no objection to any aspect of the development and that all exhibition responses were posted on the NHDC website. In conclusion the SD confirmed that Council had not made any decision on a scheme only as to the appointment of Simons as a Development Partner and that Simons were selected as a developer who had good experience in market town development and had in fact provided a viable scheme and vision prior to any planning application. The Chairman thanked Members and Officers for their valuable comments and responses in this debate and all agreed that the Committee should receive an update as to progress at each meeting as well as keeping the residents and stakeholders of Hitchin informed. RESOLVED: (1)That the updates in the report be noted; (2)That the responses by officers to the points raised by Keep Hitchin Special (Appendix 1) be noted; (3)It was agreed that the content of the Information Note presented to the Hitchin Committee on 7 June 2011 had been clarified; (4)That the status of the Churchgate Planning Brief as the Council's Statement of Policy for Local Planning Authority purpose only be noted; (5)That the requirement of the developer to justify any departure from the Churchgate Planning Brief as part of any planning application be noted; (6)That the role of the Churchgate Project Board as set up by Full Council be noted; (7)That the Officers be thanked for the responses made to the comments and issues raised by Keep Hitchin Special at Agenda Item 5 - Public Participation; (8)That the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance be requested to ensure that the Hitchin Committee received regular updates and reports on the Churchgate Project in order for the Area Committee to fulfil its functions. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow the Hitchin Committee comment on the issues raised by Keep Hitchin Special and the responses made by Officers.	Agreed
38	HITCHIN TOWN HALL LIMITED Introduction Mr David Leal - Bennett thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee on the recent activities undertaken by Hitchin Town Hall Limited (HTH). Mr Leal - Bennett confirmed that HTH were very focussed on the re-development of Hitchin Town Hall to a combined Community Centre and North Hertfordshire Museum and that a lot of progress had been made but there remained a lot to do. A business model had been prepared, there was good vision, excellent rapport with the Community Builders Fund ( now known as Future Builders England Ltd.) and the overall scheme for the Town Hall had been approved by the NHDC appointed consultant. The purchase of the freehold title to 14 Brand Street was proceeding to completion and the owner was being very co-operative. A bank account in the name of Hitchin Town Hall Ltd for the deposit of the full Â£850,000 of which Â£500,000 was a loan due for repayment by March 2012 and HTH were in the process of seeking charitable status. Mr Leal - Bennett advised the Committee that HTH were very disappointed at the delays incurred in the placing of the requirement for a Supervising Architect in the Official Journal of the European Union which had set the project back several months and HTH could not afford any more delays due to a â€˜ticking clock' for the repayment of the loan. There remained the issue of whether the OJEU should be used to seek tenders from prospective lead contractors and no - one could afford to the same delays experienced with the decision made about advertising for a Supervising Architect. Mr Leal - Bennett confirmed that every effort would be made by HTH to work with local Community Groups and would help where it could in finding temporary accommodation for current users of Hitchin Town Hall and seek new users, but more local funds were needed to support this. Mr Leal - Bennett wished to place on record the thanks of HTH for the support provided by NHDC officers to this important community project and wished to advise the Committee that an estimated Â£100K had been provided pro bono by the Hitchin Business Community. The Chairman thanked Mr Leal - Bennett for the presentation and the efforts made so far by Hitchin Town Hall Ltd and expressed the need for all parties to work together to bring this very important local community project to fruition as soon as was practicable. RESOLVED: (1)That Mr Leal - Bennett be thanked for the presentation; (2)That the points raised by Hitchin Town Hall Limited on the re-development of Hitchin Town Hall and the progress made by Hitchin Town Hall Limited with Future Builders England Ltd. be noted.	Noted
