Results of Consultation 21St Feb. – 3Rd Apr. 2008

Newington and St Andrew’s AAP Preferred Options – Results of consultation 21st Feb. – 3rd Apr. 2008

All representations received during Newington and St Andrew's Area Action Plan's Preferred Options formal consultation are available for inspection at the Planning Department, Planning Policy, Kingston House, Bond Street, Hull, HU1 3ER, during normal office hours. To make an appointment, please phone 01482 612391.

This table lists representations by areas, as referred in the Preferred Option document e.g. ’Area 4 – Hawthorn Avenue’. For ease of use, more specific streets which the representation relates to are also indicated.

Any note/clarification made by the Council is indicated in italic and in square brackets eg. [No area specified]. Please note that references to third parties have been removed in accordance with their rights under Data Protection Act (1998); some comments/language which may be deemed inappropriate have been omitted and replaced with: […]. An asterisk* in the ‘Comment’ column shows that this is the case. Large background documents which have been submitted do not appear in this table - this is indicated in bold when this is the case. However, they are available for inspection, along with all representations, at the Planning Department as described above.

Name Organisation Document Type of Area Street / Site Document Comment Response to comment comment reference

Miss Preferred Supporting [No area Medium [No specific comment provided]. Noted. Jacqueline Options specified] Option Hoe Plan Mr and Preferred Supporting [No area [No specific comment provided]. Noted. Mrs Wride options specified] A. Fenton Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Page 38- [No specific comment provided] Noted. Options Albert 7.2.5 Avenue Albert Preferred Objecting Area 1 – 6 Don’t build any houses. Most of the site is already allocated Hancock Options Albert for housing in the existing Local Avenue Plan. Barbara [Not Area 1 – [No specific comment provided] Noted. Curty stated] Albert Avenue

Carole Access Preferred Area 1 – Page 36 Demolition or redevelopment of terraces/courts supported as these have Noted. Sewell Improvemen Options Albert always caused difficulties for wheelchair and scooter users due to their t Group Avenue narrow access routes. Point on language usage, in Hull the court housing is commonly referred to as terraces and a distinction needs to be made between terraces and terraced housing which is not in the courtlayout.

Craig Preferred Supporting Area 1 – I believe the frontage improvements in the area will improve the look and Noted. Towse Options Albert feel in the local community. I do believe that the properties in this area Avenue are in need of a make-over and with that this will influence all residents to take better care of their properties. The presentation of these

Page 1 of 141

properties does drag down the general opinion of the area and I believe that the preferred option scheme will improve the opinion of Newington and St Andrew’s. This will give the residents not only something to be proud of but something to be thankful of the Council for restoring some faith that may have been lost by previous bad publicity and having a history of undesirable tenants as neighbours.

David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Page 30 – “Development in the northern area of NaSA may result in the The AAP proposes significant Bradley lity Albert Biodiversit loss/degradation of several SINC and/or LBAP habitats. Any loss of improvement to open space and Appraisal Avenue y wooded area and scrub should be replaced elsewhere in the area to biodiversity ensure there is no net loss of biodiversity within Hull”

The preferred options report recommends new housing builds on most of the remaining Greenfield land and scrubland but plays down the extent of this. As a consequence, the preferred options report has failed to replace the significant loss of Greenfield land and scrub.

Miss Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Frontage I think it would be a great idea to give all the houses around this area a Noted. Emma Options Albert Improvem facelift as it really improves the look of the area. I am behind the idea. Ransom Avenue ents

Mr and Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Page 36 Can you let us know when work will start? No objection Noted. Timescales are indicated in Mrs Option Albert Frontage the phasing plan, as part of the AAP. Hodgson Avenue Improvem ents Mr R. Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Page 36 No comment provided. Noted. Prew Options Albert Frontage Avenue Improvem ents W and A [Not Area 1 – [No specific comment provided] Noted. Page stated] Albert Avenue Keith Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Albert Area 1 – I am, in general very much in support of the Preferred Option given on The preferred option has been Philip Options Albert Avenue Albert page 38 - it strikes a good balance between what is feasible and pursued and the AAP reflects these Mawer Avenue Avenue – practical as opposed to what would be wanton and wholesale (and comments. Pages 35- probably far too costly!). 38 The Maximum Option given on page 36 outlines the clearance of a large number of streets ‘courts’ off De La Pole Avenue an Albert Avenue – while my personal property would remain intact it would include the demolition of my mother’s home in Astley Street where she has lived for over 67 years – at 88 years of age, she was dreading the prospect, moreover the house is structurally sound with recent re-roofing, modernisation etc. So I strongly support the finding that this proposal would NOT be generally acceptable to local people (page 37). So I DO fully endorse the proposed Frontage Improvement Scheme for the area – if it is in any way similar to those in St Georges Road, Sandringham Street etc. My only caveat being the evident reluctance / inability of some households to participate in the schemes – I would appreciate more information on their reasons, as the overall effect is less than ideal. I applaud the possibility of creating better access to West Park through the Council housing area. The mention, elsewhere in the proposals, of providing soft traffic engineering solutions would be vast improvement for this area – the Page 2 of 141

present traffic humps cause considerable pain to anyone (like me) with a back condition, and are not much better for my eco-friendly Smart Car – the ones down St Georges Road have now destroyed the last link to Hessle Road for shopping. Meanwhile, the use of Albert Avenue as a major route for large vehicles continue to shake my foundations more than the recent earthquake! Immediate consideration needs to be given to means of slowing the traffic at the Spring Bank end as it revs up to get through the traffic lights – speeds are regularly far in excess of 40mph in both directions. A simple flashing warning (as in villages) might ameliorate the situation.

Mr and Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Albert Timescale We live in the centre of Albert Avenue. We have observed closely the Noted. The Area Action Plan Mrs R. Options Albert Avenue Figure 8.5 vast improvement to Plane, Glencoe, Melrose and now St Georges proposes streetscape improvements Burnett Avenue Road. The results are fantastic. for Albert Avenue. We live in a large house, as our neighbours either side, and feel, this being the main thorough fare (with Walton Street) i.e. queues of traffic am and pm and a lot of people visiting from out of town, we often wonder what they think, sat in the traffic? Or more so, how would you view Albert Avenue like the other streets that have already benefited from the funding, Albert Avenue should have been first on the list as it is a main thoroughfare and our new stadium is only behind us. So which route do all these out of town visitors take I wonder? I have a copy of an old photograph of Albert avenue at the turn of the century 1900, Let’s put her back as she was in the picture. Please.

Mr P. Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Albert Page 36 I am in full support of the Council in their efforts to improve the area. Noted. Cockerill Options Albert Avenue 7.2.2 Albert Avenue has some well built old large family houses with big Avenue Maximum gardens. I hope the Council can bring forward any improvement scheme Option as soon as possible to stop any decline in the area that would happen if there is a long delay.

Mrs Mary Preferred Comment Area 1 – Albert Area 1 – New ways to reach the park/walking/the cut which is between land for Noted. Mawer Options Albert Avenue to Albert sale and Council houses to Lowther Street. Parsley Street towards Avenue west Park avenue Walton Street passing the school on the right, through bungalows to pages 36- entrance to park. 38 Sarah Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Alliance I am very pleased that the run down frontages of Alliance Ave and De La The parks will be improved and Fisher Options Albert and De la Pole are going to be improved. I would like to see more green down access will be a key part of this. Avenue Pole these streets if possible. I am also interested in the regeneration of the Avenues Riley College site and in the proposed green area. I would like to see a and Riley safe area for children to play ball games/ if dog walking is allowed bins College for dog waste, (that are emptied often) and a small play area for young site children with slides/ a mix of swings and perhaps other apparatus. Please can this be accessible to pushchairs- the closest play area at West Park is difficult to use if you have a younger child with you in a pushchair- as a result of this we walk to Pearson Park instead.

Rebecca Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Alliance We are fully supportive of the proposed regeneration of the house fronts Noted. Doab Options Albert Avenue to Alliance Avenue. The area desperately needs the improvement. Avenue M.C. Bisby Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Carew Fig 5.3 Demolition of the properties to the North side of Carew street is not The Area Action Plan proposes no M.G.H Options Albert Street Maximum acceptable. The full market value of these properties is insufficient to demolition of this area. Scholten Avenue Option allow us to purchase elsewhere. We are not of an age where even a Page 3 of 141

part-mortgage is obtainable in our income group. The financial impact would be disastrous. We would vigorously oppose this option, and are certain other residents would suffer (and act) the same.

Mr and Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Carew Frontage Having already spoken with the planning officer at the Hawthorn Avenue Noted. Mrs G.I Options Albert Street Improvem office and being informed that there will be no demolition of my home Stephenso Avenue ent being involved I can along with my wife go along with some n Scheme - refurbishment to the front of our property which would entail only the bay Preferred window, and upper front window being renewed. There is nothing else Option required at the front of the house because it occupied with a disabled Plan, access ramp; there is also one at rear of the house as well. If it should Figure 8.1 be a case of something like two to four years, hence there is every possibility it could have been done by then.

Carol Supporting Area 1 – De La Step 4, I would like to know how many years it will take to get round to making The Area Action Plan proposes Towse Albert Pole Page 4 De La Pole Avenue the Avenue that over 20 years ago was a well frontage improvement for all Avenue Avenue respected Avenue that has now declined. dwellings on De La Pole Avenue, most of it anticipated to take place between 2009-2011. The section of De La Pole Avenue, on the east side and to the North of Curzon Street.is scheduled for 2012-2014. Leann Preferred Supporting Area 1 – De La 7.25 Table I am in favour of the proposed refurbishment of De La Pole Avenue. Noted Atkinson Options Albert Pole on page Avenue Avenue 38 Malcolm Preferred Supporting Area 1 – De La Figure 8.1 Supporting Frontage Improvements De La Pole Avenue Noted. Smales Options Albert Pole Avenue Avenue Miss Preferred Supporting Area 1 – De La Figure I think the preferred option is good providing special attention is given to Noted. Maureen Options Albert Pole 8.3.2 and drains i.e. improvement to existing to take into account the new houses Lamb Avenue Avenue Figure 8.2 being built on Riley/Parkfield areas, and new frontages on De La Pole Avenue would indeed improve the area though not all properties would need or want this, I for one would not want my property touched at all.

David Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley Full The name “Riley College Site” is frequently used in the proposals and The name ‘Riley College site’ has Bradley Options Albert College Document gives the indication that the former Riley College Site was larger than it been used for ease of reference. Avenue site was. Only a small percentage of the “Riley College Site” (as indicated on The plan shows a boundary of the all of the maps in all of the proposal documents) is Brownfield land, the site to avoid confusion. majority of the site consists of the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Hull Local Plan/higher level policy natural Greenfield and existing playing fields and is mostly a site of shows the designations. nature conservation interest (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan conservation areas and listed buildings). includes detailed outputs including Greenfield land developed, green To constantly refer to such a large parcel of natural Greenfield land as spaces updated, and green spaces “Riley College Site” is misleading. created.

• Remove all references to “Riley College Site” in all NASA AAP documents and replace with to “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Riley Site and playing fields”. • Remove all references to “Riley College Site” on all maps and replace with “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Riley Site and playing fields”. • All maps should be altered to clearly differentiate between Page 4 of 141

new housing proposed to be built on Brownfield sites and new housing to be built on Greenfield sites. • All maps should clearly differentiate between “new open spaces” created from Brownfield sites and “new open space” created from existing Greenfield sites.

David Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley Paragraph All references to “Riley College Site” are misleading and give the The name ‘Riley College site’ has Bradley Options Albert College 7.2.2. impression that housing would be built on Brownfield Land when the been used for ease of reference. Avenue site majority would be primarily built on Greenfield Land and a site of nature The plan shows a boundary of the conservation interest (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation site to avoid confusion. areas and listed buildings) Hull Local Plan/higher level policy shows the designations. Remove all references to “Riley College Site” because the Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan area outlined on the proposal maps is predominantly includes detailed outputs including Greenfield land known as “the former Wold Carr Road Greenfield land developed, green Allotments” and is a site of nature conservation interest (ref: spaces updated, and green spaces sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation areas and listed created. buildings)

Rename the site to “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Riley Site and playing fields”.

David Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley Paragraph All references to “Riley College Site” are misleading and give the The name ‘Riley College site’ has Bradley Options Albert College 7.2.5 impression that housing would be built on Brownfield Land when the been used for ease of reference. Avenue site majority would be primarily built on Greenfield Land and a site of nature The plan shows a boundary of the conservation interest (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation site to avoid confusion. areas and listed buildings) Hull Local Plan/higher level policy shows the designations. Remove the sentence “Much of the Riley College site is an Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan identified housing site in the existing Local Plan” as this is includes detailed outputs including misleading. The majority of the land represented on the maps Greenfield land developed, green as “the Riley College Site” consists of Greenfield and the spaces updated, and green spaces former Wold Carr Road Allotments. The majority of the site is created. also a site of nature conservation interest (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation areas and listed buildings).

Remove all references to “Riley College Site” because the area outlined on the proposal maps is predominantly Greenfield land known as “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments” and is a site of nature conservation interest (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation areas and listed buildings

Rename the site to “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Riley Site and playing fields”.

Page 5 of 141

area outlined on the proposal maps is predominantly includes detailed outputs including Greenfield land known as “the former Wold Carr Road Greenfield land developed, green Allotments” and is a site of nature conservation interest (ref: spaces updated, and green spaces sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation areas and listed created. buildings

Rename the site to “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Riley Site and playing fields”.

David Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley Paragraph All references to “Riley College Site” are misleading and give the The name ‘Riley College site’ has Bradley Options Albert College 8.4.3 impression that housing would be built on Brownfield Land when the been used for ease of reference. Avenue site majority would be primarily built on Greenfield Land and a site of nature The plan shows a boundary of the conservation interest (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation site to avoid confusion. areas and listed buildings) Hull Local Plan/higher level policy shows the designations. Remove all references to “Riley College Site” because the Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan area outlined on the proposal maps is predominantly includes detailed outputs including Greenfield land known as “the former Wold Carr Road Greenfield land developed, green Allotments” and is a site of nature conservation interest (ref: spaces updated, and green spaces sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation areas and listed created. buildings

Rename the site to “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Riley Site and playing fields”.

David Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley Paragraph All references to “Riley College Site” are misleading and give the The name ‘Riley College site’ has Bradley Options Albert College 8.5.2 impression that housing would be built on Brownfield Land when the been used for ease of reference. Avenue site majority would be primarily built on Greenfield Land and a site of nature The plan shows a boundary of the conservation interest (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation site to avoid confusion. areas and listed buildings) Hull Local Plan/higher level policy shows the designations. Remove all references to “Riley College Site” because the Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan area outlined on the proposal maps is predominantly includes detailed outputs including Greenfield land known as “the former Wold Carr Road Greenfield land developed, green Allotments” and is a site of nature conservation interest (ref: spaces updated, and green spaces sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation areas and listed created. buildings

Rename the site to “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Riley Site and playing fields”.

David Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley Paragraph All references to “Riley College Site” are misleading and give the The name ‘Riley College site’ has Bradley Options Albert College 8.6.1 impression that housing would be built on Brownfield Land when the been used for ease of reference. Avenue site majority would be primarily built on Greenfield Land and a site of nature The plan shows a boundary of the conservation interest (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation site to avoid confusion. areas and listed buildings) Hull Local Plan/higher level policy shows the designations. Remove all references to “Riley College Site” because the Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan area outlined on the proposal maps is predominantly includes detailed outputs including Greenfield land known as “the former Wold Carr Road Greenfield land developed, green Allotments” and is a site of nature conservation interest (ref: spaces updated, and green spaces sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation areas and listed created. buildings

Page 6 of 141

Rename the site to “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Riley Site and playing fields”.

David Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley Paragraph The streets listed in the proposal document misrepresent the extent of The list is not needed in the AAP. Bradley Options Albert College 8.6.2 flooding during the summer 2007. A flood risk map is included in the Avenue site Area Action Plan. Flood Risk Add the following streets to the list of flooded streets because Assessments for Hull overall and for they are within the study area and adjacent to new housing Newington and St Andrew’s that has been proposed on the former Wold Carr Road specifically have been carried out Allotments and adjacent to the High Level Freight Line. and proposals have taken the risks into account. Any proposed - Cardigan Road (adjacent to High Level Freight Line) development will also be subject to - Roslyn Road (Adjacent to Former Wold Carr Road an additional assessment (through Allotments) the planning application process). Building will not be permitted unless The quantity of new housing proposed on the Former Wold Carr Road strict conditions relating to flood risk Allotment site (misrepresented as the Riley College Site in the (on-site and off-site) are adhered to. proposals) will have a detrimental affect on existing properties and the natural drainage capabilities of the whole area.

Measures described in the proposals to build new housing at a higher level will cause water to collect around existing nearby properties because there will no longer be any natural drainage.

No new housing should be built on low lying ground that has recently flooded until the drainage infrastructure of the City has been upgraded.

David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Page 31- “The AAP provides an opportunity to plan housing ‘neighbourhoods’ that Reference to the potential loss of Bradley lity Albert College Communit promote community cohesion. Improve private and communal greenspace has been incorporated Appraisal Avenue site y greenspace (such as community gardens, allotments) and ensure that into the SA Report. Cohesion there are facilities for the community to come together (community hall, pub).” The references to allotments in the SA Report are in the context of All of the options put forward in the reports have recommended building mitigation / enhancement measures. substantial housing on the remaining greenspace. As a result they have been retained.

The former Wold Carr Road Allotment Site (misrepresented as ‘Riley College Site’) has been recommended to be totally replaced by housing.

The word ‘allotments’ should be removed because no allotment land has been allocated or recommended in any of the proposals.

David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Page 50 - Page 50 - 7.3.1 “The new development at the former Riley College Site The name ‘Riley College site’ has Bradley lity Albert College 7.3.1 has the opportunity to set an exemplar for housing renewal in terms of been used for ease of reference. Appraisal Avenue site energy consumption and minimising the use of finite natural resources.” The plan shows a boundary of the site to avoid confusion. All references to “Riley College Site” in the report are misleading and Hull Local Plan/higher level policy give the impression that housing would be built on Brownfield Land when shows the designations. the majority would be primarily built on Greenfield Land and sites of Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan nature conservation interest (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – includes detailed outputs including

Page 7 of 141

conservation areas and listed buildings) Greenfield land developed, green spaces updated, and green spaces Remove all references to “Riley College Site” in the report created. because the area outlined on the proposal maps is predominantly Greenfield land known as “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments” and is a site of nature conservation interest (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation areas and listed buildings

Rename the site throughout the report to “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Riley Site and playing fields”.

Brian Preferred Support Area 1 – Riley Field It is nice to see the school field left as a green field site with playground Noted – assuming comment relates Smailes Options Albert facilities. to Riley Field. Avenue

Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley Field Page 38 I am objecting to the new proposed green area/park because it would be Detailed design principles will be Mrs Options Albert paragraph too close to our house, right next to it. We already have the playing fields applied to minimise such risks. Cartwright Avenue 8.25 to the rear of our house which through most of the year is used by gangs Figure 8.1 of youths drinking alcohol and using other substances during summer months. You do not get many days where you can sit in your garden without listening to gangs of people swearing and making nuisances of themselves, when we have the family round it is not a very nice experience. I feel if another green area is put so close to our house we will be surrounded by this behaviour. I believe the way to resolve this is to place the green area/park as far away from our house as possible as we are the last house on the row next to it.

A. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Bowsley Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley field being built upon and to rat-running would be discouraged of be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Andrew, Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – As a family we strongly object to a connection to the proposed Riley site The layout and design of housing at Jane, Options Albert 7.2.5 via Parkfield Drive. the Riley College site will ensure that Jackson Avenue Proposal Having lived on Parkfield for almost six years I already find local traffic/ rat-running would be discouraged of parking totally ‘out of control’. Parkfield is already grossly over populated and that the impact of new traffic is connection with not only cars but work vans etc. minimised. to new One major gripe I have with Anlaby Road side of Hull as a whole is the housing traffic problems, take into account match days at the KC stadium and the on Riley problems double. site, I find it crazy that this proposal is at this stage. Surely this land should be Anlaby conserved in some way for the community.

Page 8 of 141

Road As far as I can tell there is no way in which this can be resolved, through surrounding the site are densely populated residential areas and this Parkfield proposal would cause stress to anyone involved. Drive B. Hunter Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site. The traffic was bad when the college was there. This will make the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal it a short cut to Spring Bank making the traffic unacceptable, like a main rat-running would be discouraged of road. Also object to Riley field being built on as it should be left as green and that the impact of new traffic is connection area. minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive B. R. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – I object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Smailes options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue “rat run” to Spring Bank. I also Object to Riley field being built upon and rat-running would be discouraged to be left as a green area. and that the impact of new traffic is minimised.

Riley Field is not proposed to be built upon. B. Smith Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive to housing on Riley site as traffic is The layout and design of housing at Options Albert 7.2.5 at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a “rat run” to Spring the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal Bank. rat-running would be discouraged of and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing on Riley site C. Collins Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive and Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is especially with Hull the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal City and Hull FC traffic. This will become a rat run to Spring Bank. Also rat-running would be discouraged of object to Riley field being built upon and to be left green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby road through Parkfield Drive Christophe Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at r Johnson Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley field being built upon and to rat-running would be discouraged of be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is Page 9 of 141

connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive D. Tonge Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley field being built upon and to rat-running would be discouraged of be left as green area. Since the stadium was built, the parking down the and that the impact of new traffic is connection four streets off Anlaby Road has doubled on Saturdays when football is minimised. to new being played. Albert Avenue, De La Pole Avenue and Alliance Avenue, housing all have restricted parking. Why have the other four streets not? Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site David Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to the proposed The layout and design of housing at Edward Options Albert 7.2.5 housing estate on the Riley site because traffic is at an unacceptable the Riley College site will ensure that Creighton Avenue Proposal level now and I think it will become a “rat run” to Spring Bank (another rat-running would be discouraged of Calvert Lane). I also Object to Riley field being built upon and to be left and that the impact of new traffic is connection alone as a green area/ developed as a park/play area for our kids. minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Deborah Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – We are objecting to access from Parkfield Drive/Wold Carr Road to The layout and design of housing at Wharton Options Albert 7.2.5 housing on Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal will become a “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also objecting to Riley field being rat-running would be discouraged of new built upon and to be left as a green area. and that the impact of new traffic is housing minimised. on Riley site, Riley Field is not proposed to be Anlaby built upon. Road through Parkfield Drive Diane Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive and Wold Carr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Cooper Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level at it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal rat run to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley field being built upon and to rat-running would be discouraged of be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon.

Page 10 of 141

site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Edward Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Objection is the proposal of having Parkfield Drive/Wold Carr Road as The layout and design of housing at Gordon Options Albert 7.2.5 access (through roads) to Spring Bank under the new housing plans. the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal Also object to any plans of housing on Riley field. rat-running would be discouraged of I feel both proposals have an immediate effect on my working and social and that the impact of new traffic is connection life and a danger to my family! minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Gemma Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Parish Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Could be resolved by no access to new housing rat-running would be discouraged of from Parkfield Drive / Woldcarr Road. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new Object to building of park at the end of Parkfield Drive, we believe this housing will create noise and disruption and anti-social behaviour in an area Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley which is currently quiet and peaceful. Could be resolved by not building built upon. site, the park, re-locating park much further away from Parkfield Drive or Anlaby ensuring no access to park via end of Parkfield Drive (high un-climbable Road walls/fences) as a last resort. through Parkfield Drive Gwenneth Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – I object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Canty Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. rat-running would be discouraged of and that the impact of new traffic is connection I also object to Riley Field being built upon as it is prone to flooding. In minimised. to new June last year, it was a lake with ducks swimming upon it. At night the housing moon was glistening over it with ripples from the breeze, it was like living Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley in Scotland on the lakes. Our gardens back onto the field and so were built upon. Playing flooded. It came up to 2 ft 4” and also into the garage. This would make Field, no sense building upon this site. Please keep this green area, Anlaby somewhere for the children of this area to play. This is the only sensible Road thing to do! through Parkfield Drive Heidi Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – I wish to object to my street (Parkfield Drive) being used as access to the The layout and design of housing at Rance options Albert 7.2.5 proposed housing on the Riley site as traffic is already at an the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal unacceptable level and is being used as a “rat run” to Spring Bank. I also rat-running would be discouraged of object to Riley field being built upon and to be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is

Page 11 of 141

connection minimised. of houses on Riley Riley Field is not proposed to be site built upon.

J. Baker Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Pg 38 - These streets will become like a main road. It’s difficult enough to get out The layout and design of housing at Options Albert 7.2.5. onto Anlaby Road as it is. We now have quite a lot of children down this the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue drive and it would be dangerous with excess traffic. rat-running would be discouraged and that the impact of new traffic is minimised.

Jackie and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site We object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Jon Brake Options Albert Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue “rat run” to Spring Bank. We also object to Riley field being built upon rat-running would be discouraged and to be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is minimised.

Riley Field is not proposed to be built upon. Janet Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Smith Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank, also object to the Riley field being built upon rat-running would be discouraged of and it should be left as a green site for the children and adults who get and that the impact of new traffic is connection pleasure from this area. minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Joanne Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Fish Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also I object to Riley field being built upon and rat-running would be discouraged of to be left as a green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive John Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Objecting to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Briggs Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level now. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank West. I also object to the Riley field being used rat-running would be discouraged of for housing. This area should be left as a green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. Page 12 of 141

to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive John Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 - Object to access from Parkfield Drive/Wold Carr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Phillips Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. I also object to the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Riley field being built on. It should be left as a green area. rat-running would be discouraged and that the impact of new traffic is minimised.

Riley Field is not proposed to be built upon. K. Naulls Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – We object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at and T. Hall Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as it is a risk for children as traffic is unacceptable as it is, this the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal will become a “rat run” to Spring Bank. It is already difficult to get out rat-running would be discouraged of onto Anlaby Road with traffic as it is before any new access would be and that the impact of new traffic is connection done. We also object to Riley field being built on as we need some green minimised. to new area for our children to play on. housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Kerry Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – I am objecting to the access from Parkfield Drive, the traffic would be a The layout and design of housing at Marsden Albert 7.2.5 problem, we have just moved to Parkfield Drive from a street that gave the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal through access and it was noisy night and day. You couldn’t let your rat-running would be discouraged of children play out and was a problem getting in and out of your car. When and that the impact of new traffic is connection moving to Parkfield Drive, the first thing that was looked at was the fact minimised. to new that there was no through traffic. Access could be taken through Spring housing Bank as it is already a main road and therefore our neighborhood on Riley wouldn’t be affected in any way. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive M. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site I object to the access from Parkfield Drive to housing on Riley Site as The layout and design of housing at Harrington options Albert traffic is an acceptable level as it is. It is a rat run at present using the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue “Alliance Lane” to get to Spring Bank West. Alliance Lane is 10’ wide and rat-running would be discouraged only one vehicle can get down it. This should be made one way only and that the impact of new traffic is (Alliance Lane to Parkfield). Access to new housing estate: make a road minimised. using disused rail track (now a cycle track) which already runs from Anlaby Road to Spring Bank West. Riley Field is not proposed to be built upon.

Page 13 of 141

I object of Riley Playing Field being built on.

Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley Site Page 38 – I am objecting to access from Parkfield Drive/Woldcarr Road to proposed The layout and design of housing at Mrs Options Albert 7.2.5 housing on the old Riley College site as this will add to unacceptable the Riley College site will ensure that Cartwright Avenue Proposal level of traffic there already is. rat-running would be discouraged of new It will also make it a cut through from Anlaby Road to Spring Bank for and that the impact of new traffic is housing people to use as a race track. minimised. on Riley I think the solution would be to have access from just Spring Bank to the site, housing and not a through road. Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – We object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Mrs A. Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Kay Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also we object to Riley field being built upon rat-running would be discouraged of and to be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – We are not happy about new Council buildings and new access road The layout and design of housing at Mrs Anil Options Albert 7.2.5 because if you are going to make new Council buildings and new access the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal road, our area is going to be the worse place in Hull, and also this road rat-running would be discouraged of will be a very busy road. We are not happy at all. This is going to affect and that the impact of new traffic is connection more than 200 families (Parkfield Drive) and Wold Car Road also. minimised. to new housing on Riley site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Map Woldcarr Road is currently a cul-de-sac. The land at the end of Woldcarr The layout and design of housing at Mrs Butler Options Albert Road is unused as allotments and we understand it is owned by the old the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue British Rail and Hull City Council. The brown area on the maps goes rat-running would be discouraged right across both Riley High School site and the old allotments. What is and that the impact of new traffic is the plan for the road in Woldcarr Road? Will it remain a cul-de-sac or will minimised. it be extended to the new housing area thus making another through road from Anlaby Road to Spring Bank West. We are totally against that plan.

Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – I am objecting to access from Parkfield Drive / Woldcarr Road to The layout and design of housing at Mrs options Albert 7.2.5 proposed housing on the old Riley College site as this will add to the Riley College site will ensure that Page 14 of 141

Cartwright Avenue Proposal unacceptable level of traffic there already is. It will also make it a cut rat-running would be discouraged of through from Anlaby Road to Spring Bank for people to use as a race and that the impact of new traffic is connection track. minimised. to new I think the solution would be to have access from just Spring Bank to the housing housing and not a through road. on Riley site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Mrs Grout Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also I object to Riley field being built upon and rat-running would be discouraged of to be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Objecting to access from Parkfield Drive / Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Mrs Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley Site as traffic is bad enough already. the Riley College site will ensure that Harold Avenue Proposal I / we also object to Riley Field being built on, this should be left as a rat-running would be discouraged of green area for the kids from around this area to use, or a park and that the impact of new traffic is connection (playground put on part of it) (after been cleaned up and warden to keep minimised. to new a check on it). housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Mrs J. Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Brett Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley field being built upon as it rat-running would be discouraged of should be left as a green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new Also the issue of flooding should be taken into consideration as in last housing June’s floods, Riley field took the brunt of the flood water and saved the Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley housing from flooding. built upon. site, Anlaby Building will not be permitted unless Road strict conditions relating to flood risk through (on-site and off-site) are adhered to. Parkfield

Page 15 of 141

Drive Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Mrs J. Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Coates Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley Field being built upon to be rat-running would be discouraged of left as a green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. Site, Anlaby Road through Park Field Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Mrs J. Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Tate Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. rat-running would be discouraged of I also object to Riley field being built upon and to be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection Continued traffic coming down Parkfield Drive would create problems for minimised. to new our vehicles using Alliance Lane cut through. housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Mrs Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Lawson Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley field being built upon and to rat-running would be discouraged of be left as a green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access down Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Mrs N Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Humberst Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also object to housing being built on Riley field rat-running would be discouraged one of best left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road Page 16 of 141

through Parkfield Drive Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – I object to access from Parkfield Drive and Wold Carr Road to housing The layout and design of housing at Mrs R. Options Albert 7.2.5 on Riley site as we have a very high volume of traffic as it is, and it is the Riley College site will ensure that Barrett Avenue Proposal getting worse. It will become a “rat run” to Spring Bank. rat-running would be discouraged of and that the impact of new traffic is connection I also object to Riley Field being built upon and it should be left as green minimised. to new area. This area is used constantly by the children in surrounding areas, housing for sports, games, etc. This would cause even worse traffic problems Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley also, if the field was built upon. built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – There is already an entry to the Riley Fields off Alliance Avenue without The layout and design of housing at Mrs S Options Albert 7.2.5 totally destroying Parkfield drive and our preferred option is to leave the Riley College site will ensure that Boast Avenue Proposal Riley Field and make it into a proper protected play area for all the rat-running would be discouraged of children that already live round it. and that the impact of new traffic is connection As for regeneration what’s that because Parkfield Drive hasn’t seen any minimised. to new benefits only destruction. housing on Riley site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr B. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Objecting to access via Parkfield and Wold Carr to housing on Riley The layout and design of housing at Witty Options Albert 7.2.5 college site. Any increase in traffic levels would soon become the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal unbearable. rat-running would be discouraged of and that the impact of new traffic is connection I am also objecting to housing being built on the Riley site. This is one of minimised. to new a dwindling number of green areas left in this immediate vicinity and housing should remain a green area. Leaving this as a green area would be Most of the site is already allocated on Riley environmentally friendly and beneficial to the area in general. for housing in the existing Local site, Plan. Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr D. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Slater Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Riley field should be left as a green area. I am rat-running would be discouraged of however of the opinion the decision has already been made regardless and that the impact of new traffic is connection of our residential wishes and go ahead anyway. Time will tell!! minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon.

Page 17 of 141

site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr H.L. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Objection The layout and design of housing at Callan options Albert 7.2.5 Object to access from either Parkfield Drive or Woldcarr Road to Riley the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Road Site housing, as this will become a “rat run” as long as Alliance and De rat-running would be discouraged connection La Pole Avenues remain one way systems. The road at the bottom of and that the impact of new traffic is through Parkfield was never reinforced or made stronger to withstand traffic, as minimised. Parkfield can be seen by the damage caused by the heavy traffic during the site Drive To demolition which has not been repaired. Riley Field is not proposed to be Riley Site Resolution built upon. and Park There is already an ideal road to the site from Alliance Avenue which open was supposed to be the vehicular access to the original school site. Only space on entrance can work as has been successful elsewhere in Hull. Notably the Maplewood Avenue Estate which was built over 25 years ago.

Objection To the Riley Field ever being built on as it has been used for over 100 years for agricultural shows and amateur sport. Also object to the park adjacent to no.99 Parkfield as enough trouble is caused by “drinkers etc” in this area during the summer. Resolution Park could be made round the “bat trees” as presumably they cannot be removed in any construction. Also that side of the site is where the pond was until the school was built. This fact could have helped towards the flooding down the ten-foot by no.102. during last year. A fact also showing that this area is damp all the time is the magnificent willow tree growing on the site.

Mr Ian Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Shields Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley field being built upon and rat-running would be discouraged of should be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised.

Riley Field is not proposed to be built upon. Mr J. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/Wold Carr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Thacker Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley Field being built upon and to rat-running would be discouraged of be left as a green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. Site, Anlaby Road through Park Field

Page 18 of 141

Mr James Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – We object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at and Mrs Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Brenda Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. rat-running would be discouraged Straker of We also object to Riley field being built upon and wish it to be left as a and that the impact of new traffic is connection green area as this was partly why we bought our house in Parkfield minimised. to new Drive. housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr W. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/Woldcarr Road to housing on Riley The layout and design of housing at Everitt Options Albert 7.2.5 site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a “rat the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal run” to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley field being built upon and to be rat-running would be discouraged of left as a green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mr Wah Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Lo Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley field being built upon and rat-running would be discouraged of should be left as green area. The field is an important area for the kids to and that the impact of new traffic is connection play on. Without this there would be kids playing in the street and, with minimised. to new the planned access routes, would lead to accidents. housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mrs A. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Objection The layout and design of housing at Callan Options Albert 7.2.5 Object to access from either Parkfield Drive or Woldcarr Road to Riley the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Road Site housing, as this will become a “rat run” as long as Alliance and De rat-running would be discouraged connection La Pole Avenues remain one way systems. The road at the bottom of and that the impact of new traffic is through Parkfield was never reinforced or made stronger to withstand traffic, as minimised. Parkfield can be seen by the damage caused by the heavy traffic during the site Drive To demolition which has not been repaired. Riley Field is not proposed to be Riley Site Resolution built upon. and Park There is already an ideal road to the site from Alliance Avenue which open was supposed to be the vehicular access to the original school site. Only space on entrance can work as has been successful elsewhere in Hull. Notably

Page 19 of 141

the Maplewood Avenue Estate which was built over 25 years ago.

Mrs B.J. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – I object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Manchest options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that er Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. rat-running would be discouraged of I also object to Riley field being built upon and to be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mrs D. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Walker Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. Also object to Riley field being built upon and to rat-running would be discouraged of be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mrs G. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – I welcome the development of housing on the unused Riley site. The layout and design of housing at Blount Options Albert 7.2.5 However I disagree strongly to access from Parkfield to the proposed the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal housing estate. This is due to an unacceptable level of traffic down rat-running would be discouraged of Parkfield as it is now with a Sikh temple and brothel, and when sport is and that the impact of new traffic is connection on at the KC stadium. Council preferred option is acceptable but route minimised. to new not to be made down Parkfield. This will become a “rat run”! housing We object to the Riley playing field to be built upon and left as green site. Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby

Page 20 of 141

Road through Parkfield Drive Mrs I Peak Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Options Albert 7.2.5. Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. I also Object to Riley field being built upon and rat-running would be discouraged of to be left as green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. Site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Mrs M. Preferred Area 1 – Riley site Pg 38 – I feel that if both streets became access roads to new housing on the The layout and design of housing at Temple Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley Site they would become rat runs through to Spring Bank. Please the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal don’t suggest a one way system as this too would be unacceptable as it rat-running would be discouraged re. would be the residents of these streets that would be penalised! The and that the impact of new traffic is connection street lighting down Parkfield is not adequate and needs to be updated minimised. of as a matter of urgency. The speed bumps are crumbling now so what Parkfield would they be like with an increase in traffic? Houses shudder when Building will not be permitted unless Dr. & cars go over them at speed, and with lorries and vans it is even worse. I strict conditions relating to flood risk Woldcarr strongly oppose any works traffic being allowed to use Parkfield Drive. It (on-site and off-site) are adhered to. Rd to was horrendous when the college was demolished with the huge dumper housing trucks going over them. Asking for them to drive slowly is not enough. I Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley would have thought access from Spring Bank West would be more built upon. site appropriate.

I oppose to any building on the field behind Woldcarr Road and Parkfield Drive. During the summer floods it was a lake complete with residents’ fish. I have video and photographic evidence to support this. It is not acceptable to say that new houses would be built with flood defences in place. They may be in place for the new housing but what about the existing housing? It would be of no consolation to existing home owners when their homes flood. I cannot see any reason to build on this field as it is used by many residents, young and old alike. The field is already overlooked by residents so it already has the natural surveillance mentioned on page 36, 7.2.2 Maximum option- which has new build behind Parkfield and Woldcarr.(Riley field) The residents of the surrounding streets care, cherish and make good use of their current green spaces. What use is a postage sized bit of grass which has a No Ball Games Allowed sign stuck up?

Mrs R.C Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Walton Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is and more traffic will the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal also cause damage to property. It will also become a “rat run” to Spring rat-running would be discouraged of Bank. I also object to Riley field being built on. It should be left as a and that the impact of new traffic is connection green area and sports field. It also acts as a flood plain if built on all minimised. to new surrounding houses will be flooded.

Page 21 of 141

housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby road through Parkfield Drive Mrs S. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive/Wold Carr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Bratton Options Albert 7.2.5 Riley site, traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is, this will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. rat-running would be discouraged of and that the impact of new traffic is connection The site should be left as green area. minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive P. Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Parking restrictions, heavy traffic passing through, why not use Spring The layout and design of housing at Thompson Options Albert 7.2.5 Bank West? the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal Why not leave Riley Fields to open park land, somewhere for children to rat-running would be discouraged of play. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to Riley site Riley Field is not proposed to be built upon. R. Watts Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – (if cannot be resolved) Access via Parkfield Drive, road not wide The layout and design of housing at Options Albert 7.2.5 enough. Cannot get out at Anlaby Road end of Parkfield Drive. This will the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal become a rat run for cars. (close Alliance Lane) rat-running would be discouraged of and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing on Riley site, Anlaby road through Parkfield Drive Robert Fields Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 As a resident of Parkfield Drive I am objecting to the use of this street to The layout and design of housing at Medd Residents Options Albert 7.2.5 connect the new housing on Riley College Site. We already have rat run the Riley College site will ensure that Association Avenue (connectio traffic through Parkfield Lane to Alliance Avenue. Main entrances should rat-running would be discouraged ns) be at north east and north west points of new estate and use the old and that the impact of new traffic is railway track north to south. This is used as a cycling pedestrian track at minimised. the moment.

Robert Fields Preferred Area 1 – Riley site 7.2.13 Some thought could be given to connecting the new Riley Housing The layout and design of housing at Medd Residents Options Albert (connectio Estate to the Anlaby Road / Boothferry Road Roundabout. the Riley College site will ensure that Page 22 of 141

Association Avenue ns) rat-running would be discouraged and that the impact of new traffic is minimised.

Sally Pank Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – Object to access from Parkfield Drive to housing on Riley site as traffic is The layout and design of housing at Options Albert 7.2.5 at an already unacceptable level. Also object to Riley field being built the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue (Connectio upon. Should be left as green area! rat-running would be discouraged n to new and that the impact of new traffic is housing minimised. on Riley site) Riley Field is not proposed to be built upon.

Sharon Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Page 38 – I object to access from Parkfield Drive/ Woldcarr Road to housing on The layout and design of housing at Young Option Albert 7.2.5 Riley site as traffic is at an unacceptable level as it is. This will become a the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Proposal “rat run” to Spring Bank. And I object to Riley field being built on and it rat-running would be discouraged of should be left as a green area. and that the impact of new traffic is connection minimised. to new housing Riley Field is not proposed to be on Riley built upon. site, Anlaby Road through Parkfield Drive Susan Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley site Pg 38 -7 Look at other options to putting a road in and leave Parkfield as it is. The layout and design of housing at Hart Options Albert 2.5. the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue rat-running would be discouraged and that the impact of new traffic is minimised.

Riley Field is not proposed to be built upon. B Atkinson Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley Riley No access via road which was used to enter Riley and Motor Training Comments noted. Options Albert College Area. centre. This is a private stretch of road. Upgrade of Anlaby Road which Avenue site and Preferred is in a very bad state, gives a very poor of opinion to people visiting the and Area Anlaby Option KC Stadium. Closed shops, run down properties. When can we see 6 – Anlaby Road Riley area cleaned up? It is a disgrace. Road David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Page iv – “This could include providing access to allotment space (public or The Amy Johnson site may include Bradley lity Albert College para.1 private) to promote a healthy diet. new allotments. Appraisal Avenue site “This and whole could This statement should be removed as it is misleading because none of area include the proposed options provided any allotment space, quite the opposite. providing All of the proposals suggest building new housing on the whole of the access to former Wold Carr Road Allotments Site (misrepresented as “the Riley allotment Site”) space (public or private) to promote a Page 23 of 141

healthy diet.

Mr Keith Preferred Supporting Area 1 – MAP [No specific comment provided] Noted. Marshall Options Albert Avenue – no area specified David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Land Use The land use plan misrepresents the former Wold Carr Road Allotments The plan shows a boundary of the Bradley lity Albert College Plan and adjacent greenspace as Unused and Derelict Land. The land is site to avoid confusion. Appraisal Avenue site and situated to the northern and western sides of the original “Riley College Hull Local Plan/higher level policy and Area Amy Site”. shows the designations. 4 – Johnson Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan Hawthorn site Change to land use plan to show the former Wold Carr Road includes detailed outputs including Avenue Allotments and all adjacent greenspace as Open Space and Greenfield land developed, green Recreation or a site of nature conservation interest as shown spaces updated, and green spaces in Figure 8.2 - Conservation Areas and listed buildings. created.

Only the original “Riley College Site” should be represented as Unused and derelict land.

The land use plan misrepresents the Amy Johnson Playing Fields as Unused and Derelict Land.

Change to land use plan to show the Amy Johnson Playing Fields as Open Space and Recreation.

M. Preferred Area 1 – Riley site The preferred option for the Albert Avenue Area as houses on the old The layout and design of housing at Precious Options Albert and Riley site, this does not show how access to this new estate will be the Riley College site will ensure that Avenue Tradex delivered. When the consultants were asked if this would be through rat-running would be discouraged and Area site Anlaby Road or Spring Bank West they said that with the railway line and that the impact of new traffic is 4 – being there, it was impossible to use Spring Bank West? If so I have to minimised. Part of the strategy is Hawthorn oppose any building going forward until it is explained how access from access to Spring Bank. Avenue Anlaby Road could be done without causing hardship to the residents in Parkfield Drive and Wold Carr Road. There is also an issue of how the Riley Field is not proposed to be traffic using those streets would be able to exit onto Anlaby Road as it built upon. has a problem, with an overload of users at present and at peak times it can be frustrating trying to exit these streets already. A potential secondary school is I asked why the central reservation at the top of Alliance Avenue could proposed as part of the plan, subject not be taken back towards the City Centre, there could be a small to confirmation from the roundabout put in its place. A slip road could then go off Spring Bank Government. West following the railway lines and then onto the estate. They never replied to this apart from a shrug of their shoulders? Retail-led mixed use is proposed for I would also like to ask how you can build so many new houses in our the Tradex site. area, (at the Amy Johnson, Riley College and Woodcock Street sites) and not build a Secondary School to service the children this would Page 24 of 141

generate. Will people come into our area and buy a house? This would at least help with the Youth issue in Newington. I see that there does not seem to be one upgrade or new community venue for the Newington Youth problem. But there seems to be at least three in the St Andrews Area? This is strange when Newington has by far the greatest number of houses. When I asked what the new community facility in Wheeler Street was going to be, I was told this was a mistake and should not be in the document. Why cannot Riley Field, Walton Street Leisure Centre be upgraded? I am pleased that West Park has been picked out as Newington's greatest asset and deserves the attention. There should be a balance of community activity across the NaSA area and this does not seem to be the case, I also have to ask that all possible care to drainage is taken on the Riley Site as we would have been flooded in this area if it was not for the open ground that is the Riley Site. It was our sponge and took the most of the weather last July. It was in some places feet under water. I think the ex Tradex site is an important area for the future of Anlaby Road and should have been brought into the scheme in some way as this would balance the area, into a good shopping district if a good retail park was put there.

