Tell us what you think about our site...

Royston and District Committee Minutes

Wednesday, 17th March, 2010
Room 11, Royston Town Hall, Melbourn Street, Royston

Attendance Details

Councillor Fiona Hill (Chairman), Councillor H.M. Marshall (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Liz Beardwell, Councillor A.F. Hunter, Councillor F.J. Smith.
In attendance:
Steve Crowley (Contracts and Projects Manager)
Simon Young (Transport Policy Officer)
Alan Fleck (Community Development Officer)
Susanne Gow (Committee and Member Services Officer)
Also Present:
John Stone - Marketing Director, Stevenage Leisure Limited
Lee Medlock - Contract Manager, Stevenage Leisure Limited
Inspector Andy Piper - Hertfordshire Constabulary
Sergeant Jon Vine - Hertfordshire Constabulary
Geraint Burnell - Royston Town Manager/Royston First Limited
Item Description/Decision
Apologies were received from Councillors P.C.W. Burt and R. Inwood.
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Royston and District Committee Meeting held on 20 January 2010 be approved as a true record of the proceedings, and be signed by the Chairman.
The Committee were informed that two items of Other Business had been notified, and these were:
1) Update on Royston Urban Transport Plan - reason for urgency was the deadline of 19 March 2010 for comments;
2) Royston Town Centre Strategy - reason for urgency was that the Royston and District Committee had been promised regular updates, but the next meeting of the Committee was not until mid-June 2010.
The Chairman welcomed everybody to the meeting, including the public speakers.

She announced that a late grant application had been submitted and would be taken as Appendix E of the Champion News at Agenda Item 9.

The Chairman then informed the Committee that a letter had been received from Royston Town Council, thanking the Royston and District Committee for their funding assistance throughout the year by means of grant applications.

She also referred to the two items of Notification of Other Business, informing the Committee that these would be taken after Item 9 on the Agenda.

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.
There were due to be five presentations under this heading, but Mr Jagger of the North Herts Crime Prevention Panel was unable to attend due to family illness, and Members were reminded that they had already received his presentation in handout form, to peruse at their leisure.

The Chairman stated that she would call on the Royston Town Manager to speak regarding car parking in Royston later in the Agenda. A relevant grant application was due to be presented later in the Meeting.

Traffic problems in Newmarket Road, Royston
She then invited Mrs Pryce and Mr Heap to address the Committee on the state of traffic in Newmarket Road. Mrs Pryce highlighted the problems in this location which had prompted the presentation of a petition by residents affected to the Leader of North Herts District Council. She stated that:
 Traffic had increased along the Newmarket Road, most noticeably commercial traffic;
 Traffic speed had also increased and the 30mph speed limit signs which had been erected on Newmarket Road were being ignored by many drivers;
 There was no 30mph speed limit sign on the A10 end of Newmarket Road;
 More than 40 flats were likely to be erected in the area, which would mean additional vehicles on the roads in the area, to add to the current traffic difficulties.

Mr Heap added that the lorries and coaches using Newmarket Road added to the noise and fumes plaguing the residents living in the area, and asked whether Herts County Council could investigate the use of restriction barriers, a quieter road surface or even a bypass in this location. He added that many people living nearby had grave concerns about the speed of vehicles in this area and feared for the safety of local children. This road was used by motorists as a ‘cut-though’ between the A10 and the A505.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Pryce and Mr Heap for addressing the Committee on this important subject and assured them that the Committee would do all they could to help. She revealed that details of this problem had already been forwarded to the relevant officers at Herts Highways and that it would be brought up as an Agenda item later in this Committee Meeting.

The Committee discussed the problems outlined, stating that the idea of a bypass for the area had already been mooted at Herts Highways, but was unlikely to become a reality for some time. It was in the Royston Urban Transport Plan and a bypass was planned for the east of Royston. The speed limit had already been altered in an attempt to ensure that most of Newmarket Road was limited to 30mph, but this had not worked as drivers just ignored the speed limit.

The Chairman invited the Town Manager to address the Committee on this subject, and he voiced his concerns that a bypass could adversely affect Town Centre trade.

Royston Leisure Centre Management Contract
Mr John Stone, Marketing Director of Stevenage Leisure Limited (SLL) introduced his Contracts Manager, Lee Medlock and then gave an overview of the company, the partners with whom they worked and brief details of their centres in North Hertfordshire.

He explained that SLL was a local company, whose Head Office was in the Stevenage Arts and Leisure Centre. It was founded in 1998 and had developed and expanded from the original four leisure centres to 17 across 8 towns at the current time.