39	INFORMATION NOTE - NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE MUSEUM AND COMMUNITY FACILITY Information Note The Strategic Director for Customer Services (SD) referred the Committee to the Information Note which provided an update on progress towards the appointment of a Supervising Architect for this very important community project and apologised for issuing a second version of the Information Note which amended some of the dates in the timetable for the appointment of the Supervising Architect. The SD confirmed that the advert for the Supervising Architect had now been placed in the Official Journal of the European Union and referred the Committee to the timetable. The SD advised the Committee that the next steps would be: 1.Procurement of the Supervising Architect would be ongoing with a target of the end of October 2011; 2.The preparation of the Development Agreement with Hitchin Town Hall Limited following details received from Future Builders England Ltd; 3.Presentation of reports to Council and the Cabinet Sub - Committee (Hitchin Gymnasium and Workman's Hall Trust) that would seek authority to transfer part of Hitchin Town Hall and Trust property by way of a lease. RESOLVED: (1)That the contents of the Information Note be noted; (2)That the amended timetable for the appointment of the Supervising Architect be noted; (3)That the Strategic Director of Customer Services be requested to submit an updating Information Note to the next and subsequent meetings of the Hitchin Committee.	Agreed
40	BANCROFT PARKS AND GARDENS DEVELOPMENT AND REFURBISHMENT - INFORMATION NOTE Information Note The Chairman advised the Committee that as per the Information Note there had been no further developments and that it would be at the next meeting in September 2011 when a comprehensive Information Note on developments on this very important Community project would be provided.	Agreed
41	COMMUNITY PLAY PROJECTS - UPDATE Report The Head of Policy and Community Services (HPC) advised the Committee that with the imminent closure of the Community Play Projects run by NHDC it was considered to be appropriate to set out the context of the original funding , the reason for closure and whether there was potential for further funding. The HPC confirmed that finance came from the Big Lottery Children's Play Programme for three schemes in North Herts, one of which was Purwell in Hitchin. Another scheme at Oughton in Hitchin was funded by the HCC â€˜513 Prevention Fund' that targeted areas of deprivation and all schemes were intended to provide a safe play environment for youngsters who no longer had the freedom to play outside their own homes and at the same time attempted to recreate the freedom of adventure playgrounds of the 1960's and 1970's. The HPC stated that another asset of these play schemes was the benefit to youngsters who often struggled within the school format but thrived in the play environment. The HPC advised the Committee that unfortunately in September 2010 the grant from the Big Lottery Fund closed. Prior to this date and since then officers had either submitted or approached 20 different organisations in search of funding. Some additional funding, supported by volunteers had secured the play schemes until July 2011. The HPC confirmed that the other nine Districts in Hertfordshire had lost their grant streams for play schemes and that NHDC did not have a statutory duty to provide such play schemes. The Committee noted with regret that some 170 children per week would be affected by the closure of these play schemes and that there were currently no alternative similar services available in North Hertfordshire. The HPC stated that all officers acknowledged the community impact by the cessation of this valuable play project but requested that the Committee took note of the following issues should consideration be made to using alternative funds from within North Herts District Council; 1.Short term funding meant that the project could come to a halt at a slightly later date, slow down, and yet duplicate the disappointment already expressed in the local press; 2.Continual â€˜top up' funding meant that the officers who granted rolling, short term continuation of contracts were becoming demoralised and had demonstrated they could move elsewhere to more sustainable projects, which also placed the Play Rangers Scheme at a significant risk for its continuation; 3.Grant requests to Area Committees had increased in the light of other funding constraints increased elsewhere - what was the criteria to be applied to this scheme which did or did not apply to another, subsequent bids in due course, particularly where grants were not generally intended to provide full â€˜running costs'? 