Margaret Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Preferred Option and Anlaby Road. I think it is a good idea and will Noted. Sutherland Options Albert encourage people to take more pride in their homes and area. Avenue and Area 6 – Anlaby Road Patricia Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Preferred I think it is an excellent idea and will encourage people to take more Noted. Frontage improvement is Ann Options Albert Option pride in their homes and the area they live in. It will make it a much more also proposed in the Area Action Brown Avenue Page 2 pleasant place to live. I think it should also include Anlaby Road between Plan for a number of houses on this and Area De La Pole Avenue and KC. section of Anlaby Road. 6 – Anlaby Road Michael Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Whole I support all the draft documents Noted. Oxendale Options Albert document Avenue and whole area Teresa Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Whole I support all the preferred options document Noted. Oxendale Options Albert document Avenue and whole area Bezyl Preferred Both Area 1 – Riley Preferred I agree with most proposals and that it would be the best option for the Noted. Area Action Plan reflects Harbour Options Albert College option – whole of NaSA if it improves the quality of life for all the people. these issues. Avenue site and Alliance Need football pitch near Alliance Avenue, where it floods at the Riley and whole Carew Avenue College site (Motor Trade unit), to keep children 11+ off the streets. area Street Street lighting needs improvements to Carew Street, only two short lights (old fashioned ones). Not enough light.

David Preferred Objecting Area 1 – Riley Paragraph 6.3.3 The criteria used in this projects assessment Hull Local Plan/higher level policy Page 25 of 141

Bradley Options Albert College 6.3.3 *proposals generally acceptable to local people; or at least not triggering shows the designations. Avenue site and sharp opposition Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan and whole other includes detailed outputs including area greenspac The proposals fail to highlight the significant percentage of remaining Greenfield land developed, green es Greenfield land that will be lost to new housing e.g the former Wold Carr spaces updated, and green spaces Road Allotments, Amy Johnson Playing Fields, Riley College Playing created. Fields, Junella Fields etc. A flood risk map is included in the Many decisions and public opinions would have been based on Area Action Plan. Flood Risk ambiguous or misrepresented information, I therefore request that:- Assessments for Hull overall and for Newington and St Andrew’s All maps should be altered to clearly differentiate between new specifically have been carried out housing proposed to be built on Brownfield sites and new and proposals have taken the risks housing proposed to be built on Greenfield sites. into account. Any proposed development will also be subject to All maps should clearly differentiate between “new open an additional assessment (through space” created from Brownfield sites and “new open space” the planning application process). created from existing Greenfield sites. Building will not be permitted unless strict conditions relating to flood risk The proposals underplay the level of flooding that occurred in summer (on-site and off-site) are adhered to. 2007 along the High Level Freight Line and in the areas adjacent to the Wold Carr Road Allotments (misrepresented as ‘Riley College Site’ in the proposals)

The proposals should include Hull City Councils ‘Map of Flooded Properties’ to enable residents and stakeholders to make a more informed judgement regarding the flood risk and the option to build new housing on the former Wold Carr Road Allotments Site (misrepresented as ‘Riley College Site).

David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Page iii The preferred options document promotes significant development of Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan Bradley lity Albert College Significant housing on greenfield sites and sites of nature conservation interest. includes detailed outputs including Appraisal Avenue site and Effects – The proposals will lead to a large majority of remaining Greenfield land Greenfield land developed, green and whole other “The being lost to new housing e.g the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, spaces updated, and green spaces area greenspac option Amy Johnson Playing Fields, Riley College Playing Fields, Junella Fields created. es promotes etc. the sustainabl “The option promotes the sustainable use of land by renovating e use of Brownfield sites for housing and greenspace as opposed to land by development on Greenfield sites. “ renovating Brownfield sites for The statement is misleading and should be replaced with a housing new statement that reflects the amount of existing Greenfield and land that will be lost to housing. greenspac e as opposed to developm ent on Greenfield sites.”

Page 26 of 141

David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Page iv – “The preferred option of the AAP includes several enhancements to the Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan Bradley lity Albert College Protecting natural environment including improvements to biodiversity, landscape includes detailed outputs including Appraisal Avenue site and and character and quality, and green space provision.” Greenfield land developed, green and whole other Enhancing spaces updated, and green spaces area greenspac the The preferred options document promotes significant development of created. es Natural housing on greenfield sites and sites of nature conservation interest such Environme as the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Amy Johnson Playing Fields, nt – Riley College Playing Fields, Junella Fields etc. Sustainabi lity The “several enhancements….improvements to biodiversity…and green Objectives space provision” will be created at the expense of the large majority of 17 to 21. remaining Greenfield land.

This statement should be removed as it misrepresents the amount of development directed towards Greenfield sites.

“The preferred option promotes the sustainable use of land by directing development towards previously developed sites.”

The preferred options document promotes significant development of housing on greenfield sites and sites of nature conservation interest. The proposals will lead to a large majority of remaining Greenfield land being lost to new housing e.g the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Amy Johnson Playing Fields, Riley College Playing Fields, Junella Fields etc.

This statement should be removed as it misrepresents the amount of development directed towards Greenfield sites.

David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Sustainabi All references to “Riley College Site” in the report are misleading and The name ‘Riley College site’ has Bradley lity Albert College lity give the impression that housing would be built on Brownfield Land when been used for ease of reference. Appraisal Avenue site and Appraisal the majority would be primarily built on Greenfield Land and sites of The plan shows a boundary of the and whole other Report – nature conservation interest (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – site to avoid confusion. area greenspac Full conservation areas and listed buildings) Hull Local Plan/higher level policy es Document shows the designations. Remove all references to “Riley College Site” in the report Chapter 12 of the Area Action Plan because the area outlined on the proposal maps is includes detailed outputs including predominantly Greenfield land known as “the former Wold Carr Greenfield land developed, green Road Allotments” and is a site of nature conservation interest spaces updated, and green spaces (ref: sustainability report fig 8.2 – conservation areas and listed created. buildings

Rename the site throughout the report to “the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Riley Site and playing fields”.

The proposals fail to highlight the significant percentage of remaining Greenfield land that will be lost to new housing e.g the former Wold Carr Road Allotments, Amy Johnson Playing Fields, Riley College Playing Fields, Junella Fields etc.

Many decisions and public opinions would have been based on ambiguous or misrepresented information, therefore:-

All maps should be altered to clearly differentiate between new Page 27 of 141

housing proposed to be built on Brownfield sites and new housing proposed to be built on Greenfield sites.

All maps (e.g. Figure 17 – page 45) should clearly differentiate between “new open space” created from Brownfield sites and “new open space” created from existing Greenfield sites.

David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Page 49 – “The preferred Option could build on the promotion of healthy lifestyles The references to allotments in the Bradley lity Albert College “The by providing space for allotments and communal gardens.” SA Report are in the context of Appraisal Avenue site and preferred mitigation / enhancement measures. and whole other Option All of the options put forward in the reports have recommended building As a result they have been retained. area greenspac could build substantial housing on the remaining greenspace. es on the promotion Also, the former Wold Carr Road Allotment Site (misrepresented as of healthy ‘Riley College Site’) has been recommended to be totally replaced by lifestyles housing. by providing This sentence should be removed because there is no space for evidence in the options to suggest that allotment land will be allotments provided. and communal gardens.”

David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Page 51 – “The preferred Option does not reflect the importance of giving The references to allotments in the Bradley lity Albert College Enhancem residential developments access to allotments.” SA Report are in the context of Appraisal Avenue site and ent mitigation / enhancement measures. and whole other Opportunit All of the options put forward in the reports have recommended building These have been included to try and area greenspac ies substantial housing on the remaining greenspace. In addition, the former promote the creation of new es Wold Carr Road Allotment Site (misrepresented as ‘Riley College Site’) allotments in the NaSA area. has been recommended to be totally replaced by housing. The provision of allotments elsewhere in the city is out side of The demand for allotment sites will continue to grow yet the preferred the scope of the NaSA AAP. option will ensure that the majority of remaining greenspace and former allotment land is eaten up by new build housing.

It is important that allotments should be available to all residents in the city and not just created to provide a ‘sweetener’ for new residential developments.

To ensure that enough land is available to meet future demand for allotments, the recommendations to develop housing on the remaining greenspace land should be reconsidered.

David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Page 24 – Neither the preferred options report nor the sustainability appraisals New development will need to Bradley lity Albert College Road report make any reference to the proposed housing developments on the satisfy the Council highways Appraisal Avenue site and Network Boothferry Park Site and Calvert Lane Site. Both these sites already department and be subject to a and whole other have planning permission. traffic assessment. area proposed developm The preferred options report has proposed a significant addition of ent sites housing at the Amy Johnson Site and former Wold Carr Road Allotments Site (misrepresented as ‘Riley College Site’).

Page 28 of 141

Along with the proposed “mixed use” changes at the Tradex Site, all of these developments will have a significant adverse affect on the Road Network along Anlaby Road; particularly at the already congested Anlaby Road/Boothferry Road Roundabout.

The sustainability report should include more viable solutions to the Transportation and Environmental impacts caused by the Nasa preferred options taking into account planned developments in neighbouring areas.

David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Page v – Para.1 “Sustainable Urban Drainage systems (SUDs) will provide some Building will not be permitted unless Bradley lity Albert College Para.1 relief from the impact of surface water flooding although the development strict conditions relating to flood risk Appraisal Avenue site and “Sustainab is not able to provide relief from the flood risk from rivers and coastal (on-site and off-site) are adhered to. and whole other le Urban flooding.” area proposed Drainage housing systems The streets listed in the proposal document misrepresent the extent of sites (SUDs) flooding during the summer 2007. Both Cardigan Road (adjacent to will High Level Freight Line) and Roslyn Road (Adjacent to Former Wold provide Carr Road Allotments) suffered significant flooding. some relief from The quantity of new housing proposed on the Former Wold Carr Road the impact Allotment site (misrepresented as the Riley College Site in the of surface proposals) will have a detrimental affect on existing properties and the water natural drainage capabilities of the whole area. flooding although “There is also opportunity to reduce the impact from the future flood risk the by designing new builds on raised land…” developm ent is not Measures described in the proposals to build new housing at a higher able to level will cause water to collect around existing nearby properties provide because there will no longer be any natural drainage. relief from the flood No new housing should be built on low lying ground that has risk from recently flooded until the drainage infrastructure of the City has rivers and been upgraded. coastal flooding.” David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley 4.3.14 The sustainability appraisal report makes comments relating to the flood A plan from the Hull Strategic Flood Bradley lity Albert College Flood Risk risks shown on Figure 10 - Flood Risk map of Newington and St. Risk Assessment has been included Appraisal Avenue site and Andrews and the surrounding area. in the SA Report. and whole other area proposed The summer floods in 2007 saw significant flooding in the adjacent housing streets of Cardigan Road and Roslyn Road (areas described as “low sites risk” on the map). There is a significant risk of flooding on other ‘low risk’ sites such the former Wold Carr Road Allotments site and along the High Level Freight Line yet the preferred options has recommended the building of substantial housing in this area.

An additional map showing flooded properties 2007 (available from Hull City Council) should be included in the sustainability report to provide a more recent and accurate acknowledgement of flood risks in the area.

Page 29 of 141

More accurate flood risk comments should be included in 4.3.14.

David Sustainabi Objecting Area 1 – Riley Page 47 – “There is also an opportunity to reduce the impact from future flood risk Building will not be permitted unless Bradley lity Albert College “There is by designing new builds on raised land and/or providing further strict conditions relating to flood risk Appraisal Avenue site and also an adaptations in their design.” (on-site and off-site) are adhered to. and whole other opportunit area proposed y to The summer floods in 2007 saw significant flooding in the adjacent housing reduce the streets of Cardigan Road and Roslyn Road (areas described as “low sites impact risk” on the flood risk map – figure 10). from future flood risk There is a significant risk of flooding on other ‘low risk’ sites such the by former Wold Carr Road Allotments site and along the High Level Freight designing Line. new builds on raised The quantity of new housing proposed on the Former Wold Carr Road land Allotment site (misrepresented as the Riley College Site in the and/or proposals) will have a detrimental affect on existing properties and the providing natural drainage capabilities of the whole area. further adaptation Measures described in the proposals to design new builds on raised land s in their at a higher level will cause water to collect around existing nearby design.” properties because there will no longer be any natural drainage.

No new housing should be built on low lying ground that has recently flooded until the drainage infrastructure of the City has been upgraded.

An additional map showing flooded properties in Summer 2007 (available from Hull City Council) should be included in the sustainability report to provide a more recent and accurate acknowledgement of flood risks in the area.

Mr and Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Whole Supporting most of the preferred option but not the building on the land Building will not be permitted unless Mrs D & J Options Albert area and of Riley College site which is always flooded with water near the railway strict conditions relating to flood risk Painter Avenue Riley in winter. (on-site and off-site) are adhered to. and whole College area site S. Rouse Preferred Supporting Area 1 – Area 1 – Figure 8.1 Probably the best thing to happen round here for ages Noted. Options Albert Albert Avenue/w Avenue/w hole hole Newington Newington and St and St Andrew’s Andrew’s

Bob East Preferred Comment Area 2 - Anlaby Para 7.2.6 Any proposals to increase pedestrian facilities in the Walton Street/ Agree. Rackley, Yorkshire Options West Park Road Stadium area of Anlaby Road must be compatible with the City Council’s Motor crossing strategy to improve bus lanes and bus priority at this location. Services Limited John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Area 2 - Hull Royal Area 2 - Hull Royal This is outside the boundary of the Netherwoo Society Options West Park Infirmary West Park In general the surroundings and car parking areas of Hull Royal infirmary Area Action Plan. Page 30 of 141 d are extremely tatty and let the area down. The boundaries and landscaping of car parks/ public areas need improving.