Mr Stone assured the Committee that SLL had worked with DC Leisure to ensure that the transfer of the contract from DCL to SLL had gone smoothly, with no disruption to staff and customers. He assured Members that SLL would be focused on adding value to Royston Leisure Centre.

The Committee were informed that SLL had recorded:
 2.5 million customer visits each year
 18,000 people were in the Aqua Ed Swim School
 Various facilities numbered a total of 22,000 members
 More than 7,000 fitness members were on direct debit and annual memberships.

SLL operated in Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Rutland, and ran:
 Stevenage Arts and Leisure Centre
 Fairlands Valley Park and Sailing Centre
 John Henry Newman Leisure Centre
 Shephall Leisure Centre
 Stevenage Golf and Conference Centre
 Stevenage Swimming Centre
 Biggleswade Recreation Centre
 Flitwick Leisure Centre
 Sandy Sports Centre
 Saxon Pool and Leisure Centre
 North Herts Leisure Centre
 Fearnhill Sports Centre
 Letchworth Outdoor Pool
 Hitchin Swimming Centre and Archers Health and Fitness
 Royston Leisure Centre
 Knights Templar Sports Centre
 Vale of Catmose College.

These were managed in partnership with
 Stevenage Borough Council
 North Hertfordshire District Council
 Hertfordshire County Council
 Central Bedfordshire Council and Rutland County Council

and SLL also worked in partnership in North Hertfordshire with
 Letchworth Area Committee
 East and North Herts Primary Care Trust
 North Herts District Council Sports Development Team
 Amateur Swimming Association and
 Young in Herts.

Mr Stone elaborated on the facilities provided by SLL at the North Herts Leisure Centre, Letchworth Outdoor Pool and Fearnhill Sports Centre which included swimming courses for the general public and lessons for disadvantaged children and again assured the Committee that SLL would add value to any organisation or facility with whom they worked in partnership.

On being invited to comment by the Chairman, the NHDC Contracts and Project Manager who was present at the Committee Meeting to offer support and clarification, informed Members that the main aim of Stevenage Leisure Limited was to give Members an overview of the Royston Leisure Centre handover from DC Leisure on 1 April 2010. He professed himself willing to pass on to SLL any queries Members may have, if they would contact him.

In response to a Member’s question, Mr Stone assured the Committee that they had no intention of making any staff redundant due to the handover, and this would be reviewed regularly.

The Chairman thanked the Marketing Director and Contracts Manager of SLL for the clear presentation, and the NHDC Contracts and Project Manager for his assistance.

Cameras for Automatic Number Plate Recognition
At the Chairman’s invitation, Sgt Jon Vine informed the Committee that CCTV and ANPR recorded all cars 24 hours per day.

He then introduced Inspector Andy Piper of the Herts Constabulary, who ran the ANPR unit at Police Headquarters. Inspector Piper informed Members that the Chief Constable for Hertfordshire was the national lead for ANPR. He declared that:
 ANPR cameras were not there to target innocent motorists, but were for the prevention and detection of crime, public disorder, terrorism and to remove from public roads both unsafe vehicles and unsafe drivers. The camera system was intended to be one of the tools making Hertfordshire safer and Inspector Piper explained how it interacted with databases of ‘hot lists’, the enquiry being sent to the ANPR database and the information passed back to the officers on the road who could then stop the suspect vehicle if appropriate. Data was kept on the system for two years.
 The cameras were needed for Royston as it was in a location of importance on the borders of Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, with people from those counties and from Bedfordshire also travelling through the area.
 The cameras were cutting edge technology and cost £7,000 each, with the cheapest column costing £7,500. The Committee were urged to check the website for Hertfordshire Constabulary, as the ANPR system was explained there in detail.

Sgt Vine explained how the cameras were linked with police officers on the road and also back at base and acted as an extra ‘set of eyes’ 24 hours a day. It was a very good system, with a minimum 95% success rate and was linked with other counties as well as local operations. It was an investigative tool of great benefit to Hertfordshire Constabulary. He gave a list of camera sites, assuring Members that the aim was ‘no vehicle could enter or leave Royston without being recorded by a camera’. Sgt Vine assured the Committee that the message being passed on through the media was that the ANPR cameras were in situ to target criminals, ensuring that Royston was in safe hands.

The Committee enquired whether there was a large backroom staff to handle the cameras and database, and were told that the intelligence system for this was tasked out. Inspector Piper responded to Members’ questions, stating that the cameras were fixed, but could read in two directions; they were not subject to vandalism, as they were mounted on 5m high columns.