4.As the Council reduced in size, there must be full consideration of the time required to complete and submit numerous funding bids, particularly when those bids are ultimately unsuccessful or where â€˜match funding' (which was not available from the Council) was required. The Chairman thanked the Head of Service for the description of the Community Play Projects, the clarification of the current state of finance for these play schemes and invited comments from the Committee. It was clear from the ensuing debate and discussion that there was extreme concern at the imminent closure of these Community Play Projects and that funding would have to be drawn down from the Hitchin Area Discretionary Budget for 2011 - 2012 if any of the schemes in Hitchin could continue in the first instance for the Autumn Term 2011. The Chairman was pleased to confirm that the County Councillor for Hitchin Rural Division had committed funds from his locality budget in 2011 - 2012 with a potential for further funding in 2012-2013. Ward Members for Oughton and Walsworth also agreed to allocated funds to support the schemes at Purwell and Westmill with some funding expected from the Extended Schools Partnership and the HPC thought that funds could also come from CAPOW. The Chairman thanked Members for their support but cautioned that this initial funding was only for the Autumn Term and that a great deal of effort would be needed to secure funds for the Spring and Summer Terms in 2012 and beyond, these community Play Projects could not go from a term to term existence and that there was an essential need for this valuable service to youngsters from less well off households in Hitchin to be maintained. RESOLVED: (1)That the actions taken by officers to maintain the Community Play Projects until July 2011 be welcomed and noted; (2)That the comments made by the Head of Policy and Community Services on the issues to be considered of risk, costs and opportunities for the continuation of this scheme be noted; (3)That the Head of Policy and Community Services be requested to note the wishes of the Hitchin Committee to continue with Community Play Projects at Westmill and Purwell in the Autumn Term 2011 and beyond subject to sufficient resource being available; (4)That the Head of Policy and Community Services be requested to note the proposed financial contributions by Oughton Ward Members, Walsworth Ward Members and County Councillor Nigel Brook for the continuation of the Community Play Projects at Westmill and Purwell for the Autumn Term 2011. REASON FOR DECISION: To note the recommendations made at Paragraph 9 to the report and pursue the wishes of the Hitchin Committee to continue the Community Play Projects.	Agreed
42	DRAFT COMMUNITY HALLS STRATEGY Report Appendix A The Community Facilities Manager (CM) presented the report of the Head of Policy and Community Services and advised the Committee that Cabinet at the meeting held on 14 June 2011 (Minute 12 refers) agreed that all Area Committees should be given the opportunity to review the Draft Community Halls Strategy - which was based on and should be reviewed as a district wide comment on the provision of Community Hall services - as presented at Appendix A. The CM reminded the Committee that there were four categories of Community Hall: Urban Halls, Community Centres/Halls, Village Halls and other Community Halls/Facilities. The Committee were pleased to note that this Strategy would be presented to all five Area Committees for further comments. The CM advised the Committee that the Strategy had also been amended to reflect the latest housing growth predictions (Table 1). The CM reminded the Committee that the closure of the Â£1.25M investment programme via the Parish Amenity Capital Improvement Rural Grant scheme (PACIF) required determination of the Council's future approach to the support for village halls in the District and where appropriate finance resource for urban halls. The CM confirmed that meetings had been held regularly with Hitchin Community Centre Managers (and throughout the District) and that these meetings would continue. The Chairman thanked the Community Facilities Manager for the presentation and clarification of the preparation of the Draft Community Halls Strategy and invited comments and or questions. The Committee reviewed the Community Halls Strategy as presented at Appendix A and the Chairman invited the Committee to specifically comment on the sections applicable to Hitchin viz. the Community Halls: Hitchin Town Hall, Bancroft Hall, Walsworth Community Centre, St. Michaels Community Centre, St. Johns Community Centre and Westmill Community Centre. The CM advised the Committee that the two urban halls in Hitchin were owned and operated by the Council and that the four Community Centres were managed and operated under leased terms from NHDC to local voluntary groups. The Committee noted that these groups were invariably established as companies by guarantee with charitable status. During the ensuing discussions and with specific reference to Hitchin the Committee expressed their views about the strength and validity of the data and how it was being used. It was agreed by the Committee that the use of Great Ashby Community as a benchmark for other halls and centres was not appropriate. The Committee also considered that the population in the Chesfield Ward (Great Ashby) did not reflect at all the needs of the Hitchin residents. Also, that the proposed use of 0.1 square metres per person as a standard was far too small, did not compare favourably at all with the other local authorities