Bob East Preferred Objecting Area 2 - Mixed Figure 5.2 The company would object to any proposals to redevelop its site at There is no intention to remove any Rackley, Yorkshire Options West Park used site & 5.3 Anlaby Road for “new mixed use” as shown on the maps. Any proposals current occupiers of the site as part Motor must be compatible with the sites use as a bus depot and key employed of the Area Action Plan. The Services on site or work from it, including many residents of NASA area. designation is simply to signify that Limited should any future development be proposed for the site, the Council would expect a mix of uses including employment, to remain. John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Area 2 - West Park West Park Green space Integrating West Park into the rest of Netherwoo Society Options West Park Whilst West Park is a major asset in terms of the amount of space the neighbourhood is a key aim of d available we feel it is 'in the wrong place', being on the periphery of the the Area Action Plan. The idea of whole area. However, given that it can't be moved very easily, steps using buildings to create enclosure could be taken to make it feel more integrated and welcoming. We think in the eastern segment of the park is this could be achieved by creating some enclosure to the eastern interesting but has not been pursued periphery adjacent to the railway line. This could be done by building a for reasons of access and the desire peripheral road and building some community or commercial premises to reduce building in what is a city- along the edge which would give some enclosure which city parks wide asset. Likewise, a road usually need and to stop it feeling remote and insecure. A winding road winding through the park would through the park would also help to open it up. negatively impact on the parkland character. However, other ways of increasing security are being explored. Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Objecting Area 2 – p.41, table Indicates a concentration of leisure uses. The proviso should be that Higher order policy will apply. The Options west Park / Facilities higher order policy is taken into account, particularly in relation to the Area Action Plan Policy NaSA3 and impact on other centres. The issue will be the nature of any leisure uses specifies the uses around the new Services proposed in this area. urban square and at the stadium car park site. Ian Smith English Preferred Comment Area 2 – Anlaby Page 41, 252 Anlaby Road is a Grade II Listed Building. Development proposals Noted. Hull Local Plan already Heritage Options West Park Road Area 2 – for the new mixed use zone should ensure that the character and setting protects this building as such for any Yorkshire West Park of this building is safeguarded. development proposals being put and the forward. Humber Region Ian Smith English Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Anlaby Page 41, The former West Park Picture Palace on Anlaby Road is proposed for Serious consideration has been Heritage Options West Park Road Area 2 – demolition as part of a new mixed use development. This building has given to this comment but Yorkshire West Park been identified by the local planning authority as worthy of inclusion on unfortunately retention is not in the and the the Council’s Local List. Given the acknowledged contribution which the current plans as no feasible layout Humber façade of the cinema makes to the townscape of this thoroughfare, exists. Region consideration should be given to rearranging the elements around the proposed civic square and to the possibility of reusing this building as a focal point to the new civic space.

Carole Access Preferred Area 2 – Anlaby Page 41 Page 41 Super crossing, Anlaby Road, again good design criteria needs This is a matter for detailed design. Sewell Improvemen Options West Park Road to be used to ensure the changes are an improvement for all. t Group crossing

Mrs June Preferred Supporting Area 2 – Arthur All pages, My family and myself are impressed with the document and the options Open space and play/sports facilities Palmer Options West Park Street paragraph to be adopted. It’s well written for ‘the man in the street’ to read and are very important to the proposals s, tables, understand. It’s comprehensive and we hope the funding becomes and they must offer something for all maps, available and the areas benefit and blossom members of the community, Page 31 of 141

figures, The main problem we see is whatever regeneration is undertaken the particularly teenagers. relating to people will be the same. Same social problems, same inconsideration, communal same litter. Without some social change in attitude, a new regenerated green area would soon appear as run down as presently witnessed. spaces My main comment is to provide cycle and skateboard facilities for the girls and boys of older age where they can meet and ‘mess about’. They are too old for playgrounds and swings, too young for pubs (well – we hope!). They need a meeting place to congregate and feel it’s theirs. Perhaps it could be regulated for them-selves, giving them responsibility.

Trevor Preferred Supporting Area 2 – Arthur Page 41, I agree with the preferred option but I live at 22 Arthur street in a small The proposals have been revised Tate Options West Park Street Housing block of 6 homes at the bottom of Granville and only ourselves and and major demolition of homes on Frontage another is privately owned. The others are rented out and landlords don’t these streets is not planned. Improvem care about the state of the house as long as they get the rent. It would ent make more sense to knock this block down from no.20 – no.30, instead Scheme, of having a small block of houses stuck in the middle of the new Arthur generation but if we don’t get the house knocked down, we share a small Street alley with a terrace off Granville street and it is the only access we have to the rear garden. Would it be possible to have a larger access from the tenfoot to have a garage or some off street parking for the car?

Carole Access Preferred Area 2 – Footbridge Page 39 Connections. New ramped landmark footbridge. The design of such a Agree. The Disability Discrimination Sewell Improvemen Options West Park Connectio foot bridge needs careful consideration Haig would not like to see yet Act would ensure that any detailed t Group ns another compromise on access in the city like the Boom bridge proposals include appropriate development. We will support any well considered changes to junctions access. which result in improvements for pedestrians.

C. J. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville Map 8.1 Having lived in m y current house for 45 years, I am happy with the The proposals have been revised. Kirman Options West Park Street Housing location and don’t relish the idea of it being demolished to make way for Demolition will only apply to the 8.3.2 what I perceive to possibly be ‘yuppie’. Flats/apartments (high density court terraces to the rear of Granville housing ref. 8.3.2) in contradiction of your statement @ 3.3.5. Street and to the Anlaby Road Plus the fact that in the timeframe >10 years I will be nearing retirement frontage between Granville Street and have no desire to enter into a mortgage/bridging loan debt and Ruskin Street. All the other arrangement…and don’t want a <£70 pw rent to pay. Deed for deed. houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Carol Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville Page 41. / These houses are perfectly liveable with a bit of work needing doing The proposals have been revised. Carrigan Option West Park Street 7.28 Map which is mainly cosmetic, they could last a lot longer. Our amenities are Demolition will only apply to the 8.4 great, 20 min walking distance to all our work’s, school just around the court terraces to the rear of Granville corner, shops at top of the street, as well as a lovely park for our grand Street and to the Anlaby Road child. frontage between Granville Street We have lived in this house for twenty five years, our children and and Ruskin Street. All the other grandchild were born in this house, my eldest child died here, I grew up houses in this particular area will be with neighbours, went to school with them, you will be destroying a very retained and improved (frontage good community please re-think what you are doing to us. We would not improvement) – see Proposals Map be able to buy this size of a house for the money we would receive from in the Area Action Plan. the Council

Carrie Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville Demolition I do not want my home to be demolished. The proposals have been revised. Carrigan Options West Park Street of It is in a good area, we worked hard to get rid of the drug dealers and Demolition will only apply to the Granville violent families. My child just got accepted into one of the best schools court terraces to the rear of Granville Street, in Hull and is just round the corner. Everything we need is within walking Street and to the Anlaby Road Page 32 of 141

page 41, distance – good shops, good park, doctors surgery, dental practise and a frontage between Granville Street paragraph good green space to walk the dog around the corner. Crime is down and and Ruskin Street. All the other 7.28, map neighbourhood moral is up. We all trust each other and if you demolish houses in this particular area will be Figure 8.4 you’ll be splitting up a great community. retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Craig Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville Demolition All my friends live in this area. I work round the corner. I can’t afford my The proposals have been revised. Carrigan Options West Park Street of terraced own place so I’ve got to live with my parents and if you knock down my Demolition will only apply to the houses on home I’ll have to find a place of my own as my parents won’t be able to court terraces to the rear of Granville Granville afford a big enough house and I don’t earn enough money at the Street and to the Anlaby Road Street, moment to do this. frontage between Granville Street page 41, and Ruskin Street. All the other paragraph houses in this particular area will be 7.28, Map retained and improved (frontage Fig 8.4 improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Daniel Preferred Area 2 – Granville P.O.D, I DO NOT WANT MY HOUSE, MY HOME, DEMOLISHED. The proposals have been revised. Norman Options West Park Street 7.2.6 – Demolition will only apply to the 7.2.8, I WANT MY HOME TO HAVE THE FRONTAGE WORK OFFERED TO court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 39- OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA, AND IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 THE REAR OF MY PROPERTY TO BE ALTERED IN KEEPING WITH frontage between Granville Street SECTION THE NEW DESIGNS FOR THE AREA (I.E. GARDENS AND REMOVAL and Ruskin Street. All the other 8 IN ITS OF COMMUNITY REAR ALLEY). houses in this particular area will be ENTIRET retained and improved (frontage Y RE: I MUST STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE 3 improvement) – see Proposals Map EAST STORY, 5 BEDROOM VICTORIAN HOUSES ON THE EASTERN SIDE in the Area Action Plan. SIDE OF OF GRANVILLE STREET. GRANVIL LE ST. THESE HOUSES MUST REMAIN AS THEY GIVE OUTSTANDING CHARACTER AND IN THIS AREA OF HULL UNIQUE PROVISIONS FOR YOUNG, GROWING AND PROFESSIONAL FAMILIES.

THESE HOMES, COMBINED WITH THE NEW HOUSING TO BE PROVIDED FOR INCOMING PRIVATE RESIDENTS WOULD GIVE THE AREA A UNIQUE FEEL AND ALLOW THE 'GATEWAY' INTO HULL TO SHOW IT'S HISTORY WITH A MIX OF THE VERY BEST OF THE OLD AND NEW.

Deborah Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville I oppose vigorously to the plans to demolish Granville Street. The The proposals have been revised. Hague Options West Park Street residents of the street have battled long and hard against the issues that Demolition will only apply to the have affected our street including anti social behaviour. By holding court terraces to the rear of Granville meetings in our local community centre we tackled the issues head on Street and to the Anlaby Road through the proper channels introducing gating schemes to the back frontage between Granville Street terrace ten foots; as a result in the most part have won against the thugs and Ruskin Street. All the other that not so long ago ruled our street and formed a cohesive and houses in this particular area will be supportive community that looks out for each other. retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map I personally have no intention of moving out of my wonderful large two in the Area Action Plan. bedroom house that has been my home for the last four years; neither do I wish to relocate to a different area. The proposal will more than likely offer me money to move or alternative accommodation in a Council owned flat; neither of which would I be interested in as it would inevitably mean downsizing from my spacious house which I currently rent; as I will

Page 33 of 141

be unable to afford the current rent available for a similar property with in the city as economic factors as well as the escalated demand for houses from the floods on top of the regular demand have driven rental prices up out of my budget.

I urge you not to break up our lovely community by destroying our homes.

Instead I press you to make improvements to the frontages of the houses that look onto Granville Street and provide support for further internal/external improvements.

Demolish only the back terraces that have harboured the criminal and antisocial elements providing hiding spaces for them in the back alleys and create open space for the front houses to have extended garden areas thus improving the value of the existing front houses, the appeal and appearance of the area.

Ian Don’t Objecting Area 2 – Granville Have not It is my intention along with my fellow neighbours (of 16 years) to The proposals have been revised. Edward know West Park Street seen the strongly object to the demolition of our area. I shall seek advice from all Demolition will only apply to the Beedle document available services to aid our cause and so seek an agreement. court terraces to the rear of Granville Granville Street has been sadly neglected regarding Council Street and to the Anlaby Road maintenance. I and we do not wish to lose a solid community that is frontage between Granville Street growing stronger. I’m sure you’ll agree you do not wish to disrupt a and Ruskin Street. All the other community that has deep bonds and roots. houses in this particular area will be Rethink you plans, don’t play with people’s lives, as I am sure that your retained and improved (frontage departments will be fought all of the way. As well as services, the media improvement) – see Proposals Map could be great use to us. in the Area Action Plan.

Jackie Both Objecting Area 2 – Granville All of I have only just moved into this area and for it to be demolished would The proposals have been revised. Collins West Park Street section 7 not be good. It is hard enough trying to settle down without having to be Demolition will only apply to the uprooted again. court terraces to the rear of Granville There is a good community spirit and to just destroy the place would be Street and to the Anlaby Road to destroy this it is not what you want! Don’t demolish it, just make it frontage between Granville Street better!!! and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Kashindi Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville P.O.D, I DO NOT WANT MY HOUSE, MY HOME, DEMOLISHED. The proposals have been revised. Yabo Options West Park Street 7.2.6 – Demolition will only apply to the 7.2.8, I WANT MY HOME TO HAVE THE FRONTAGE WORK OFFERED TO court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 39- OTHER HOMES IN THIS AREA, AND IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 THE REAR OF MY PROPERTY TO BE ALTERED IN KEEPING WITH frontage between Granville Street SECTION NEW DESIGNS FOR THE AREA (I.E. GARDENS AND REMOVAL OF and Ruskin Street. All the other 8 IN ITS COMMUNITY REAR ALLY). houses in this particular area will be ENTIRET retained and improved (frontage Y RE: I MUST STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE 3 improvement) – see Proposals Map EAST STOREY, 5 BEDROOM VICTORIAN HOUSES ON THE EASTERN in the Area Action Plan. SIDE OF SIDE OF GRANVILLE STREET. GRANVIL LE THESE HOUSES MUST REMAIN AS THEY GIVE OUTSTANDING CHARACTER AND IN THIS AREA OF HULL UNIQUE PROVISIONS

Page 34 of 141

FOR YOUNG, GROWING AND PROFESSIONAL FAMILIES.

THESE HOMES, COMBINED WITH NEW HOUSING TO BE PROVIDED FOR INCOMING PRIVATE RESIDENTS WOULD GIVE THE AREA A UNIQUE FEEL AND ALLOW THE ‘GATEWAY’ INTO HULL TO SHOW IT’S HISTORY WITH A MIX OF THE VERY BEST OF THE OLD AND NEW.

Lisa Moss Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville P.O.D, * I am strongly objecting to the demolition plans with regard to Granville The proposals have been revised. Options West Park Street 7.2.6 – Street. Demolition will only apply to the 7.2.8, My husband and I bought our three storey five bedroomed home in court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 39- October 2006 with the intention of staying in the area for many years Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 while our four children grew up and eventually moved out. frontage between Granville Street Section 8 My husband spoke to the regeneration team shortly after moving into the and Ruskin Street. All the other in its property to enquire why Granville Street had been missed out on the houses in this particular area will be entirety re: regeneration plans. He was told that they had run out of funding for retained and improved (frontage east side phase one but Granville Street would be next when phase 2 started. improvement) – see Proposals Map of After acquiring this information we both felt satisfied that our home would in the Area Action Plan. Granville be refurbished and never thought for a second we would be under the St. threat of demolition. The first we heard of the plans was by a resident down Granville Street who had received The Standard through the post on the 21st February 2008 the first day of the consultation period. […] Exactly a week later 29th February 2008 in the post our copy of the Standard News arrived leaving us with only 5 weeks left to object to the plans. My husband and I attended the Gateway meetings to be left with more questions than answers. There were no definite answers just speculation and possibilities.

When we asked about what offers would be made to householders we were told market value + 10% although there were no guarantees that the property would be worth at least what we paid for it. It was explained to us that if we could not get another mortgage from the banks or building societies we may qualify for an equity loan which would be available for reinvestment in a Hull property only and when the property was sold the initial equity loan would have to be paid back in full plus interest and then a percentage of the profit on the sale of the house. So although the move may be slightly cushioned this time for the inconvenience of pulling down people's homes when the next move is made and all the monies are paid back plus interest and profit will there be enough money left to move on to a more affluent and richer future as planned or are we going to actually have less money than we have now because of this situation which is of no making of our own.

Also when talking to the Gateway staff they could only give us figures on Hawthorn Avenue which are three bedroomed houses this is our consultation why were there no hypothetical packages available for our street how can we make any kind of decision on our future when we have been given no concrete guidance. When asking about moving back into the area after the preferred option and the rebuild had been done we were astounded to find out that the largest property will be a three bedroomed house which will be no good for our family but according to Page 35 of 141 the Hull Development Framework (HDF) the option to return to the area is available but unless you are going to knock two houses together this would be an impossibility.

I was astonished when nearly two weeks later I had the first glimpse of the Hull Development Framework document which started to try and explain how the plans had been formulated.

Why were these booklets not mentioned in The Standard so they would have been made ready available for the general public and why when the word started to get about were people having to wait up to five days for these booklets to be sent to them. This is our consultation period our only chance to save our homes and the information is not readily available.

