Meeting documents

Royston and District Committee
Wednesday, 22nd June, 2011 7.30 pm


Date:	Wednesday, 9th March, 2011	Time:	7.30 pm	Place:	Committee Room, Royston Town Hall, Melbourn Street, Royston

PRESENT:	Councillor Fiona Hill(Chairman), Councillor H.M. Marshall(Vice-Chairman), Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Bill Davidson and Councillor A.F. Hunter.
IN ATTENDANCE:	Mary Caldwell (Development and Conservation Manager) Andy Godman (Head of Housing and Public Protection) David Hill (Planning Officer, Projects Team) Alan Fleck (Community Development Officer) Susanne Gow (Committee and Member Services Officer)
ALSO PRESENT:	Cllr F J Smith, Royston Town Council A member of the public 2 members of the Press

Item	Description/Resolution	Status	Action
PART I
73	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Inwood and Grimes.	Noted
74	MINUTES Data/Royston and District Committee/201106221930/Agenda/Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Royston and District Committee Meeting held on 12 January 2011 be approved as a true record of the proceedings, and be signed by the Chairman.	Agreed
75	NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no notification of other business at this Committee Meeting.	Noted
76	CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chairman welcomed everybody to the meeting, including officers, members of the Press and the public, including Alderman F J Smith who is also a member of Royston Town Council. She advised the Committee that there would be two additional grant applications taken at Champions News, submitted by Royston Town Council and Barkway Parish Council. 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
77	PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There was no public participation at this Meeting of the Royston and District Committee. However, the Chairman had been passed a petition regarding extending the bus routes in Royston. This would be dealt with under Item 9 of the Agenda Â¡V Highways Issues. She suggested that a letter be sent to Jeff Tucker, Head of Passenger Transport Operations at Hertfordshire County Council, expressing a need for a change in the Royston bus routing. Information had also been passed to the Chairman regarding the need for benches in Royston and citing the bench that had been removed from outside the Rasa Sayang Restaurant in the High Street some time ago. This matter would be discussed at Item 10 of the Agenda - Champion News.	Noted
78	ROYSTON CROSS DEVELOPMENT BRIEF - PREFERRED OPTION Report Appendix 1 Appendix 2 The Planning Officer (Projects Team) presented the report of the Corporate Manager of Strategic Planning and Enterprise. He gave a brief description of the revised Brief and the preferred option (2A) to be taken forward following recent public consultation. This option included the movement of the stop line from its present position opposite the Roysia Stone with the junction with Lower King Street on the left, to a location 20 metres to the west, before the current turning into Lower King Street. He circulated location maps to the Committee on which the present and proposed stop lines were shown. He explained that before this procedure was carried out, there would have to be a detailed traffic assessment. The preferred option also took forward features common to all enhancement options, including rationalisation of street furniture, potential relocation of the taxi rank and a potential weight limit in this area. He stressed that it was vital to work with the Police and Hertfordshire Highways to achieve a rational solution. The Committee commented that the Royston Cross Development Brief was a flexible document and was very pleased with the sensible proposals it put forward, which would improve the area. The Committee then discussed the Brief and Members commented that they supported the moving of the stop line illustrated on the location map, which would ease the current problem of vehicles finding themselves in the wrong lane for either Lower King Street or Melbourn Street, although in one MemberÂ¡Â¦s opinion the efficacy of this was doubtful. There was also evidence of traffic backing up in this area. The Committee welcomed a detailed traffic assessment being carried out, so that any alterations did not impact on other roads in the town such as Tannery Drift, as this would cause congestion in an area which is residential and has school traffic. The observation was made that it was good to see sensible plans for the northern area of open space. It was an inspired solution and it was essential that an in-depth assessment was carried out. Kneesworth Street frequently became congested, so a proposal was put forward that the single yellow lines were changed to double yellow lines. The general feeling of the Committee was that the ideas in the Brief would provide a positive contribution to Royston and that the outcomes of the detailed traffic assessment would be particularly important, to understand the full implications of the proposals. The Royston and District Committee agreed that the Royston Cross Development Brief be referred to Cabinet on 22 March 2011 and that Cabinet be requested to recommend it to full Council for adoption. The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer for his work in bringing the Development Brief to this point. RESOLVED: 1) That the Chairman and Committee of Royston and District thank the Planning Officer for his hard work and informative presentation of preferred options to the Royston Cross Development Brief; 2) That the Royston and District Committee agree the Royston Cross Development Brief as set out at Appendix 1 of the report and recommend it to Cabinet, and that Cabinet recommend it to Full Council for adoption as Council Approved Guidance; 3) That the Royston and District Committee welcome a detailed traffic assessment being carried out, so that any alterations do not impact on other roads in the town; 4) That the Corporate Manager for Strategic Planning and Enterprise, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise, be authorised to agree any further typographical and textual amendments that do not alter the policy intent of the document, which are needed to be made to the Royston Cross Development Brief prior to its finalisation and publication. RECOMMENDED TO CABINET: 1) That the Royston Cross Development Brief be agreed and that Cabinet recommend it to Full Council for adoption; 2) That an in-depth traffic assessment be carried out to ensure that any planned alterations do not adversely affect other roads in Royston; 3) That the Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport, be authorised to agree any further typographical and textual amendments that do not alter the policy intent of the document, which are needed to be made to the Royston Cross Development Brief prior to its finalisation and publication. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Council to produce a Development Brief for the Cross area of Royston that provides an overall framework for guiding development and enhancement opportunities within the area in the future, and in doing so, contributes towards achieving the CouncilÂ¡Â¦s strategic objectives and priorities for town centres.	Agreed
79	EXTENDED CONSULTATION REGARDING NEW PROPOSALS FOR INCORPORATION INTO A STREET TRADING POLICY Report The Head of Housing and Public Protection (HHPP) presented his report on the proposals for a new Street Trading Policy. He stated that street trading law is complicated but that this area of licensing has a direct relevance to the CouncilÂ¡Â¦s Town Centre priority. The HHPP declared that this Policy was in two parts as follows: 1) Designation of streets: prohibited streets and consent streets as outlined in the report. Any stall or vehicle trading in town centres needs a consent, so it was proposed to grant area-based approvals, to be managed by Town Centre Management organisations via their Town Centre Managers (TCMs); 2) Charging for permits: many proposed street traders may be charities or town centre organisations, i.e. not-for-profit. However, burger vans etc. were commercial activities and should be considered as such. The setting out of tables and chairs on pavements was a matter for Herts Highways under the Highways Act 1980. The HHPP asked if the Committee had any questions and the Chairman threw the subject open to MembersÂ¡Â¦ debate. She commented that the newlyÂ¡Vrefurbished Fish Hill would need to go to Council to be made a consent street. MembersÂ¡Â¦ discussions raised the points: the streets currently on the prohibited list were usually too small or narrow to be used for street trading; the proposal that all prohibited streets be converted to consent streets (consent applications could be refused if deemed inappropriate, which means that many Royston streets can be used); it could be unfortunate if these streets were not usable for major carnival events; what would the costs be? (the HHPP indicated that a charge in the order of Â£200 per annum for area-based consents would reflect the CouncilÂ¡Â¦s costs); would charities suffer? (no, each organiser could apply individually for a consent and this could be treated in a similar way to area consents); could the TCMs refer back to Royston Town Council or the Royston and District Committee? (there would be regular dialogue between officers and the Town Centre Managers. However, decisions regarding the licensing of street trading had been delegated to officers); this appears to be fairly cost neutral as far as NHDC is concerned. If fees were reasonable and the TCMs did the administration, that was appropriate. A larger fee should be charged to commercial organisations, as the cost of potential enforcement must be covered; fees should be investigated further (fees could be set up followed by TCM and Committee consultation and then changed quickly); this must not be seen as a money-making exercise for the North Herts District Council Â¡V it must be seen to be done for a reason (this is not a financing tool, the aim was to protect Town Centre users). Members suggested that the principle of collective permitting be extended to parks within the Royston conurbation. The Head of Housing and Public Protection offered to notify the Royston and District Committee of the relevant Licensing Appeals Committee in due course and this offer was accepted. The Chairman thanked the HHPP for presenting his report and for his informative responses to the CommitteeÂ¡Â¦s questions and comments. She took Members to the resolutions, which they agreed. RESOLVED: 1) That the Chairman and Committee of Royston and District thank the Head of Housing and Public Protection for presenting his report on the extended consultation regarding new proposals for incorporation into a Street Trading Policy; 2) That the Royston and District Committee notes the report and provides feedback as part of this additional consultation on the specific Royston Town Centre issues; 3) That the Committee requests the Head of Housing and Public Protection to instigate the removal of all streets in Royston from the prohibited streets list so that they become consent streets; 4) That the fees or charges for area consents, as regards not-for-profit organisations, be set at such a level as to recover the CouncilÂ¡Â¦s costs only. REASON FOR DECISIONS: It was felt that the views of the Area Committees be requested as part of the wider consultation, in order that the report fully addresses the North Herts District CouncilÂ¡Â¦s strategic objectives, one of which was Town Centres.	Agreed