The Chairman then asked the presenters whether the alcohol-free zone could be extended to cover Newmarket Road, the Newmarket Road playing fields and the surrounding area and was informed that this would be investigated and a report brought back to the Committee. The alcohol-free zones had recently been revised and appeared to be working well, with the numbers of children consuming alcohol in local parks having dropped from 1500 to 15.

Sgt Vine and Inspector Piper were thanked for their comprehensive presentation, and stated that the Committee had discussed funding an ANPR camera and would confirm this funding in due course.
The Community Development Officer (CDO) presented the report of the Head of Policy, Partnerships and Community Development. This subject had already been raised and discussed under Public Participation, when Mrs J Pryce and Mr J Heap had addressed the Committee earlier in the proceedings (Minute 100.1 refers).

It was emphasised that the main issues were:
1. Noise levels along Newmarket Road and the impact of the proposed residential development on traffic levels and increased noise levels;
2. Breaches of the weight limit;
3. Breaches of the speed limit;
4. Request for a bypass to the east of Royston.

The Committee discussed where the responsibility for these issues lay, and commented that: the Royston and District Committee would send a letter to Herts Highways requesting a bypass in this location; endorsement by the Royston Committee was a critical reminder to the NHDC Environmental Health Department and Hertfordshire Constabulary to deal with the issues; the bypass issue had to be discussed elsewhere - such as Herts Highways and the Highways Agency; this was complementary to the Royston Urban Transport Plan; and a bypass had been requested some time ago. Herts County Council continued to lobby for funding, which had been cut instead of being increased, despite increased usage of Newmarket Road. Members considered that in the current economic climate there were likely to be stringent cuts in Government funding for highways.

The Royston Town Manager, on being asked to give his comments by the Chairman, repeated that from a trading point of view there were serious implications for town centres which were bypassed.

The Chairman stressed that this matter would be put before the North Herts Highways Partnership-Joint Member Panel at the next Meeting, to be held on 19 April 2010 and also a letter would go directly to Herts Highways to try and get the problems solved.

1) That the Committee endorses the actions taken by the Community Development Officer to promote greater community capacity and well-being and to ensure all relevant authorities are informed;

2) That Item 1 above fell within the responsibility of North Herts District Council Environmental Health: a copy of the letter had been sent to the Head of Service for consideration;

3) That Items 2 and 3 were the responsibility of Hertfordshire Constabulary and a letter had been written requesting measurement of speed levels along Newmarket Road, together with their observations on reported breaches of the weight limit;

4) That Item 4 lay within the remit of the consultants responsible for the preparation of the Royston Urban Transport Plan and although the document arrived outside the consultation period, a copy had been provided to the consultants for their consideration and response;

5) That additional signage to reinforce the 30mph speed limit together with different road surfaces to reduce road noise be investigated and presented to the Committee with the associated costs.

1) That the North East Herts Service Manager be requested to investigate the need for, and a cost estimate for, the provision of additional signage to reinforce the 30mph speed limit in Newmarket Road, Royston;

2) That different road surfaces and their costs be investigated in order to reduce road noise.

To ensure the health and safety of drivers, pedestrians and residents in the area of Newmarket Road, Royston.
The Community Development Officer addressed the Committee and reported that he had consulted the NHDC Animal Warden on this subject. He was informed that the Animal Warden had noted 16 incidents of dog fouling in Royston over the past two weeks and that direct evidence was required for the Animal Warden to act, but this seemed impossible given the unwillingness of neighbours to give evidence against the perpetrators. The problem was widespread in Royston and appeared to be getting worse.

The Chairman commented that she had received comments from residents regarding York Way Park on the extent of dog fouling left there by irresponsible dog owners.

She had been made aware of a responsible dog scheme in Falkirk, Scotland, whereby responsible owners wore an armband and cleared up after their pet. Those walking dogs without armbands were likely to be the irresponsible dog owners. This scheme was deemed to be a great success.

The Committee discussed this anti-social problem, and points raised covered taking covert action against those responsible for allowing their animals to foul the footpaths, green spaces and roads; the £1,000 fine must be more widely publicised and enforced; owners must be educated into ensuring that they clean up after their animal; signs must be clean, in the appropriate location and widely visible; there must be an adequate number of dog bins - which are paid for in the towns, but not in villages. The Committee learned that the Animal Warden replaces the signs and cleans them.