In the Hull Development Framework I was astonished and disgusted to read that 47% of the people in this area are of low education. As a qualified counsellor I find these comments derogatory and soul destroying.

It highlights how the terraces are for drug running and how negative and bad the area really is but why has it been allowed to get as bad as quoted in the booklet. There are empty properties yes and at an earlier residency meeting back in 2007 there was a discussion about selective licences for landlords where if the landlords left the properties in a bad condition the Council would have the power to seize these properties and maintain them as Council owned. Why were these positive steps for a better future for Granville Street mentioned but never followed through by the authorities.

My question is has this area been left to become run down for the purpose of these plans?

[…] down Granville Street […] the area already feels more positive. The community is becoming stronger and communication between the residents is friendly and constructive and there is a real neighbourhood friendly atmosphere beginning to form.

The HDF paints a bleak and negative picture of life down Granville Street now but with the preferred option would bring safety to the area I wonder how you would achieve this, I feel unless you erect a safe bubble around this area how are you going to stop bad families, drug dealers, squatters etc moving back to these areas. How do you stop the wrong types of people coming onto Granville Street to graffiti rather than doing it on their own streets?

For our area I would like to see the frontages of the properties to be refurbished like the windows and front walls. I would like to see angled parking with trees lining the streets.

The communal shared passageway at the rear to our property I would like to see divided up amongst the households to extend the gardens.

Page 36 of 141

Lisa Moss Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville P.O.D, I DO NOT WANT MY HOUSE, MY HOME, DEMOLISHED. The proposals have been revised. Options West Park Street 7.2.6 – Demolition will only apply to the 7.2.8, I WANT MY HOME TO HAVE THE FRONTAGE WORK OFFERED TO court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 39- OTHER HOMES IN THIS AREA, AND IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 THE REAR OF MY PROPERTY TO BE ALTERED IN KEEPING WITH frontage between Granville Street SECTION NEW DESIGNS FOR THE AREA (I.E. GARDENS AND REMOVAL OF and Ruskin Street. All the other 8 IN ITS COMMUNITY REAR ALLY). houses in this particular area will be ENTIRET retained and improved (frontage Y RE: I MUST STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE 3 improvement) – see Proposals Map EAST STOREY, 5 BEDROOM VICTORIAN HOUSES ON THE EASTERN in the Area Action Plan. SIDE OF SIDE OF GRANVILLE STREET. GRANVIL LE ST. THESE HOUSES MUST REMAIN AS THEY GIVE OUTSTANDING CHARACTER AND IN THIS AREA OF HULL UNIQUE PROVISIONS FOR YOUNG, GROWING AND PROFESSIONAL FAMILIES.

Mark Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville P.O.D, I DO NOT WANT MY HOUSE, MY HOME, DEMOLISHED. The proposals have been revised. Kelsey Options West Park Street 7.2.6 – Demolition will only apply to the 7.2.8, I WANT MY HOME TO HAVE THE FRONTAGE WORK OFFERED TO court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 39- OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA, AND IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 THE REAR OF MY PROPERTY TO BE ALTERED IN KEEPING WITH frontage between Granville Street SECTION THE NEW DESIGNS FOR THE AREA (I.E. GARDENS AND REMOVAL and Ruskin Street. All the other 8 IN ITS OF COMMUNITY REAR ALLEY). houses in this particular area will be ENTIRET retained and improved (frontage Y RE: I MUST STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE 3 improvement) – see Proposals Map EAST STORY, 5 BEDROOM VICTORIAN HOUSES ON THE EASTERN SIDE in the Area Action Plan. SIDE OF OF GRANVILLE STREET. GRANVIL LE ST. THESE HOUSES MUST REMAIN AS THEY GIVE OUTSTANDING CHARACTER AND IN THIS AREA OF HULL UNIQUE PROVISIONS FOR YOUNG, GROWING AND PROFESSIONAL FAMILIES.

Miss M Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville P.O.D, I DO NOT WANT MY HOUSE, MY HOME, DEMOLISHED. The proposals have been revised. Bridle Options West Park Street 7.2.6 – Demolition will only apply to the 7.2.8, I WANT MY HOME TO HAVE THE FRONTAGE WORK OFFERED TO court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 39- OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA, AND IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 THE REAR OF MY frontage between Granville Street SECTION PROPERTY TO BE ALTERED IN KEEPING WITH THE NEW DESIGNS and Ruskin Street. All the other 8 IN ITS FOR THE AREA (I.E. GARDENS AND REMOVAL OF COMMUNITY houses in this particular area will be ENTIRET REAR ALLEY). retained and improved (frontage

Page 37 of 141

Y RE: improvement) – see Proposals Map EAST I MUST STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE 3 in the Area Action Plan. SIDE OF STORY, 5 BEDROOM VICTORIAN HOUSES ON THE EASTERN SIDE GRANVIL OF GRANVILLE STREET. LE ST. THESE HOUSES MUST REMAIN AS THEY GIVE OUTSTANDING CHARACTER AND IN THIS AREA OF HULL UNIQUE PROVISIONS FOR YOUNG, GROWING AND PROFESSIONAL FAMILIES.

Mr and Preferred Undecided Area 2 – Granville We have lived in Granville Street for 52 years and kept our property in The proposals have been revised. Mrs K Options West Park Street good condition. We own our home outright and as we are both in our Demolition will only apply to the Smith early seventies and at the moment in good health we do not relish the court terraces to the rear of Granville thought of our home being demolished. Our objection could be resolved Street and to the Anlaby Road by getting a good price for our property and being provided with a frontage between Granville Street pensioners flat or bungalow in West Hull area, where all my family live. and Ruskin Street. All the other We would be willing to pay Council rent if this could happen, otherwise houses in this particular area will be taking our age into account we would be totally against the proposal. retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville P.O.D., I DO NOT WANT MY HOUSE, MY HOME, DEMOLISHED. The proposals have been revised. Mrs K. Options West Park Street 7.2.6. – Demolition will only apply to the Smith 7.2.8., pg I WANT MY HOME TO HAVE THE FRONTAGE WORK OFFERED TO court terraces to the rear of Granville 39-41 OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA, AND IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE Street and to the Anlaby Road Section 8 THE REAR OF MY PROPERTY TO BE ALTERED IN KEEPING WITH frontage between Granville Street in its entry THE NEW DESIGNS FOR THE AREA (I.E. GARDENS AND REMOVAL and Ruskin Street. All the other re: East OF COMMUNITY REAR ALLEY). houses in this particular area will be side of retained and improved (frontage Granville I MUST STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE 3 improvement) – see Proposals Map Street STORY, 5 BEDROOM VICTORIAN HOUSES ON THE EASTERN SIDE in the Area Action Plan. OF GRANVILLE STREET.

THESE HOUSES MUST REMAIN AS THEY GIVE OUTSTANDING CHARACTER AND IN THIS AREA OF HULL UNIQUE PROVISIONS FOR YOUNG, GROWING AND PROFESSIONAL FAMILIES.

Mr D. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville Page 40 At the last meeting we spoke about the financial compensation offer The proposals have been revised. Seabrook Options West Park Street Area 2 which may be used. They stated that full market value plus 10% would Demolition will only apply to the West Park be offered which to them was a good offer. In reply I asked where I court terraces to the rear of Granville Assessme would be able to get a four bedroomed end terrace house (which is what Street and to the Anlaby Road

Page 38 of 141

nt criteria I am in now) for what they would be offering approx £80-000 to £90-000. frontage between Granville Street They said I probably would not get one for that price. They stated that and Ruskin Street. All the other according to the council I could not be offered accommodation which is houses in this particular area will be not equivalent in size to that I am presently occupying. Also reading the retained and improved (frontage document 7.2.7 under community it states “proposals generally improvement) – see Proposals Map acceptable to local people the maximum option is marked as amber in the Area Action Plan. partially meets the criterion”. I class myself as a local person but no one as asked my opinion up until now, after the council preferred option has been put forward. Also speaking to neighbours no one has spoken to them.

Mr D. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville Figure 8.1 I am objecting to the proposed option as after speaking to the people at The proposals have been revised. Seabrook Options West Park Street the last meeting I attended. The reasoning they where coming up with do Demolition will only apply to the not ring true. They were stating the reason option (figure 8.1) was court terraces to the rear of Granville preferred was because the houses did not have gardens. I stated that Street and to the Anlaby Road my house has front-back-side garden which they were unaware of. They frontage between Granville Street also said the option to demolish the houses and build new ones was and Ruskin Street. All the other because the new green lung that was supposed to be running from the houses in this particular area will be KC Stadium to the river and if they only refurbished the houses it would retained and improved (frontage not look as nice as if there were new houses overlooking the green lung. improvement) – see Proposals Map Also I stated that down our street there was a line of about 5? houses in the Area Action Plan. that were boarded up. And if they wanted to put in a communal garden area, they could knock down these boarded up houses to accommodate a garden area.

Mr D. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville Page 73 Looking at the figures on this plan. General question is they are stating a The proposals have been revised. Seabrook Options West Park Street Figure 8.5 4 to 6 year acquisition period and a 4 to 9 year redevelopment. Where Demolition will only apply to the am I and my family and the rest of the families that are owner occupiers court terraces to the rear of Granville supposed to live while they build the new houses? As in a previous Street and to the Anlaby Road response form I stated for the money I would be offered for my property I frontage between Granville Street would not be able to afford a four bedroomed house with front-back and and Ruskin Street. All the other side garden/area. houses in this particular area will be Also in a previous meeting I attended, I stated I would need to be in the retained and improved (frontage local area. Due to being near my elderly mother (who lives off Glasgow improvement) – see Proposals Map Street) also I work locally (at HRI) that is why I bought we bought our in the Area Action Plan. house here in the first place. This did not seem to bother the people who were there.

Mr D.A. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville The I am objecting to the option which has been preferred by the Council, as The proposals have been revised. Seabrook Options West Park Street Preferred how can it be preferred when there has not been any consultation with Demolition will only apply to the Option the people who actually live in the streets they are proposing to pull court terraces to the rear of Granville Plan down. The regeneration should be the same as it has been for the other Street and to the Anlaby Road Figure 8.1 streets e.g. refurbishment the fronts/roofs /fencing. frontage between Granville Street Page 64 The medium option is the one most of the people who live in the area and Ruskin Street. All the other want. houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mr Stanley Objecting Area 2 – Granville Although only in rented accommodation I was brought up in Anlaby and The proposals have been revised. L. (to West Park Street West Hull and like the area. East access to the City Centre, bus and Demolition will only apply to the Goodman demolition railway station, a real feeling of community spirit exists around the area. court terraces to the rear of Granville ) Demolition of Granville Street ludicrous. Refurbish yes. Demolition of Street and to the Anlaby Road Supporting terraces should make sense giving gardens and garage access to frontage between Granville Street

Page 39 of 141

(refurbish houses on my side of the street (even numbers) with a little loving care and Ruskin Street. All the other ment) and work, the houses on the opposite side of the street could be brought houses in this particular area will be back to their former elegance. retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mr Steven Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville P.O.D, I DO NOT WANT MY HOUSE, MY HOME, DEMOLISHED. The proposals have been revised. Good Options West Park Street 7.2.6 – Demolition will only apply to the 7.2.8, I WANT MY HOME TO HAVE THE FRONTAGE WORK OFFERED TO court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 39- OTHER HOMES IN THIS AREA, AND IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 THE REAR OF MY PROPERTY TO BE ALTERED IN KEEPING WITH frontage between Granville Street SECTION NEW DESIGNS FOR THE AREA (I.E. GARDENS AND REMOVAL OF and Ruskin Street. All the other 8 IN ITS COMMUNITY REAR ALLY). houses in this particular area will be ENTIRET retained and improved (frontage Y RE: I MUST STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE 3 improvement) – see Proposals Map EAST STOREY, 5 BEDROOM VICTORIAN HOUSES ON THE EASTERN in the Area Action Plan. SIDE OF SIDE OF GRANVILLE STREET. GRANVIL LE ST. THESE HOUSES MUST REMAIN AS THEY GIVE OUTSTANDING CHARACTER AND IN THIS AREA OF HULL UNIQUE PROVISIONS FOR YOUNG, GROWING AND PROFESSIONAL FAMILIES.

Mrs Janet Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville I bought my house in 1963. Despite recent problems due to too many The proposals have been revised. F Duffield Options to West Park Street flats and bedsits and absentee (out of town landlords) there is still a Demolition will only apply to the demolition. community spirit!! Being close to town and Hessle Road id good for me. court terraces to the rear of Granville Supporting Over the years I have spent a lot of money keeping my house in good Street and to the Anlaby Road refurbishm repair. At my time of life (66) I don’t want the worry and stress of moving frontage between Granville Street ent. plus I could not afford to buy similar house and would not be happy in a and Ruskin Street. All the other one bedroom flat or bungalow. My house is destined as inheritance for houses in this particular area will be my family, all I have to leave them. They are well built spacious family retained and improved (frontage homes and deserve refurbishing. In the 1970’s there was talk of improvement) – see Proposals Map demolishing the terraces. West park and Kensington Groves, Victoria in the Area Action Plan. Ave and Eldon Grove. At the time I fully supported that idea in the hopes of getting better access back way, a rear garden garage etc. this to me would still make sense. Due to eviction recently of undesirable tenants, the street is now much quieter and the feeling of community spirit is becoming more evident again. It requires action against bad landlords properties that have been left empty should be purchased by Council or private housing associations and refurbished. Granville street could be restored to its former glory as has Melrose Street etc!!

Mrs Julie Both Objecting Area 2 – Granville Preferred I do not want my house demolishing, I have lived here for more than 18 The proposals have been revised. Cook West Park Street Option years and raised a family here. My house is in good repair and I like Demolition will only apply to the Map and living here. I am also employed by Sainsbury’s and my store is 5 court terraces to the rear of Granville Sustainabi minutes walk away as it is the Newington branch on Anlaby Road. My Street and to the Anlaby Road lity grandchildren go to St Georges school, where my own children went, frontage between Granville Street Appraisal and I like this continuation of heritage and want to continue living here and Ruskin Street. All the other where I am happy living and working. My daughter who resides with me houses in this particular area will be

Page 40 of 141

also works on Hessle Road, so again only has a 20 minute journey to retained and improved (frontage and from work. To resolve this then Option 1 or Option 2 would leave my improvement) – see Proposals Map house standing unlike the preferred option. I also feel we should have in the Area Action Plan. been notified before this 6 week consultation, which we weren’t.

