Lockwood Street Planning Application

Notes from Public Meeting on Lockwood St Health Centre & Residential Housing Application – Masonic Hall – Thursday 27^th July 2006-07-27

Present: Dr David Wigglesworth, (DW) Andrew Yates (AY), Architect, Charles Booth (CB), Neja Estates, Mike Jones, MJ Design, Cllr Symon Fraser, ERYC. Chairman

Cllr Fraser (SF) opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and saying that it was the developers’ idea to call the meeting, which was positive and gave the residents the ideal opportunity to comment on these outline planning proposals. The developers would doubtless go away from the meeting having taken on board the comments made by residents and that would help guide them when they came to put in a full application. He was anxious that everybody should have a chance to ask questions but that it was an informal meeting.

Dr Wigglesworth started by saying: “The Doctors know there are comments on the application – they take note of residents’ concerns but see this as an opportunity to develop a wasteland which has been derelict for 30 years. Five years ago we needed new premises. We outgrew ours some time ago and could not provide some services because of the constraints of space. We have expanded as far as we can but we now have issues over access and parking on our present site. Now as well as expanding clinical services we wish to integrate with other services such as contracts with social care, nursing services etc. With larger premises we would also become a training practice, and would take on additional medical staff for ongoing training. With the new Hull & York Medical Centre now putting medical students into the community for training we have identified this as something we would want to do. We believe that such a teaching facility within our premises would be good for the Driffield area and would mean staff would not have to travel so far to access training.

Together with Neja Estates we have applied for outline planning permission to establish a health centre and residential accommodation on this site. We realised there would be concerns about traffic and we have been in dialogue with highways and have been through the process of a strategic review. Issues have been worked through with various departments of the Council. Most of the issues have been resolved but we are awaiting some responses from the Council. Charles Booth will inform you there are issues about the planning guidance which is currently not fully worked through as far as the local authority is concerned. We would like to ensure that we work with yourselves as local residents over concerns with traffic. We see this as an opportunity for us to work towards a solution which is going to be sustainable.

There is an access road behind the first five houses we would want to ensure that we screen it properly with a wall if that is what is wanted and appropriate landscaping. Currently we have 23 parking spaces but the new site would have 70. We applied for more but this was the level set by the local authority. An important point is that we are near to bus and rail links and within walking distance of the centre of town.”

Charles Booth then spoke: “We are the developer, i.e. the applicant for planning purposes. Part of the site is owned by the company I jointly own and the other part by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC). Pre application meetings directed us towards the whole site, i.e. surgery and residential. Advice from Highways was that the entrance from Lockwood Street is acceptable and on that premise we have drawn up these plans.

I agree you have a pre-existing problem, certainly during the daytime and we can work together and achieve a better solution for Lockwood Street than you have at the moment. Seventy percent of letters highlighted the traffic problem. This is solvable. We can make the effort to improve it for everybody’s benefit. Other letters said that people within the site would be parking in Lockwood Street. The application follows currently guidelines on density, parking provision etc. All this will be taken into account when we come to the detail. But all things are negotiable between ourselves and the architects for the surgery to take on board objections by the residents. We have not had a chance yet to talk to the planning officers, in my opinion we are here too early but I am quite happy to discuss anything you can throw at me.

Andrew Yates Architect for the Health Centre

It is completely reasonable for you to object – I would if I were sitting where you are. But we are not the baddies – we want to do the right thing for Driffield. The site was designed for a school and if it were an application for that you would not be here now. But empty Greenfield land would not remain empty much longer. It’s never going to stay an empty site. We have tried the lowest impact possible within the guidelines. We want to make it a priority that traffic access the site from Middle Street rather than using the long length of Lockwood street and there are a number of traffic management measurers we may be able to use such as: residents’ parking on Lockwood Street; traffic calming to reduce the prospect of it being used as a rat run; there could even be the option of bollarding off the street to stop it being used from both ends etc. etc. These are options which we have yet to explore with Highways. I am happy to hear your own fears and appease your concerns. We could make it a win-win situation.