listed at Table 14 in the Strategy and that this standard should be discounted and re-calculated. The CM commented that the figures in the document should be compared with the uplifted figure of 0.14 square metres per head of population for an accurate assessment when compared with other local authorities (Table 14). The CM also advised the Committee that the 0.1 square metre per head of population was based on the latest available example of Community Hall provision in the District which was at Great Ashby and in turn was an evidenced based position for dialogue with developers who might challenge the requirements set out by NHDC for S106 contributions in the future. This gave NHDC a robust position for NHDC for any such dialogue and in the current economic climate was strongly supported by the NHDC planning department. Following the debate the Committee agreed to make the following recommendations and request that Cabinet should take note and recognise the wishes of the Hitchin Committee with regard to the Draft Community Halls Strategy as applicable to the Hitchin and its local community groups: RESOLVED: (1)That the Hitchin Committee noted the requirement for a Community Halls Strategy and supported its development and implementation; (2)That the Hitchin Committee questioned the establishment of the amount of floor space standard at 0.1 square metres per person to use as a basis for negotiation for new development and to use as a benchmark for examining current levels of provision; (3)That the Committee challenged the statement that some 40 per cent additional community hall space in Hitchin provided from other facilities; (4)That the Community Facilities Manager be requested to undertake a more exhaustive review in comparing standards for the size of halls per person to include neighbouring local authorities; (5)That the Community Facilities Manager be requested to note and action where appropriate the following comments raised during the meeting regarding the Draft Community Halls Strategy and in particular the issues pertinent to Hitchin: -That more robust data should be used in projections of community hall provision and use; -That the validity of data should be questioned as this undermined the validity of the Strategy; -That due recognition should be taken of population growth; -That every effort should be made in regard to the needs of the local communities as to the current provision of halls and centres in Hitchin; -That local community groups had limited funds and that local venues had more expensive hire charges; -That projections of use should be based on a community model not only the financial resource implications; -That the Strategy should be prepared in the interests and needs of the local communities; -That the local stakeholders and Community groups in Hitchin should be appraised of all alternative facilities; -That clarification was required as the reasons for a 30 per cent increase in costs for St. Michaels Hall and 70 per cent for Bancroft Hall since 2008-2009 for example and whether NHDC owned halls and centres were fit for purpose; -That the Community Centre at Great Ashby should not be used as a comparator in any aspect of other facilities in North Hertfordshire; -That every effort should be made to ensure that S106 monies are negotiated to the maximum value with developers despite the current economic climate; -That the proposed floor space standard of 0.1 square metres per person be discounted and a much more reasonable value for benchmarking be established; -That clarification of the statement concerning the provision of some 40 per cent additional facility in Hitchin be requested; -To note the comments made by the representative of the Hitchin Bridge Club at Agenda Item 5 (Minute 36 above) as having the support of the Hitchin Committee; -That there should be no disposal of community facilities and that despite the downturn of the economy that the Strategy should not be abandoned; -That the quality and quantity of the information in the Strategy should be improved with particular reference to Community Hall provision. (6)That the starting point for the Strategy should be that NHDC should ensure that it performs its duties as a responsible landlord by assisting the Hitchin Community Centre's Management Committees to continue their operations in the best interests of the local community. RECOMMENDED TO CABINET: (1)That Cabinet be requested to review the proposed floor space standard at 0.1 square metres per person to use as a basis for negotiation for new development and to use as a benchmark for examining current levels of provision and consider increasing the standard to a more appropriate level; (2)That Cabinet be requested to review the anticipated provision of Community Hall Space in Hitchin as being a surplus of some 40 per cent in light of the expected closure of Bancroft Hall and Hitchin Town Hall. (3)That Cabinet be requested to approve a more exhaustive review in