Mrs P.P. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville The I am objecting to the preferred option as I am a home owner who feels The proposals have been revised. Seabrook Options West Park Street Preferred there has been no consultation with anyone. We have a good sense of Demolition will only apply to the Option community with our neighbours and look out for one another. The other court terraces to the rear of Granville Plan plans seem to us a much better option as this would keep people that Street and to the Anlaby Road Figure 8.1 care about each other and this area together. This in turn will keep any frontage between Granville Street Page 64 improvements up to a higher standard than moving everyone out and and Ruskin Street. All the other putting a lot of strangers together. houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mrs PP Area 2 – Granville If demolition does go ahead we will not be given enough to stay in the The proposals have been revised. Seabrook West Park Street area in the same sized property as you have improved all the other Demolition will only apply to the houses so increasing their value above our house value, so in turn court terraces to the rear of Granville making me having to increase my mortgage which will make me worse Street and to the Anlaby Road off financially on a monthly basis. We do not wish to move out of the frontage between Granville Street area as we have an 82 year old mother on my husband’s side and a lot and Ruskin Street. All the other of friends on my side. houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. N. A. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville I am writing regards your plans to demolish my home, as a resident of The proposals have been revised. Griffiths Options West Park Street – Granville Street for thirty years, this area has problems just like any other However, demolition will still apply to Court area, due to letting property and slowly running the area down. the court terraces to the rear of terraces I totally disagree with your proposals to demolish our homes, I cannot Granville Street - see Proposals Map afford to purchase another property, and have lived here most of my life. in the Area Action Plan. These Why cannot we refurbish like St Georges Road, and surrounding streets. particular court terraces are not There’s a lot of good hard working people who have finally own their own considered viable in the long term property and now have this just dropped on us. due to their layout, size and state.

R. J. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville I do not think you should pull these houses down as they are perfectly The proposals have been revised. Carrigan Options West Park Street liveable. Our community are very distressed about it. We have just got Demolition will only apply to the rid of the unwanted tenants, drug abusers, hooligans and then you lot court terraces to the rear of Granville kick us in the teeth and tell us your pulling my home of 25 years down, Street and to the Anlaby Road which me and my wife worked hard to pay for and keep four kids on the frontage between Granville Street straight and narrow. We will not be able to buy another house this size and Ruskin Street. All the other as our children live with us and you will be giving us a pittance it may not houses in this particular area will be seem it to you but it is. retained and improved (frontage We live in a great community near to work, shops, schools, parks and improvement) – see Proposals Map town, nice walk for the dog. You’re destroying a great community which in the Area Action Plan. my wife, kids and granddaughter have grown up with. We do not want to move. It would be far cheaper to redevelop the houses than rebuild. They are strong houses and can last far much longer than Council houses. Please leave our much loved house alone.

Richard Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville POD I object to the proposal for the demolition of Granville Street for the The proposals have been revised. Simon Options West Park Street 7.2.6- reasons listed. From my understanding we (as in the residents of the Demolition will only apply to the Page 41 of 141

Moss 7.2.8, proposed demolishing of the area) have to have a six week consultation court terraces to the rear of Granville pages 39- period, where information is offered to us, so we can make a full Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 educational assessment of your proposal. I feel that important and frontage between Granville Street necessary information has not been made available on a number of and Ruskin Street. All the other issues from the documentation and from the Gateway/planning staff at houses in this particular area will be your drop in centres, so I feel that there is no possible way that any of retained and improved (frontage the resident can make any sort of informed decision on the future of their improvement) – see Proposals Map homes. What I mean by this is that upon attending the drop in centre in the Area Action Plan. organised by you I asked a number of direct questions, such as' if the preferred option is given the go ahead, and an offer of market value + 10% didn't cover our mortgage then would we be offered an increased amount to stop us been in negative equity'. We were told 'that there are no policies in place to stop home owns been left in negative equity'. With the current slowdown in the housing market and the global credit crunch, how do you expect any home owner to, in effect sell their house now for an unknown price in 4 -6 years' time even with the added 10% with no reassurance of them being left in a negative equity situation. May I also add that the first official documentation I received about these proposals wasn't until a week into the consultation period by means of a copy of 'The new standard' through the post. Upon getting more information from local residents I found out that the HDF booklet was available, so I called Gateway to find out how I could get hold of a copy due to it being more informative then the recent post I had received.

I was told that there wasn't any available at that time and had to wait until they came from the printers which took a number of days, so ten plus days into the consultation period I still wasn't able to get hard copies of the information which I feel should have been offered to ALL residents of the proposed plans from day one, so each and every resident could have a full six weeks to discus and digested the proposals.

My wife and I purchased our home in November 2006, due to the size of the property it was perfect to accommodate our large, young family and was our first step on the housing ladder. We are both professional people who work and try and do the best in life for our four sons, from the HDF booklet we are the people you are looking for to live in this area. We brought the house due to the price and the size, as it was a 5 bedroom house under £100k, where as in other parts of Hull you would be looking at prices of £100k plus for 4 bedrooms. I total agree with the regeneration of the area, but not the demolition of unique 5 bedroom houses that are located in Granville Street which are the only houses of its style in the area. Keeping these houses would create a sense of history surrounded by the new and modern houses you are planning to build in the back drop of West Park and the stadium. I would like to see angled parking and planted trees in the street, along with the frontage work been carried out in other streets in the area. I would be more than happy to be involved in any future planning of the street.

Rowan Both Objecting Area 2 – Granville Section 7 I am disabled and work locally. If my home was to be knocked down I The proposals have been revised. Griffiths- West Park Street (whole would have to find a new job close to were ever I ended up living. I would Demolition will only apply to the Scott document) rather my home was refurbished than demolished. If my family were to court terraces to the rear of Granville be re-homed I, and my brothers and sisters, would not be able to stay at Street and to the Anlaby Road home with mum as we are over 18 and would be expected to fund for frontage between Granville Street ourselves. So you would be breaking up a perfectly functioning family. and Ruskin Street. All the other Page 42 of 141

The house I live in is a solid, huge family house. The package offered for houses in this particular area will be the house would leave my ill disabled mum bankrupt and alone, the retained and improved (frontage stress of losing her home and moving would make her more ill. improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Tina Preferred Area 2 – Granville P.O.D, I DO NOT WANT MY HOUSE, MY HOME, DEMOLISHED. The proposals have been revised. Melyard Options West Park Street 7.2.6 – Demolition will only apply to the 7.2.8, I WANT MY HOME TO HAVE THE FRONTAGE WORK OFFERED TO court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 39- OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA, AND IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 THE REAR OF MY PROPERTY TO BE ALTERED IN KEEPING WITH frontage between Granville Street SECTION THE NEW DESIGNS FOR THE AREA (I.E. GARDENS AND REMOVAL and Ruskin Street. All the other 8 IN ITS OF COMMUNITY REAR ALLEY). houses in this particular area will be ENTIRET retained and improved (frontage Y RE: I MUST STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE 3 improvement) – see Proposals Map EAST STORY, 5 BEDROOM VICTORIAN HOUSES ON THE EASTERN SIDE in the Area Action Plan. SIDE OF OF GRANVILLE GRANVIL STREET. LE ST. THESE HOUSES MUST REMAIN AS THEY GIVE OUTSTANDING CHARACTER AND IN THIS AREA OF HULL UNIQUE PROVISIONS FOR YOUNG, GROWING AND PROFESSIONAL FAMILIES.

Wendy Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville P.O.D, * Granville Street has got to a stage now of desirable tenants and home The proposals have been revised. Bush Options West Park Street 7.2.6 – owners. […] Demolition will only apply to the 7.2.8, court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 39- Now they [‘undesirable’ residents] are gone it is nice to live here. People Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 have bought the houses for refurbishment […] nice families are moving frontage between Granville Street SECTION into the area “working families” as this seems to play a large part in your and Ruskin Street. All the other 8 IN ITS HDF Preferred Option Document Feb 2008 houses in this particular area will be ENTIRET retained and improved (frontage Y RE: Something that is rather confusing is in the above mentioned document it improvement) – see Proposals Map EAST is also mentioned about the Victorian and Edwardian heritage. Gateway in the Area Action Plan. SIDE OF wants to demolish the old 3 and 5 bedroomed Victorian houses on GRANVIL Granville Street but keep the Arthur street with no gardens. Also where LE there can be no regeneration plans. These houses are in a worse condition than that of Granville Street or could it be the business area situated on Arthur Street that Gateway and HCC has an interest in.

Straight answers would have been nice from the onset but it has been so devious. […]

Wendy Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville P.O.D, I DO NOT WANT MY HOUSE, MY HOME, DEMOLISHED. The proposals have been revised. Bush Options West Park Street 7.2.6 – Demolition will only apply to the 7.2.8, I WANT MY HOME TO HAVE THE FRONTAGE WORK OFFERED TO court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 39- OTHER HOMES IN THIS AREA, AND IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 THE REAR OF MY PROPERTY TO BE ALTERED IN KEEPING WITH frontage between Granville Street SECTION NEW DESIGNS FOR THE AREA (I.E. GARDENS AND REMOVAL OF and Ruskin Street. All the other

Page 43 of 141

8 IN ITS COMMUNITY REAR ALLY). houses in this particular area will be ENTIRET retained and improved (frontage Y RE: I MUST STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE 3 improvement) – see Proposals Map EAST STOREY, 5 BEDROOM VICTORIAN HOUSES ON THE EASTERN in the Area Action Plan. SIDE OF SIDE OF GRANVILLE STREET. GRANVIL LE THESE HOUSES MUST REMAIN AS THEY GIVE OUTSTANDING CHARACTER AND IN THIS AREA OF HULL UNIQUE PROVISIONS FOR YOUNG, GROWING AND PROFESSIONAL FAMILIES.

Zoe Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Granville P.O.D, I DO NOT WANT MY HOUSE, MY HOME, DEMOLISHED. The proposals have been revised. Summers Options West Park Street 7.2.6 – Demolition will only apply to the 7.2.8, I WANT MY HOME TO HAVE THE FRONTAGE WORK OFFERED TO court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 39- OTHER HOMES IN THIS AREA, AND IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE Street and to the Anlaby Road 41 THE REAR OF MY PROPERTY TO BE ALTERED IN KEEPING WITH frontage between Granville Street SECTION NEW DESIGNS FOR THE AREA (I.E. GARDENS AND REMOVAL OF and Ruskin Street. All the other 8 IN ITS COMMUNITY REAR ALLY). houses in this particular area will be ENTIRET retained and improved (frontage Y RE: I MUST STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE 3 improvement) – see Proposals Map EAST STOREY, 5 BEDROOM VICTORIAN HOUSES ON THE EASTERN in the Area Action Plan. SIDE OF SIDE OF GRANVILLE STREET. GRANVIL LE THESE HOUSES MUST REMAIN AS THEY GIVE OUTSTANDING CHARACTER AND IN THIS AREA OF HULL UNIQUE PROVISIONS FOR YOUNG, GROWING AND PROFESSIONAL FAMILIES.

[NB: Additional statement submitted, available for inspection at the Planning Department, Planning Policy, Kingston House, Bond Street, Hull, HU1 3ER, please call 01482 612391 to make an appointment]

Nathaniel Both Objecting Area 2 – Granville All of I disagree with the plans of demolition to the streets. I know that the only The proposals have been revised. Griffiths- West Park Street and Section 7 requirements to be changed to the streets are a refurbishment. An Demolition will only apply to the Scott whole improvement instead of a demolishment would benefit both the court terraces to the rear of Granville area neighbourhood and the council because it would be cheaper and would Street and to the Anlaby Road work with the demands of the people who live on the streets. The frontage between Granville Street neighbourhood is both well built and friendly with one another and most and Ruskin Street. All the other the most likely event of the demolition would cause most people to houses in this particular area will be become homeless. I know for a fact that my family would not be able to retained and improved (frontage find a new home with the offers that have been made. I would like the improvement) – see Proposals Map idea of demolishing the streets to become a refurbishment. in the Area Action Plan.

Page 44 of 141

Loryn Both Objecting Area 2 – Granville Section 7 I am objecting towards the demolition of the place that I live, 28 Granville The proposals have been revised. Griffiths- West Park Street, (whole) and the whole of the street. Also including Ruskin Street, Perry Street Demolition will only apply to the Scott Walliker and Walliker Street. I would rather have the streets refurbished and have court terraces to the rear of Granville Street, such greenery like trees and plants to help the area look nicer. Please do Street and to the Anlaby Road Perry not destroy the place of which I have lived for many years. frontage between Granville Street Street, and Ruskin Street. All the other Ruskin houses in this particular area will be Street retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Tarith Both Objecting Area 2 – Granville Section 7 I strongly disagree with demolition of my street and the 3 other street The proposals have been revised. Griffiths- West Park Street, marked on the plans. In this house there lives my entire family, 3 Demolition will only apply to the Scott Walliker brothers, one sister and my mum. If you knock down my house we court terraces to the rear of Granville Street, probably won’t be able to get somewhere big enough for us all, so you Street and to the Anlaby Road Perry are splitting up my family. I would prefer our streets to be regenerated frontage between Granville Street Street, and made to look nicer this would be the best option for my family as 2 of and Ruskin Street. All the other Ruskin my brothers are disabled and cannot cope with big changes such as houses in this particular area will be Street demolition, but could possibly cope with refurbishment. retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Willow Both Objecting Area 2 – Granville Section 7 I object to the demolition of Granville street, Walliker Street, Perry Street The proposals have been revised. Griffiths- West Park Street, (whole) and Ruskin street. I live on Granville street in a large family property Demolition will only apply to the Scott Walliker which is irreplaceable. I see no reason why these houses cannot be court terraces to the rear of Granville Street, refurbished as they have been on Sandringham and Melrose Street. The Street and to the Anlaby Road Perry terraces could be raised to provide green areas, planters with trees, and frontage between Granville Street Street, shrubs could be placed in such a way it would prevent speeding. I WANT and Ruskin Street. All the other Ruskin TO BE REFURBISHED!! houses in this particular area will be Street retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Barrie Boulevard Preferred Comment Area 2 – Large Para One point that puzzles us is the change of use of the present site of There is no intention to remove any Marsden Neighbourho Options West Park Mixed 7.2.10 EYMS to Mixed Use. What exactly does this mean? There are a number current occupiers of the site as part od Watch used site of people from the local area employed here. Are you intending this site of the AAP. The designation is to become developed and remove this employer? If so does the present simply to signify that should any owner know of your plans and have they been discussed with them? If future development be proposed for so please let us know as we would like to know how, without removing the site, the Council would expect a traffic from this already congested route, you intend to enable a mixed mix of uses such as employment to use business or businesses compete when people already find it hard to remain – not just housing. cross the road and shop in peace. There have in the past been several planning decisions made without consulting the residents and community regarding this road. It has led to more congestion and a worsening of the life quality standards of the community. To do so under the guise of this document in a seemingly underhand way, would mean that this whole exercise is not worthy of the paper it is written on!

Catherine Preferred Area 2 – Perry I agree that this area needs a face lift but to demolish the whole area is a The proposals have been revised. Bishop Options West Park Street bit extreme. Option 1 is my preferred option. Demolition will only apply to the My biggest fear is that I won’t be able to buy a property if I have to move. court terraces to the rear of Granville I bought this house as it was within my budget. Street and to the Anlaby Road Perry street is a nice quiet street with a good community spirit, a lot of frontage between Granville Street people who own their own houses have been here for 20+ years, it and Ruskin Street. All the other would be very sad to lose that. houses in this particular area will be Page 45 of 141

retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Hilary Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Perry Area 2 – Objecting The proposals have been revised. Parker Options West Park Street West Park 1. Most houses are in good, solid condition – others that are not would Demolition will only apply to the - all not need much money spent on them to make them good. court terraces to the rear of Granville options 2. There is a good community spirit down Perry street – most people Street and to the Anlaby Road pages 39 know each other and support each other. If the demolition plans go frontage between Granville Street to 44, ahead, it would destroy this and people would have to be dispersed and Ruskin Street. All the other 7.2.6 to other area that they are not happy in. houses in this particular area will be 3. This area was not flooded – many of us have housed family that retained and improved (frontage were. improvement) – see Proposals Map 4. These houses often have larger room sizes then newer ones. in the Area Action Plan. 5. I no longer have a mortgage – all paid - to suddenly try to afford a mortgage again would mean I have less available money to enjoy my lifestyle. 6. I enjoy living in this area - with friends and all local amenities close by. 7. To knock this area down would kill off the local shops. 8. The minimum option plan is a total waste of time – really no point in knocking down two rows of houses (incl. mine) for a narrow green strip.