SF reiterated the purpose of the meeting was to get any snags into the open.

Jenny Holtby (JH) Lockwood Street resident

Understand need for health centre but entry in land registry says only a school, nothing else.

SF – Legal issue, land owners need to sort this with the Land Registry. If covenant is to be lifted then it goes through the correct legal process. Not a planning issue.

JH – I understand that, I am a solicitor. All that costs money – do you think it has a chance of being lifted?

SF – I understand there is an agreement by the owner that the ERYC will be able to lift the covenant but this is outside of tonight’s debate

JH – The beneficiary of the land has told me tonight that no such agreement exists. I am raising the issue to make everyone aware. Many who bought since 1985 discovered the covenant when they did searches and that is what made them decide to live here.

SF – I am not saying it doesn’t matter but it doesn’t get in the way of a planning application. If it fails then it is their risk and their money.

Richard Pallett (RP) (& Tony Pallett (TP)) Lockwood St resident

We had heard rumours that building the medical centre was a smokescreen, they would build a shabby building so it would eventually be able to be built on to get round the Greenfield site issue The PCT has funding problems. Traffic is also an issue but so is a 3 storey apartment block in my back garden. You should ask how many are objecting in total, how many have provisos. I’m objecting full stop. It’s possibly ok for the medical centre but not housing. Highways should insist on one way in one way out. Traffic is critical in this. What happens when we get the development in the cattle market?

SF – This is a really good strong message with serious concerns. A traffic plan needs to be drawn up as part of the proposal. Most objections are about traffic. As to the rumours, if we were dealing with far off developers as we did recently I would be far more suspicious, but I welcome the fact that here we have a local developer who will continue to develop in the town in future.

RP – Has the money been raised?

SF – Not the issue.

AY – I am an award winning architect! Bridge St surgery runs at 40% of the floor area to deliver service to 15000 patients in Driffield. Untenable. Practice can’t continue without a new centre - not out of town, within walking distance, as convenient as possible for as many as possible.

Martin Farran – Lockwood street resident

I feel I must declare interest, previously worked with the PCT. Lived here for 10 years. Issue from my perspective is that while I fully support the Health Centre you can’t get parked anywhere on Lockwood Street after 6pm on a Monday night because of the Masonic Hall. Parking most times is a problem.

AY – Parking on site has 72 spaces.

Carol Waton (CW) – Lockwood Street resident

We welcome this meeting, we want to try and nip this in the bud. I have an issue with the plan. Why is the size of the brownfield site shown differently from the one with the Land Registry?

SF – As some of the site is Greenfield the plans will have to go to the Government Office in Leeds. They will decide if the Greenfield can be built on.

DW – the ERYC did want to see an overall development rather than piecemeal. If we left a amount of Greenfield site that may be part of the equation.

CB – the site is indeed two parts – Greenfield and Brownfield. It is how it is designated not how it looks. The Brownfield already has planning permission on it behind 13 Middle Street South and The Forge and it extends around the entrance to Lockwood Street. This constitutes the basis for development. Densities and type of housing is required by local and central government. I haven’t yet had a chance to speak to planning officers.

Paul McConnor (PMcC) – Lockwood Street resident

Parking – are you short on parking? Why not take the access off Middle St South?

AY – Not structurally possible because of the access to The Forge. When the site was originally set out it was fully adoptable and compliant on the assumption that the access shown would be used. We have had three meetings and the Strategic review. Highways approve in principle the present access plus use of double yellow lines.

DW – There are plenty of spaces for car parking on the site. There is a formula which said 70-75 should be enough.

AY – First submission had 84 parking spaces. We have increased the greenspace to give more landscaping and reduce parking spaces on the advice of the local authority.

SF – It was perfectly valid to make the point.

