Fish Hill development receives support

THE proposed redevelopment of an area of Royston town centre received unanimous support from the Royston and District Committee at a meeting last week (Wednesday October 13).

The support comes despite some public opposition at the meeting, most notably from campaigner Terry Hutt, who presented committee chairman Fiona Hill with a list of names that were against the plans.

At the meeting at Coombes Community Centre, design proposals for the square were presented by contracted architects Building Design Partnership and included a patio area outside shops, several trees, benches, lighting and eight car parking spaces.

Councillors voted in favour of the scheme, and building could now start in May next year, with another meeting scheduled for December.

Cllr Hill said at the meeting: “I would like to welcome this project, and I think it will be positive for Royston.”

However, she did express concern over the effect on Church Lane, and said: “Church Lane is an important pedestrian link between Fish Hill and Melbourn Street.

“Should funding become available in the future the enhancement of Church Lane should be a priority.

Most Read

Cllr Robert Inwood confirmed his backing for the scheme by saying: “I am totally behind this project, and want to give it my full support.

“I think it will help Royston become a more vibrant town, and will add another reason for people to visit. It is a way of moving the town forward.”

Town Cllr F John Smith is another who has said he is in “strong favour” of the development, and said that he would like it to be named Jubilee Square in celebration of the Queen’s diamond jubilee in 2012.

Although support was undivided amongst councillors, Terry Hutt and several public members who attended the meeting voiced concern.

Mr Hutt said: “This is throwing money down the drain. It is outrageous, and a lot of people are against it, as I have proved in my petition. Also, looking at the developments, people could get easily knocked over by cars.”

Mr Hutt’s petition showed that 64 people were against the scheme, while 25 were for it.