A Member stated that there is a hard core of people in Royston who do not clean up after their dogs and for maximum result they require education or prosecution. The residents of Royston and the villages were urged to report the culprits.

1) That the Responsible Dog Ownership Scheme in Falkirk, Scotland be investigated;

2) That any irresponsible dog owner is tackled with either a fine or prosecution;

3) That regular inspections of parks, verges, green spaces, roads and footpaths are carried out by the Animal Warden and that any dog fouling is cleared up regularly.
The Royston and District Committee discussed these issues, with some input from the Transport Policy Officer (TPO), who stated that the common theme through all the highways issues was parking. The Parking Strategy had been adopted by Cabinet and there were no budget considerations.

Points agreed in the discussion were that:
 King James Way and Garden Walk required additional parking restrictions/double yellow lines further down the road as a safety issue and this would be referred to the North Herts Highways Partnership-Joint Member Panel on 19 April 2010, with funding assistance from the Royston and District Committee;
 Garden Walk also suffered from vehicles blocking residents’ driveways and parking on yellow lines and pavements, particularly on Saturday afternoons. In addition, the No Right Turn into Melbourn Road was being ignored. Action was being taken to improve the signage and cut back bushes, but illegal and inconsiderate parking made it difficult for traffic to progress. The Committee agreed that this too would be referred to the JMP;
 The Chairman revealed that Princes Mews required additional parking restrictions/yellow lines further down the road as a safety issue. The TPO advised that parking issues were potentially complicated and should be addressed via the Royston Parking Strategy;
 Members agreed that the provision of additional yellow lines in the Newmarket Road/Studlands Rise area should be investigated and costed, as this was causing problems for passing vehicles, in particular buses;
 It was agreed that measures were required to prohibit parking outside the fish and chip shop in Kneesworth Street, as the parked vehicles impeded traffic. The Chairman commented that the delays in trying to get past the parked cars detrimentally affected the bus timetables;
 The Kneesworth Street yellow line maintenance issue would be dealt with and bus operators were happy to reinstate the route as long as vehicles could get through. The TPO advised that only physical measures would prevent short stay parking, as signs/lines did rely on enforcement presence which could not be guaranteed. The bus had been rerouted through Tannery Drift due to this problem, and the bus had to pass a school here and mount a pavement to get through;
 A bus stop in Melbourn Road had been moved and objections had been received due to lack of privacy, as bus travellers and people waiting at the bus stop were able to look straight into residents’ houses. There were also incidents of antisocial behaviour in this location;
 Cars were parked on the footpath in Perry Drive during football matches. The TPO advised that if this is considered to be a safety issue, it should be referred to the North East Herts Service Manager, Gary Henning.

1) That additional parking restrictions are required and double yellow lines require extending in King James Way, Royston;

2) That the double yellow lines in Garden Walk require extending to ensure traffic and pedestrian safety;

3) That the problems of parking in Princes Mews and the application of parking restrictions in this location is investigated;

4) That the possibility of installing double yellow lines is investigated in Newmarket Road and Studlands Rise to alleviate the problem of traffic passing, particularly buses;

5) That the yellow lines in Kneesworth Street are repainted and extended to make enforcement possible and to enable the bus to obtain access, as it had been rerouted through Tannery Drift due to this problem, having to also mount the pavement past the school in Tannery Drift;

6) That the positioning of the bus shelter in Melbourn Road be investigated due to objections received from nearby residents regarding lack of privacy and anti-social behaviour.

1) That the requirement for additional parking restrictions and extensions to the current double yellow lines in King James Way, Royston be investigated and costed;
2) That an extension to the current double yellow lines in Garden Walk, Newmarket Road and Studlands Rise be investigated and costed to ensure traffic and pedestrian safety.

To discourage short-term dangerous parking and ensure the safety of pedestrians and motorists in Royston and the surrounding area.
The Community Development Officer (CDO) presented the report of the Head of Policy, Partnerships and Community Development. The items on Community Support, Members’ Surgeries, Local Dementia Respite Care Provision, Bus Services, Angel Pavement, Priory Memorial Gardens, Citizenship Classes and Fish Hill Square, Royston Enhancement Update required no updating. This last item had been provided as a short report by the Planning Projects Manager and would also feature in Minute 106. The CDO then took the Committee through the budget spreadsheets at Appendix A and enquired whether the Committee wished to redirect any of its capital funds to ANPR cameras.