Mary Mathers– Lockwood Street resident

Most days I cannot access-egress my driveway because of people parking and the through traffic, not to mention Roger Bentley’s staff! If you had double yellow lines nobody would take any notice. Apart from the medical centre we have the residential side. Most families have two or three cars now. The new Health Centre in Beverley has 11500 patients and 60,000 patient visits per year. Our centre has 15000, that’s a lot of patients visits. The only way to make the road wider is to knock the houses down. On market days, Thursday, when market Street is blocked off the traffic becomes a nightmare.

Sue Withyman – Redwood Gardens resident

I am speaking on behalf of the residents of Redwood Gardens. Tonight I went outside and tried to imagine the noise if this is built. I have spoken to my neighbours, we don’t object to the Health Centre - fifteen years ago we thought we would have a school, but we are sill concerned about the housing. Things don’t always happen as the plans are. I too have worries about the PCT, all of Driffield is concerned – I am with the League of Friends at Alfred Bean is this just a way for the PCT to get out of debt?

DW – The surgery will not be in the hands of the PCT, the Doctors are funding it.

CB – We already have permission for 8 houses.

Brian Waton – Lockwood Street resident

What about the houses in the Greenfield site?

SF – Government office will decide

Paul Rowe – Middle St South resident

Two thirds of this development is for housing! The application put in is for a new Health centre, rather misleading.

CB –The application is for a new Health Centre and (reading from the document) “new dwellings”.

Tony Pallett – Elm Road resident

My concerns are the Access and that no discussions have been had with Highways. Brid Hospital recently had a fire and two fire engines plus ambulances tried to get through the car park. How will emergency vehicles access the new dwellings or even Lockwood Street? There is access adjacent to The Forge – there should be two entrances.

CB – Planners specifically do not want two entrances – to stop rat runs.

(Unknown) – the existing permission for 8 houses allows them access to Middle St South and that runs until August 2007. Can we not divide up the land? Why not just alter the plans so we could have separate access for the housing and for the medical centre?

RP – Are there any guidelines for playing spaces and gardens? There is little provision at this end of town other than gardens for children to play in. My children use the empty field as do many others, it’s going to be hard if it gets built on, I don’t want an apartment block in my back garden spoiling my privacy.

CB – This is a valid point but don’t forget this is an outline plan. All the things you are saying the planners will look at. The flats were not our idea – the planners said we needed an iconic building.

SF – Don’t forget there could have been a school there, except that we now have falling rolls in our schools – so it is unlikely that a school will ever be built – but there is always the possibility of a pupil referral unit or suchlike!

Libby Grant – Lockwood Street resident.

Not all our schools have falling rolls – Kings Mill School is full.

SF – There is some talk of possibly relocating this to the Driffield School site which would be better for the school and for their local residents.

Sandy Watson – Lockwood Street resident.

I am not too unhappy about the Health Centre, it is the housing and the problems with overlooking. If houses are built will they be of good quality and appropriate to their surroundings (sympathetic)? We are in a Conservation Area

CB – All my houses are of good quality. The type will depend on the direction in which we are pushed with the density and affordable housing. The Conservation Officer will vet whatever goes up there. There are currently two other developments under construction in the area.

SF – We East Riding Councillors have recently had an experience with deeply wrong housing for sites in Greenways and Newland Avenue. Along with residents we ensured that the Planning Committee understood the strength of feeling against the proposals and I am sure that if an inappropriate development was put forward then the Committee would turn it down.

John Wordsworth – Lockwood Street resident.

One issue that has not yet been raised – the housing dominates the plans. I would suggest that a public building such as a Health Centre should be more visible as you turn into the site. It should be visible and identifiable but it is squeezed in by the necessity of the housing. Also there is no landscaping shown along the back of the houses due to the constraints. Is this the best site for such an important public building?

DW – It has been very difficult even to get this site. We have spent the last four to five years looking…..

