There have been many letters in your paper about the topic of the various supermarket plans for Driffield.

As the elected Driffield ERYC councillors we have deliberately spent our time listening to the many and varied views of Driffield people so that we were best able to represent these views at the planning meeting. The following letter condenses what we said at the planning meeting on behalf of Driffield. I apologise in advance for the length of the letter, but there were many issues to cover in our presentation to the committee members.

Driffield councillors support in principle the plans for new supermarkets for Driffield.

It is unusual, if not unique, to have five supermarket applications being presented for decision at the same time. However, we need to bear in mind that these are five applications for three sites, they do not increase the number of supermarkets. Indeed, the proposals include for the demolition of three existing Driffield supermarkets.

Further, each application has to be decided on its own individual planning merits.

The uncertainty over the cattle mkarket site has ground on for years. Prior to 2001, the largest part of this site was in twice weekly use as a cattle market. Each Monday and Thursday, tractors, trucks and Land Rovers with trailers filled with sheep, pigs and cattle would arrive from 6am onwards with queueing vehicles at times reaching well down Providence Place and Beckside and also from Eastgate, towards Nayfield Close and Harper Street waiting to unload their animals for the auction market.

The following days echoed to the sound of the market staff clearing up the manure and pressure washing the pens.

The foot-and-mouth outbreak in 2001 brought an end to this traditional activity and an odd sense of silence descended on this site. Since then, the area has suffered from increasingly anti-social and unsavoury use and in our view, Driffield is united in its desire to see the site re-used to improve the town.

In broad terms, Driffield is a town that welcomes people who want to invest in its future. But it is a town that cares that this investment results in Driffield becoming a better place.

The first proposals considered by the committee were for a supermarket sandwiched between Middle Street and the beck and running along Queen Street.

• Our concerns centred on a number of issues:




• The gatekeeper effect brought about by this lay-out.




• The very poor linkages to the town centre from this lay-out.




• The inappropriate large non-food unit to the east of the Beck.




• The complete omission of any community facilities within these proposals.




• The importance of continued provision of car parking which is accessible to the town centre and available for daytime parking


• The suggested lay-out led to a much inferior car parking arrangement.


• A less attractive housing development and commercial service yard fronting on to Queen Street.

In our opinion, this brings an unacceptable loss of amenity for present and future residents of Queen Street.

The Galloway Lane access has been described as challenging but technically feasible. In our view, using the experience we have, it is completely unsuitable for large HGV access.

Moreover, the applicants highlighted at the recent pre-planning meeting the importance of this route as a pedestrian thoroughfare linking Middle Street and the Eastern part of the town including three schools.

We have serious concerns about the wisdom of mixing LGV vehicles and pedestrian traffic in this tightly constrained area.

Additionally, and very importantly, this scheme was exhibited at the November public meeting and the clear view of the attending public was that it was not the best offered option.

So, in conclusion, as ward members we ask that this application be refused on the grounds:

• That the proposals provide for no contribution to much needed community facilities for young people or for cultural benefit.




• That the proposals have an unnecessary and unacceptable negative impact on Queen Street limiting and constraining its residential amenity for the future.




• That the proposed lay-out constitutes an overdevelopment of the site creating a closed in and cluttered effect within the town centre.




• That the proposed access for Goods vehicles via Galloway Lane is unsatisfactory and poses unacceptable and unnecessary risks particularly to pedestrians.




• Loss of valuable car parking capacity.

In short, this does not make for a better Driffield. This is place shaping for the future constrained by policies of the past.

I am pleased to say that the committee fully supported our view and refused this application.

The next proposals considered were for a supermarket on the site of the old cattle market, a series of new shops leading from Middle Street to the supermarket, a town centre service facility and a 400-place town centre car park.

The details of this application had been displayed at two public exhibitions and thus have had the chance for some of the public concerns to be addressed by the applicants.

For example, in the original plans these was a very blank and quite high wall fronting on to Eastgate. This caused concern to residents living opposite. An amended plan was agreed, offering a much more acceptable outlook to residents. It is also interesting to note that at the time of the first exhibition of these proposals there were less supermarket proposals in the public conscience and the vast weight of opinion was actually very favourable.

Yes, there were still concerns mainly from local residents who are going to be directly affected by whatever development takes place on the site and there were some concerns raised by local traders.
But at that first exhibition there were very few people who were against the principle of these proposals. Many people had legitimate concerns and comments, but very few were against the principle.

Although this particular proposal falls outside the designated retail centre of the town, it is our view that it offers a much better end result for Driffield and for the future. The policy is well meaning in that it is designed to prevent the loss of retail focus within the town centre.

We need to understand that these proposals cross over the boundary of this designated area, this is not a site remote from the town centre. It is our view that subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State, these proposals represent a reasonable extension to this designation.