80	SECTION 106 AGREEMENT AND UNILATERAL UNDERTAKINGS Report The Development and Conservation Manager (DCM) presented the main points of the report of the Head of Development and Building Control, in particular the five tests which must be satisfied in order for planning obligations to be required, as set out in Circular 5/05. She stated that three of the five tests had become statutory and that the current economic situation had given rise to the updates concerning future funds and contributions and the use of existing funds set out in para 4.2 of the report. The DCM went on to explain that many developers now challenge whether the requirement for a contribution is justified and should planning permission be refused on these grounds, without substantive evidence, a subsequent appeal may result in costs against the Authority. She explained that, with the Community Development Manager, she had visited and had successful meetings with Royston Town Council and the majority of the Parish Councils in the Royston area. She stated that some of the money is committed, which is a great step forward over the past 12 months. The DCM reminded the Committee of the monies available and collected in respect of the cycle route network, which would be used in association with the railway underpass scheduled to commence later in the year. The DCM stated that, considering that Royston Town Council and the parish councils have their own specific infrastructure responsibilities, there was no restriction upon these councils not to work directly with the Royston and District Committee and/or Council officers to plan the use of monies from Section 106 agreements and Unilateral Undertakings. The Chairman opened the floor to discussion and questions and Members asked: is there a timeframe in which the money should be used Â¡V a date after which it would be lost? (if so, it would be in the report, e.g. one in Hitchin is by December 2012, some others are longer. All are open to challenge and are going for a specific purpose). Members then put forward suggestions for projects which could use S106 funds, such as: the community cinema in Royston Town Hall; play park equipment; land for cemeteries and allotments were a problem and an emotive subject Â¡V a working party was looking for land that meets the criteria; mixer tables for use by the mid-to-late teenagers who appear to be left out of the benefits of grant applications and monies such as S106 (the Community Development Officer was asked to apply the five tests to this project and bring the result back to the Royston and District Committee at a future meeting). A Member enquired whether the villages in the surrounding area were included in benefiting from S106 monies and was told that that they were, examples being the secondary glazing for the reading room and work on the pond in Barkway were being considered whilst monies for the extension to the pavilion had been secured. It was proposed that an extension to the hall at Coombes Community Centre be added to the list, as more space was needed which could double rentals and thus income and the DCM pointed out that this project would need to be discussed and the basis of the need for an extension given, so that it may be taken into account in any future negotiations for development in the area. The Chairman proposed erecting railings in Melbourn Street to inhibit on-street parking and was reminded that the five tests would also need to be carried out on this proposal. The Chairman thanked the Development and Conservation Manager for presenting the informative report and for the clarifications she had given to the Royston and District Committee, together with her hard work for the people of Royston. RESOLVED: 1) That the Royston and District Committee thank the officer for her hard work for the residents of Royston; 2) That the Royston and District Committee note the contents of the report; 3) That a report on Section 106 Agreements and Unilateral Undertakings is presented to the Area Committees on an annual basis in March each year; 4) That the Development and Conservation Manager continues to meet informally, on a regular basis, with Members of the Royston and District Committee. REASONS FOR DECISIONS: 1) To ensure that there is a robust system for negotiating and managing Section 106/Unilateral Undertakings; 2) To ensure that this is kept under constant review and that the risk associated with this activity is managed in an appropriate manner.	Agreed
81	HIGHWAYS ISSUES â€žX King James Way, Royston: - Investigate the impact of parking, as it is causing a nuisance to residents. - Possible application of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) needs to be investigated. The Chairman proposed, and the Committee agreed, that this matter be referred to the North Herts Highways PartnershipÂ¡VJoint Member Panel for investigation leading to solution of the problem. â€žX Princes Mews Â¡V parking is causing safety issues. Members of the nearby Fire Service station strongly agree. The Committee agreed that this could be a major safety issue, and must be referred to the NHHP-JMP. â€žX Buses on a route to include Coombelands Â¡V proposed that a letter be sent to Jeff Tucker, Head of Passenger Transport Operations, Herts County Council to investigate extending the bus route for a trial period, to establish the need (a petition had been given to the Chairman, Royston and District Committee, as mentioned in Minute 77 - Public Participation). â€žX BlacksmithÂ¡Â¦s Lane, Reed Â¡V as noted during the last Royston and District Committee Meeting on 12 January, there was serious flooding at the entrance to Blacksmiths Lane, where the roadside ditches fill quickly and the water drains away very slowly. This turns to ice on both the pathway and road when temperatures drop, endangering pedestrians and vehicles. This location has been inspected but nothing further has been done. The culvert appears to be blocked and needs investigation leading to resolution of the problem. RESOLVED: That the above Highways issues raised by Members be noted and, where appropriate, be forwarded to the next Meeting of the North Herts Highways Partnership-Joint Member Panel to be held on 20 April 2011. RECOMMENDED TO NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE HIGHWAYS PARTNERSHIP-JOINT MEMBER PANEL: 1) That the Joint Member Panel be requested, as a matter of urgency, to investigate a scheme to improve parking issues in King James Way, Royston; 2) That the Joint Member Panel be requested, as a matter of urgency, to investigate the parking issues in Princes Mews, Royston which are causing major safety concerns both to residents and the nearby Fire Service station.	Agreed