Under Meetings Attended, the CDO informed the Committee that he had met with the Area Highways Manager and they had discussed the pavement at the junction of John Street and the High Street, where it was suggested slim bollards were installed. Precious Court and the pavement at Lower King Street were also discussed, as was the traffic flow in Melbourn Street, where it was proposed that bollards were installed in the vicinity of the bank and the traffic lights to prevent motorists parking there and hampering potential progress of the traffic.

The Committee were informed that a letter of thanks for awarding them a grant had been received from Royston Day Centre.

Members of Hertfordshire Constabulary had commented that grants awarded from the Royston and District Committee to youth projects and facilities were having a salutary effect on youth in the Royston area.

At the Chairman’s request, the Royston Town Manager addressed the Committee. He declared that one of Royston First’s key objectives was to tackle parking issues. However, parking charges amongst other issues appeared to be under review at the present time.

The Royston Town Manager (RTM) touched on the voucher scheme currently running in the local press, which allowed free parking after 3pm. Despite the Royston and District Committee having already negotiated funding for free parking after 3.30pm, in Royston First’s opinion free parking after 3pm would be better, as parents would then be able to shop in Royston Town Centre after picking up their children from school. He suggested a joint project, involving North Herts District Council, Royston Town Council and Royston First and would like a recommendation from Royston and District Committee to put this into operation to result from this Meeting.

The RTM suggested that Royston First would fund the advertising for this scheme. However, the support of the Royston and District Committee was vital to ensure that this objective was implemented as soon as possible.

The Chairman thanked the RTM for his comments, and outlined the background to the Committee having funded free parking after 3.30pm.

The Committee then discussed the matter and came to an agreement that despite the fact that free parking would be implemented from 3.30pm beginning on 1 April 2010, the change in hours to begin free parking at 3pm should be rolled out as soon as possible after that in the Civic Year 2010/2011. The hope was expressed that this would carry on into 2011/2012 and even longer, and it was moved that the Committee was in agreement with the RTM and Royston First.

The two Members also on Hertfordshire County Council pledged £1,500 from their budgets and stated they would like to see whether this change in free parking hours would be of benefit to Royston Town Centre and its retail trade.

The Transport Policy Officer was requested to give his opinion on time frames for implementing the changed hours, and stated that estimating the cost was difficult, as it depended on car park activity rather than tickets purchased. Survey work was due to be carried out in the very near future in the area of Fish Hill Square but as notice was required for 21 days, this was too tight a timeframe for the revised time to be implemented from 1 April. The TPO suggested that the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport be consulted ahead of any variation notice, for which a cost would be involved. He stated that scratch cards could be used for subsidised parking and that it would be helpful to be able to take away the resolution wording, enabling him to implement this without delay. This was clarified as follows:

 Free parking after 3.30pm would commence on 1 April 2010;
 Free parking after 3pm (with related publicity) would commence as soon after that date as it could be implemented.

It was stressed that the signage should make the change very clear to the general public.

The Committee agreed in principle that capital funds were to be allocated to ANPR cameras, to Angel Pavement refurbishment, to Royston Town Council towards safety and disability improvement for Royston Museum and Royston Town Hall and the balance of funds were to go towards leisure facilities in Royston, e.g. skateboarding.

The Committee resolved in principle to allocate Visioning money to:
 Two additional ANPR Police cameras - up to £15,000;
 Improvements to Angel Pavement - up to £25,000;
 Royston Town Council towards safety and disability improvement for Royston Museum and Royston Town Hall - minimum £10,000;
 Any balance would be put towards leisure/community equipment, eg improvements to the skateboarding park.

The CDO then went through the grant applications, including an additional late grant application for Royston District Scouts. These were as follows:

a) £76 was requested by Royston Town Council for a one-day Easter drop-in art workshop in Market Hill Rooms on 8 April 2010. The Police had stated that they had evidence that events arranged for young people in Royston had a beneficial impact on behaviour, and the Committee considered this grant application and agreed it;

b) Councillor Liz Beardwell declared a personal interest due to a family involvement with the Royston Kite Festival, in the grant application from the Rotary Club of Royston which requested funding towards the Royston Kite Festival in August 2010. The sum of £750 was proposed, and the Committee discussed this event which, it was agreed, was a brilliant boost for the local community. The Committee supported the grant in principle and were not unsympathetic, but as the criteria for granting financial resources states that money cannot be paid directly to a charity, they agreed to underwrite the event rather than support it with direct financial assistance;

c) The Chairman had proposed that the Royston and District Committee commit up to £1,500 towards subsidising free parking in Royston Town Centre car parks after 3.30pm, with the same amount being contributed by the locality budgets from each of the two Hertfordshire County Councillors on the Committee, totalling up to £4,500. The Committee decided to a trial period of two years with the process being monitored and the grant application was agreed;

d) The grant application requesting financial assistance to celebrate the centenary of Scouting in Royston had been a late submission, and the sum requested was £1,000 to fund coach hire to take up to 170 scouts to Tolmers Scout Camp Activity Centre in Cuffley, Herts. The Committee considered and then granted this application.