On the original submission of these proposals, the town council highlighted a number of concerns. Among these were the need for a fully impartial and independent survey and their major concern was that there had been insufficient consultation. As ward members, we shared some of the town council's concerns.

As ward members, we asked for the production of the independent report from England & Lyle and there followed the much extended consultation period and an additional public exhibition of the proposals.

This proposal brings forward a good car parking lay-out very close to and serving the centre of the town and a firm commitment to over 400 parking places and an open and well laid out scheme.

The residential development along the length of Queen Street preserves and enhances the future ambience and amenity of this area as an important town centre residential street.

Access for heavy vehicles follows the same route as was used in the past by the largest livestock truck including 32 tonne 40' multideck artics, although it brings challenges we know it worked.

Importantly, this proposal includes for community facilities occupying the first and second floors of a building central to the site. These are the only proposals currently being considered which identify and include for any community benefit for Driffield and we wholeheartedly welcome this commitment.

It is a great shame that the developer has not been able to name the proposed operator of this site. If we knew whose sign was to hang above the door, I am sure that many of the fears of local people could have been allayed. A quality mainstream operator offering real competition to Tesco could improve the whole retail offer of Driffield.

It is our view that whilst the retail impacts on the town centre and its traders are important, it is as important to make a step change to the overall shopping experience for Driffield residents and for those who live in the villages surrounding the town.

What is currently happening is that people who live in the villages and many from Driffield who have traditionally looked to the town as their natural service centre are making conscious choices to shop in other towns such as Beverley, Bridlington, Market Weighton and even Scarborough where supermarkets offer a wider range of competitive goods.
This is evidenced by the 40 per cent "leakage" figures highlighted by the England and Lyle study and represents a massive threat to the viability and vitality of Driffield.

The big issue here is that, of course, it's the people who have the means and the money who are able to make the choice to drive off to the bigger towns to shop. These are exactly the customers whom we should be seeking to serve in Driffield, retaining their wealth for the benefit of the town and all of its traders.

Our duty is to make sure that for the foreseeable future Driffield is the Capital of the Wolds, retaining and building on its status as the major service centre for the wider rural area which surrounds it. If we fail to do this, Driffield will lose out. The leakage of custom from Driffield will continue to grow doing further damage to the retail role of Driffield and eroding its place as a centre able to serve the wider rural community.

These proposals may represent a pragmatic and prudent opportunity to make a significant investment to the town centre of Driffield, enabling the town to expand its central retail area and supporting its role as a principal town. They could create a sound foundation for the future.
As ward members we asked the committee to approve this application in principle and that a number of clarifications and conditions should be considered to address continued concerns over issues such as road safety on Eastgate, the community facilities which were to be made available to Driffield, the culverting of the beck.

We also specifically wanted a number of additional commitments from the developer:

• A legal agreement to designate a parking area for the residents of the proposed Queen Street Houses




• An additional legal agreement requiring designated parking spaces in the landscape buffer strip to the west of Eastgate South for the use of Eastgate Residents.




• Provision for a significant area of long stay car parking for people who work in Driffield.




• That the developers are required to work in partnership with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council to address issues of anti-social behaviour and temporary car parking during the period leading up to and including construction and commissioning of the new facilities.




• A legal agreement from the developer to enable the handover to the town council of the community facilities.

Again, I am happy to report that the committee supported our view.
On the Tesco applications, we supported the proposals which created separate car access from George Street and truck access from Middle Street South. We also supported the creation of a new pedestrian access to Middle Street South.

This proposal also had the advantage of having its service yard sited to the rear of other commercial premises creating a significantly lower impact on nearby residential amenity.

We also asked for the addition of an extra condition:

That the developers are required to work in partnership with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council to address the issues of additional temporary car parking during the period leading up to and including construction and commissioning of the new facilities.

We requested this condition because we are very worried about the temporary loss of a significant amount of town centre parking during the construction period and the further leakage of trade from the town which this could result in.

The next application for consideration was the proposal to build a mixed residential and retail development to replace the old now unused supermarket on the Viking site on Middle Street North.

As your ERYC councillors, we had no objection to the scheme as submitted and would support approval on the grounds::
That there is an overall reduction in floor space for retail sales which creates no threat to the viability and vitality of the town centre.

That the application is further supported by the public and nearby residents.

And that it is recognised that the development will contribute significantly to the regeneration and tidying up of this site and Middle Street North in general.

Additionally, as ward members, we suggested the inclusion of conditions to provide for:

A legal agreement between the developer and the Cranwell Street Surgery, confirming their offer to provide dedicated car parking space for the surgery

A scheme of landscaping of the Beckside to be agreed with the council prior to commencement of any construction.

A legal agreement that 81 free public car parking spaces as indicated on the plan will be provided.

Again, I apologise for the length of this letter, but we were doing our best to represent the views of Driffield on a series of planning applications which are of unquestionable importance to Driffield for the future.