the comparison of standards for the size of halls per person to include neighbouring local authorities; (4)That Cabinet be requested to take into consideration the comments made the Committee during the debate and as listed at (1 -6 ) above; (5)That Cabinet be requested to ensure that the Strategy should have as its starting point that NHDC acts as a responsible landlord and the request of the Hitchin Committee to support the Community Centre Management Committees in the best interests of their local communities; REASON FOR DECISION: To allow the Hitchin Committee make known its concerns with the Draft Community Halls Strategy as relating to Hitchin and that due consideration should be taken by Cabinet of these concerns and that action should be taken on the issues raised by the Hitchin Committee.	Agreed
43	HITCHIN TOWN CENTRE MANAGER Introduction The Chairman advised the Committee that the Hitchin Town Centre Manager had tendered his apologies to the meeting and accordingly there would be no update on developments in Hitchin since the last meeting.	Noted
44	AREA COMMITTEE BUDGETS Introduction The Chairman proposed to the Committee and it was agreed that due to the lateness of the hour it would make more sense to have a discussion on the future and allocation of Area Committee Discretionary Budgets at the next meeting to be held on 13 September 2011.	Agreed
45	CHAMPION NEWS AND FINANCE REPORT Report Appendix A Appendix A.1 Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D The Community Development Officer (CDO) gave a comprehensive update on activities since the last meeting and advised that the Voice of Hitchin Youth Talent Competition held on 25 June had been very successful and the two winners had performed at the ROTW Festival. The CDO referred the Committee to Appendix A - Grants and Discretionary Budget and requested that the Committee should decide the amount of grant that would be made available to support extended summer evening swimming sessions at Hitchin Swim Centre. The CDO confirmed that in 2010 a provisional sum of Â£3,500 had been allocated for the extended sessions but in reality the sum expended was Â£2120.00. In light of the expected demand from many quarters for financial support it was agreed to provide a grant of up to the sum of Â£2120.00 in 2011 in support of the extended swimming sessions at Hitchin Swim Centre. The Committee noted the current status of available monies in the discretionary budget for 2011 - 2012 and although there would be a discussion on Area Committee Budgets at the next meeting and funds had been allocated for the Community Play Projects (Minute 41 above refers) it was agreed to approve a grant of Â£946.00 to North Herts Ethnic Minority Forum (Minute 46 below refers). The Committee reviewed the Hitchin Committee Work Programme as presented at Appendix C and thanked the CDO for the continued success in the development of community activities in Hitchin. With regard to the Highways Work Programme as presented at Appendix D the CDO advised the Committee that there remained some adjustment to the amount of funding provided by the Hitchin Committee to the investigations into road junction protection schemes. The CDO advised the Committee that discussions had been held with Hertfordshire Highways as to the apportionment of funding which would be clarified at the next meeting of the Joint Member Panel to be held on 25 July 2011. RESOLVED: (1)That the actions taken by the Community Development Officer to promote greater community capacity and well being since the last meeting of the Hitchin Committee held on 7 June 2011 be welcomed; (2)That up to a maximum of Â£2212.00 be made available to support extended evening swimming sessions at Hitchin Swim Centre in the summer of 2011; (3)That the Community Development Officer be requested to confirm the amount of funding to be provided by the Hitchin Committee for junction protection schemes and amend the budget spreadsheet for 2011 - 2012 prior to the next meeting to be held on 13 September 2011; (4)That in addition to the above action (3) the Community Development Officer be requested to enter into discussions with the appropriate officer at Hertfordshire Highways about any extra costs associated with the addition of two roads for consideration of a 20 m.p.h. speed limit and if these costs could be met from the JMP Discretionary Budget for 2011-2012. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Committee are kept informed of the work of the Community Development Officer and acknowledge the status of budgets.	Forwarded
46	GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS RESOLVED: That a grant of Â£946 be awarded to the North Herts Ethnic Minority Forum as a contribution towards the costs of 12 new LCD monitors for computers which would greatly enhance the IT training facilities for members of the local black and minority ethnic communities in Hitchin.	Agreed

Published on Tuesday, 16th August, 2011

10.06 p.m.