82	CHAMPION NEWS AND FINANCE REPORT Report Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F The Community Development Officer (CDO) presented the report of the Head of Policy, Partnerships and Community Development. The items on the Youth Council, Citizenship, Angel Pavement, MembersÂ¡Â¦ Surgery and Other Work all required no updating. He stated that he had little to add to the report. The Chairman had received a letter from Royston Town Council following a request from a member of the public to reinstate the bench outside the Rasa Sayang Restaurant. However, the Police had requested that it was not reinstated in that location, due to anti-social behaviour. A Member commented that it appeared that this bench had not been used much. The Committee made the decision to review the additional benches in the town centre with relevant parties, such as the Police and the Town Centre Manager, after completion of the Fish Hill Square area enhancement, as they would provide additional seating. The CDO took the Committee through the budget spreadsheet and then the grant applications, as follows: a) A personal interest was declared in this grant by Councillors Peter Burt and Fiona Hill, as they are both Members of Royston and District Town Twinning Association. The Royston and District Committee agreed the sum of Â£499 to cover transport for the visitors from Nuits St GeorgesÂ¡Â¦ visit to the Houses of Parliament in June 2011 as part of the celebrations of the 25th anniversary link with La Loupe, France; b) Â£500 was requested by the Electralites Majorettes to fund sign writing on their equipment trailer to acknowledge the support of their contributors. The Committee considered and agreed this grant application; c) The sum of Â£7,000 was requested by The House Youth Drop-In Centre for basic funding and financial support. The sum of Â£1,250 was agreed by the Committee; d) A personal interest in this grant application was declared by Cllr Peter Burt, as he is trying to set up a Royston Speedwatch Group and Cllr Bill Davidson also declared an interest and declined to vote, as he currently obtains the names and details of speeding drivers and sends out letters. The sum requested by Barkway Parish Council to buy the equipment to monitor speeding through the village of Barkway was Â£2,000. The CDO had recommended an award of Â£1,250, but Cllr Davidson advised that Barkway Parish Council could have the long term loan of this equipment free from Royston Police Station. The CDO was requested to obtain more information from Barkway PC and to confirm with Royston Police that the equipment can be loaned out long term at no cost. e) A personal interest was declared in this grant by Councillor Peter Burt as he is a Member of Royston Town Council. Royston Town Council applied for funds to make Royston Town Hall compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act. The Committee agreed to award the sum of Â£3,000 in principle and any remaining balances of the CommitteeÂ¡Â¦s funds. 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 for the Royston and District Committee. RESOLVED: 1) That the Committee notes the budgetary expenditure, balances and carry forwards from the Development Budgets set out in Appendix A; 2) That Members are asked to allocate the remaining budget funds from the 2010/11 area base budget before the end of the current financial year; 3) That the Committee considers and approves the grant application in the sum of Â£499 to cover transport for town twinning visitors from Nuits St Georges to visit the Houses of Parliament in June 2011; 4) That the Committee considers and approves the grant application of Â£500 to Electralites Majorettes to fund sign-writing on their event trailer; 5) That the Committee considers and agrees to grant the sum of Â£1,250 to The House Youth Drop-In Centre for basic funding and financial support; 6) That the Committee considers the grant application from Barkway Parish Council for equipment to monitor speeding vehicles and defers a decision until the Community Development Officer has first carried out an investigation as to whether this equipment can be borrowed free long term from the Hertfordshire Constabulary at Royston; 7) That the Committee considers and approves the grant application from Royston Town Council for financial assistance with bringing Royston Town Hall to compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act. Royston Town Council is awarded Â£3,000 and any remaining balances from the Royston and District CommitteeÂ¡Â¦s funds; 8) 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 are 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 Baldock 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
83	OUTSIDE ORGANISATIONS - MEMBERS' REPORTS Royston Chamber of Commerce This organisation is moving forward well. North Herts Homes There is a new company, Rowan Homes (NHH) Limited, wholly owned by North Herts Homes, to construct houses for sale to raise money for affordable homes in the future. Â£12m has been allocated for needs. Coombes Community Centre The Coombes Community Centre is doing well and has had its AGM. The floor of the main hall has been refurbished, with North Herts District Council paying 75% of the cost and the Royston Community Association paying 25%. Royston Day Centre Members were informed that the Herts County Council grant to the Day Centre has been cut. The Chairman thanked Members and officers for their hard work and support over the past Civic Year and she also thanked members of Royston Town Council, the Press and the public for attending the Royston and District Committee Meetings. The Chairman wished those Members standing for re-election the best of luck.	Noted

Published on Tuesday, 5th April, 2011

9.20 p.m.