Mike Clubley – St John’s Road resident and ERYC Councillor for Market Weighton. Also Portfolio Holder for the Council’s Corporate Business Support Services

I have lived at the end of Lockwood St for 35 years. Lockwood St has changed. At 8.10 in the morning there is not much traffic, but by 8.30 all those who work in the town put their cars on it! The development of this site is quite encouraging and I can feel generally there is empathy towards the practice going through. I understand people’s problems with traffic, and the people who buy Charlie Booth’s houses will have two cars. I am surprised that the planners do not want two accesses. But the site was acquired for a school and the access was considered big enough for buses to go through. However, the Council has a duty to sell the land for the best price we can get. It has been very frustrating for the Doctors, it is the last site available. It is in the ownership of the ERYC and we have to get Best Value for it – we are constantly audited and cannot sell it for less than the market value. Therefore the Doctors have to pay the full price, and that would not be practical for them without the housing. This is a compromise but I feel it has been a very positive meeting. (In answer to a question – has there been a valuation?) About six.

Jenny Curson – St John’s Road resident

I feel there is reasonable parking but is there any scope for the surgery to expand if necessary in the future? I worry that it may become housing.

AY – We have designed it for its current needs and projected needs. With the two-acre site we have scope for expansion. If planning permission is granted for it to be a Health Centre, then that’s what it will be – there is no way it could become housing instead.

Roger Bentley (RB) – trader on Lockwood Street

Lockwood Street is always snarled up. One of the main reasons is that cars park both sides and it’s a job going down the centre. At least Bridge Street is wider. If the Masonic Hall has a do on then it is total gridlock. If you put down yellow lines by the access then I will have no business I cannot operate from my site. Customers of the hairdressers and the dentists all park on Lockwood Street and what about Wilkinsons? They wanted 16 spaces for staff parking but were told that 2 should be enough. Where are the health centre staff going to park?

DW – We currently have 23 spaces, that’s all. None of our staff park on the street.

RB – the only way round it is to have the access off Middle Street.

PmcC – What about access only at Lockwood St for pedestrians and cyclists and make cars use Middle St South?

AY – As we said before, Nick Robinson from ERYC Highways and Muriel Oates have had extensive talks with us and have no problem with the current access.

John Atkinson – St John’s Road resident

I travel down Lockwood Street every day and I’ve seen an increase in traffic – it is a major problem. I would say go with the access off the main street. But what about the 71 car parking spaces – will they be wide open at night? It would give back access to gardens and compromise our security.

AY – We will have security gates and also CCTV with a direct link to the police. The Doctors don’t want people wandering about at night either.

SF – Boundary treatments need to be handle very sensitively.

DW – I put the question back to local residents – " What, as residents, would you most like to see introduced to address the problems of parking and traffic in Lockwood Street? Various options were suggested, and you as residents have a great opportunity to shape the solutuion''

SF – Think about it, no need to answer just now.

Martin Hatfield – Lockwood St Resident

Why not restrict the use of the Masonic Hall?

SF – The East Riding Council cannot put retrospective conditions on a building that was probably here before planning consent procedures were even in existence!

AY – There is a possibility of using an existing side drive at the Hall to link into part of the surgery car park for use by those visiting after hours.

Nigel Coultas – Middle St South resident

What about access to the back of existing properties?

AY – We have made the offer of dropped kerbs so the first five houses on Lockwood St would have vehicular access

RP – I represent those five owners.

CW – Speaking for White (House) Mews owners – you should go round there and see for yourselves how their privacy would be restricted.

Ann Dunnington – Lockwood Street resident

I have lived here for 40 years and welcome the surgery. I think we should give the planners and chance and then come back again.

DW – We need to know what options there are.

AY – We don’t want to be bad neighbours. Possibilities we have thought of, but have not yet discussed with the Planners are:

Sharon Wordsworth – Lockwood St Resident

Residents parking would be good….

SF – Traffic management must be raised as a whole.

BW – Have the Doctors considered using more than one site?

DW – It is not practical, there is no other site.

Questions as to the timescale were met with the answer that all updated information would be poste