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.

1) That the Committee noted the reports under Paragraph 3 of Champion News;

2) That the Committee considered and awarded the grant application from Royston Town Council towards an Easter Drop-In Art Session;

3) That the Committee considered the grant application from the Royston Kite Festival, and decided to underwrite the event rather than award financial support;

4) That the Committee considered and agreed the proposal from the Chairman to subsidise free parking in NHDC-controlled car parks in Royston after 3.30pm with the help of funds from the Royston and District Committee and from two Herts County Council locality budgets;

5) That the Royston and District Committee wholeheartedly supports Royston First’s proposal to roll back free parking from 3pm for a period of two years;

6) That the Committee seeks the rapid implementation of the free parking through consultation with the Royston and District Committee Chairman, authorised by the Committee, the Portfolio Holder for Finance, the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport and the Royston Town Manager;

7) That Royston District Scouts be awarded £1,000 towards funding an event to celebrate the Centenary of Scouting;

8) That the Committee endorsed the actions taken by the community Development Officer to promote greater community capacity and well-being and thanks him for all his hard work for the residents of Royston and the surrounding villages.

To ensure that the Committee are kept informed of the work of the Community Development Officer.
The Transport Policy Officer (TPO) reminded the Royston and District Committee of the Royston Draft Urban Plan (RDUTP) and asked that they endorsed it so that it could be progressed swiftly. He stated that there were otherwise no updates to be given.

The Committee declared that some points of the RDUTP could be put in place quickly and agreed that some items needed to be emphasised.

The TPO stated that it was important that the RDUTP was up to speed with the latest comments made.

It was decided that the RDUTP should include items brought forward from Minute 103 (Highways Issues) and Minute 101 (Newmarket Road). Also included should be any items forwarded to the TPO by Friday 19 March 2010; those items previously proposed by the Royston and District Committee or individual Members; and those items referred from the Members’ Steering Workshops or Meetings.

Subject to the above criteria being effected, the Committee agreed to endorse the Royston Draft Urban Transport Plan.

The Chairman thanked the Transport Policy Officer for all his hard work and for bringing the Royston Draft Urban Transport Plan to the Committee.

1) That the Transport Policy Officer be thanked for all his hard work and for bringing the Royston Draft Urban Transport Plan to the Royston and District Committee;

2) That the Royston Draft Urban Transport Plan be endorsed by the Royston and District Committee.

To provide the Royston and District Committee with the opportunity to comment on the emerging Royston Draft Urban Transport Plan.
The Projects Manager, Planning Services had submitted an update for the Royston and District Committee and this was read out by the Community Development Officer. This covered:
 redevelopment of the Civic Centre site;
 the Royston Cross;
 the Warren car park;
 Fish Hill Square enhancement scheme - this same update had been provided in the Champion News report and informed the Royston and District Committee that the next stage in the process, after invitations to tender, was the selection and appointment in May 2010 of consultants to design and supervise the scheme.

RESOLVED: That the Royston and District Committee note the update on the Royston Town Centre Strategy.
Royston First and Chamber of Commerce
The Chairman reported that she had attended meetings of the Royston and District Chamber of Commerce and Royston First and had found the meetings very positive. Both organisations were working hard to promote Royston and the businesses within the Town. She thanked the Royston Town Manager for all his hard work for the residents and the businesses of Royston.

50+ Launch
The Chairman had attended the 50+ Launch in Letchworth and had found this to be a very positive event. It was hoped to roll out a launch to other areas in North Hertfordshire, including Royston.

Councillor Marshall had visited the school for disabled children in Stevenage and had been very impressed with what he had seen.

He had also attended an interesting conference in London on Carbon Emissions.

As this was the last Committee Meeting in the current Civic Year, the Chairman thanked all Members of the Royston and District Committee and officers for their support and assistance throughout the year. She also thanked them for their hard work for Royston. She thanked the members of the Press for reporting on the Committee Meetings and members of the public and Royston Town Councillors for attending the Meetings.
Published on Thursday, 15th April, 2010