Joanne Preferred Supporting Area 2 – Perry In full agreement with the proposals. Noted. However, as a result of public Newlove Options West Park Street consultation and additional survey, the proposals have been revised. Demolition will only apply to the court terraces to the rear of Granville Street and to the Anlaby Road frontage between Granville Street and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. John Objecting Area 2 – Perry No to all your plans. The proposals have been revised. Raymond West Park Street Demolition will only apply to the Harding court terraces to the rear of Granville Street and to the Anlaby Road frontage between Granville Street and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mark Preferred Supporting Area 2 – Perry Could you please bring the demolition forward, as we are looking forward Noted. However, as a result of public Newlove Options West Park Street to living in the new builds. We have lived in a house for 17 years in consultation and additional survey, negative equity, unable to move and see this as a way of moving The proposals have been revised. forward. We just want the standard of living that everybody else has (i.e. Demolition will only apply to the garden, garage). court terraces to the rear of Granville Street and to the Anlaby Road frontage between Granville Street and Ruskin Street. All the other

Page 46 of 141

houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Martin Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Perry Preferred Instead of demolition I would like to see refurbishment because I have The proposals have been revised. Leonard Options West Park Street option done work to my house recently and feel uneasy about having to move Demolition will only apply to the plan as I am 49 years old and actually own my house. court terraces to the rear of Granville Street and to the Anlaby Road frontage between Granville Street and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mrs J. A. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Perry I have lived in this house for 45 years now. In that time I have spent a lot The proposals have been revised. Whittaker Options West Park Street of money on it, having a large extension done, buying land at the back Demolition will only apply to the for a nice garden, double glazing and last year central heating and over court terraces to the rear of Granville £1,000 for someone to come in and paint and decorate the house for me Street and to the Anlaby Road from top to bottom. We may live in old houses but solid and have no frontage between Granville Street floods. We have green land and a nice walkway at the back of me from and Ruskin Street. All the other Perry Street to St Georges Road, the gardeners do a good job of it but houses in this particular area will be people use it to dump rubbish and bonfires. I think a few of the landlords retained and improved (frontage should come round and see some of the house they let out to people. improvement) – see Proposals Map They don’t look after the houses just make a mess of them and leave it. I in the Area Action Plan. can name a few for near me. If it was not for them it would be a good street again, if we have more green land it means more land for dumping things on , how will you stop it, do we just give up after all the years here and throw it all away now for development.

Paul Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Perry I have lived at 40 Perry Street for 14 years and now have 11 years left The proposals have been revised. Roberts Options West Park Street on my mortgage. In 2006 I was diagnosed with a life-limiting illness. I Demolition will only apply to the don’t drive, so my job at the KC Stadium means I can go on working court terraces to the rear of Granville because of its close proximity to my house. If demolition goes ahead, I Street and to the Anlaby Road would still want to live in the same area, Even if it’s the Council rented so frontage between Granville Street that I can carry on working in my present job. and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Richard Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Perry Area 2 – * I have 2 houses on Perry Street, No’s 19 and 25. If you pull these The proposals have been revised. Burge Options West Park Street West Park houses down it will affect my pension and income. These two houses Demolition will only apply to the - all have been modernised, new kitchens, central heating, plastic windows court terraces to the rear of Granville options and bathrooms, they are both rented out to […] people who do not wish Street and to the Anlaby Road pages 39 to move, as this is a good street. There is no damp and look smart. Also frontage between Granville Street to 44, my mother-in-law came to live with us when she was flooded which and Ruskin Street. All the other 7.2.6 these streets weren’t. There are houses i.e. 3, need the outsides tidying, houses in this particular area will be one had £25.000 spent on it by a grant 2 years ago. retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Steven Both Objecting Area 2 – Perry The part * I am objecting to my house being pulled down to make way for a green No homes will be demolished to Paul West Park Street where my area. I have lived here for 15 years, married with 4 kids, […]. We have form the Green Lung. Buttery house spent a bit of money doing the house up just of late and are just getting comes by with the mortgage and day to day living. To be uprooted now would Page 47 of 141

down - All be a bad thing as I cannot afford to buy the same equivalent sized house, on the wage I have coming in even a smaller house is out of my range.

Wendy All Objecting Area 2 – Perry All 1. I do not wish my home to be demolished, I have just spent 12k The proposals have been revised. Buttery West Park Street doing it up with new kitchen and bathroom. Demolition will only apply to the 2. I also work local and have 2 jobs and good friends in this area. court terraces to the rear of Granville 3. My children go to local schools and would be doing exams at the Street and to the Anlaby Road time of the demolition, GCSE. frontage between Granville Street 4. Perry Street is a quiet street and the homes are looked after unlike and Ruskin Street. All the other some homes in other streets. houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mrs J.E. Preferred Supporting Area 2 – Perry Concerns I am in favour of the future plans for the area of Perry Street etc. as in a Noted. However, as a result of public Green Option West Park Street and demolition few years anyway my age will be against me. The house is too large. consultation and additional survey, surroundin Perry The stairs would be a problem and the area just about void of shops. It is the proposals have been revised. g area Street one of the worst roads in Hull. Even if the houses were upgraded, the Demolition will only apply to the area is terrible. So go ahead with the demolition plans. court terraces to the rear of Granville Street and to the Anlaby Road frontage between Granville Street and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Miss Preferred Both Area 2 – Perry Maps I object that demolition is needed in the Perry Street and Ruskin Street The proposals have been revised. Diana Lau Options West Park Street, /Paragrap areas as these are full with residents and refurbishment would be a Demolition will only apply to the Ruskin hs better option. court terraces to the rear of Granville Street (Standard Street and to the Anlaby Road newsletter frontage between Granville Street ) and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mr C.H. ?? The Both Area 2 – Perry Maps * Our objection to demolition, as a family we have lived for over twenty The proposals have been revised. Lau, Mrs plan in the West Park Street, years, we have everything we need for our quality of life(s). Demolition will only apply to the M.Y. Lau, Standard Ruskin Mr C. H. Lau […] wishes to stay in his own home, the thought of court terraces to the rear of Granville Mr D. Lau, Street demolition brings strain on his heart, the family are very concerned and Street and to the Anlaby Road and Miss wish that refurbishment would be the answer to less strain on his health. frontage between Granville Street C. Lau All the homes down Perry Street are occupied and we feel that and Ruskin Street. All the other refurbishment would be the answer, also for Ruskin Street. We agree houses in this particular area will be that Walliker Street and Granville street need more attention and retained and improved (frontage possibly more than refurbishment. improvement) – see Proposals Map One eye sore is the building at the end of Perry Street. It’s a yellow in the Area Action Plan. exterior with much damage to it, included a fire several years ago this should also be addressed. The stadium provides most parking for events perhaps Perry and Walliker Street car parks could be green space? Support for refurbishment , object: demolition.

John Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 29: to *Taking each the Objectives outlined in the reports The proposals have been revised. Page 48 of 141

Coburn Options West Park Street 31: Demolition will only apply to the Assessing Our (i.e. Gateway HMR Pathfinder ‘s) objectives: court terraces to the rear of Granville the Street and to the Anlaby Road Options improve the housing offer in Hull , meeting the aspirations of the frontage between Granville Street workforce needed to improve its economic performance; As all the and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in Ruskin Street are occupied, the street is already meeting the houses in this particular area will be aspirations of the workforce. retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map to reduce the level of low demand, low value and vacant properties in in the Area Action Plan. Hull, achieving an appropriate balance of supply and demand across the city; Why should houses already fully occupied have to be removed to reduce the level of low demand, , low value and vacant properties? to intervene where we can make the most impact to achieve mixed and sustainable communities, focussing on the strategic regeneration areas within west and east Hull; The saving of the 12 threatened houses in Ruskin Street will have no impact what so ever on the achievement of mixed and sustainable communities. It is already a mixed and sustainable community! to support communities and individuals affected by change through the market renewal process, paying attention to the requirements of current and future residents; I have had no feeling of support in this process, nor has any concern or understanding been expressed. There has been a lack of sympathy of those in charge of this regeneration process, with no regard being given to those who have invested much time and money into a house that now we are being told has to go to make way for a Civic Square for the ‘benefit of all’. If we can be assured we will not lose out financially, then we may be less likely to object. But noone has promised that we will get the full market price of a similar property that has not been in had the threat if demolition over it for 10 years. Would the planners be so keen if it was there house? to make neighbourhoods fit for 21st Century living, with well designed and sustainable housing for all.” The houses in Ruskin Street are as well designed as other houses that have been refurbished in the NaSa area and certainly as well designed as the other side of the street! Their “Vision” is summarised as being: “For the Hull housing market to be a place where people choose to live, a place of prosperous, diverse and sustainable communities and vibrant neighbourhoods,providing an enviable quality of life for all.” People have already chosen to live in Ruskin Street. It is a diverse community. The saving of the 12 houses on west side of Ruskin Street will in no way affect whether the area is prosperous or improve quality of life.

- More emphasis should be placed on improving the entrance to West Park under the flyover. Many supporters for the stadium use this entrance, which is an eyesore. Together with the ‘super crossing’ they would both be connected to the ‘green lung’. The 12 houses in Ruskin Street will have no affect on this.

Page 49 of 141

- So preserving the 12 ‘condemned’ houses in Ruskin Street would not have any affect on any of the 3 options, nor any of the other outcome projections. If all the Reports had been drawn up with the whole of Ruskin Street included for refurbishment, it would not have made any difference to any of the criteria indicated as justification for their decisions.

- Into the 12 ‘condemned’ houses in Ruskin Street has been invested tens of thousands of pounds in double glazing, central heating, new roofs, bathrooms and kitchens. The Council and Planners should ensure that these people, who have willingly invested money and much of their lives to their homes, do not suffer financially; people who were also willing to invest their future also.

Thus, my suggestions are:

1. Keep all houses and refurbish the fronts of all houses in Ruskin Street

2. Provide gardens for west side of Ruskin Street , thus fulfilling “Where can you kick a ball or walk your dog and how safe do you feel doing it?” and adding to the ‘green lung’

3. Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new development in Newcastle)

4. Place Civic Square in West Park on existing paved area and road badly in need of repair

How can the planners/ Council justify demolishing 12 houses of sound construction, fully occupied, for the sake of a Civic Square and green lung, both of which can be placed elsewhere?

John Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 30, 6 * The refurbishment of the whole of Ruskin Street and the locating of the The proposals have been revised. Coburn Options West Park Street Assessing civic square in West Park will have no affect on these criteria. Demolition will only apply to the the My Proposals: court terraces to the rear of Granville Options: • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved Street and to the Anlaby Road 6.3 area and road badly in need of repair frontage between Granville Street Criteria • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street and Ruskin Street. All the other • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear houses in this particular area will be gardens. retained and improved (frontage • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens improvement) – see Proposals Map (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new in the Area Action Plan. development in Newcastle) All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports.

John Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 63, 8 * The refurbishment of the whole of Ruskin Street and the locating of the The proposals have been revised. Coburn Options West Park Street The civic square in West Park will have no affect on these criteria. Demolition will only apply to the Preferred My Proposals: court terraces to the rear of Granville Option for • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved Street and to the Anlaby Road Change area and road badly in need of repair frontage between Granville Street Page 50 of 141

• Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street and Ruskin Street. All the other • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear houses in this particular area will be gardens. retained and improved (frontage • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens improvement) – see Proposals Map (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new in the Area Action Plan. development in Newcastle) All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports.

John Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin Page 10 * My proposals will not make any difference to the significant effects: The proposals have been revised. Coburn Options West Park Street Significant My Proposals: Demolition will only apply to the Effects • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved court terraces to the rear of Granville area and road badly in need of repair Street and to the Anlaby Road • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street frontage between Granville Street • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear and Ruskin Street. All the other gardens. houses in this particular area will be • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens retained and improved (frontage (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new improvement) – see Proposals Map development in Newcastle) in the Area Action Plan. All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports. John Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 105: * As a result of these proposals, the ‘green lung’ will be enhanced by The proposals have been revised. Coburn Options West Park Street Appendix providing gardens and more people will be attracted to West Park, so Demolition will only apply to the E: encouraging a healthier lifestyle, through play and gardening. court terraces to the rear of Granville Preferred At the same time, there will be no more affect on the other outcomes, as Street and to the Anlaby Road Option: a result of refurbishing all of the houses in Ruskin Street. frontage between Granville Street Appraisal and Ruskin Street. All the other SA I propose: houses in this particular area will be Matrices • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved retained and improved (frontage P 107: area and road badly in need of repair improvement) – see Proposals Map Appendix • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street in the Area Action Plan. E - • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear Preferred gardens. Option • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens Appraisal (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new SA development in Newcastle) Matrices All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports. John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin Page 19 * My Proposals: The proposals have been revised. Coburn lity West Park Street 1.6 SA • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved Demolition will only apply to the Appraisal and the area and road badly in need of repair court terraces to the rear of Granville Requirem • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street Street and to the Anlaby Road ents for • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear frontage between Granville Street the LDF gardens. and Ruskin Street. All the other 1.6.1 • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens houses in this particular area will be Sustainabi (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new retained and improved (frontage lity development in Newcastle) improvement) – see Proposals Map Appraisal All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes in the Area Action Plan. envisaged in the Reports.

Page 19

1.6 SA and the Requirements for the LDF Page 51 of 141

1.6.1 Sustainability Appraisal Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is an iterative process that identifies and reports on the likely significant effects of a plan. It achieves this by testing the aims and the performance of the plan against a series of environmental, social and economic objectives which define sustainable development. This process can identify issues to be addressed as well as enhancement opportunities, and subsequently provides the basis for improving the performance of plans. It is a systematic and transparent process for informing decision making. In the context of the HDF: ‘Sustainable development is central to the reformed planning system. The purpose of sustainability appraisal (SA) is to promote sustainable development through the integration of social, environmental and economic considerations into the preparation of new or revised Development Plan Documents (DPDs) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs).’ Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents, ODPM, November 2005 (ODPM SA Guidance) SA can help planning authorities to fulfil the objective to promote sustainable development in the preparation of plans, and the 2004 Act makes SA mandatory for all DPDs and SPDs.

John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 24, * Not enough consideration has been made to the old and poor affected The SA Report makes reference to Coburn lity West Park Street 2.3 by proposals the effects from demolition. Appraisal Technique The demolishing of west side of Ruskin Street will affect the old and the s Used for poor. The report states the desire to provide affordable housing, but The proposals have been revised. Assessme ‘affordable’ to whom? I already own my house in Ruskin Street with no Demolition will only apply to the nt of mortgage. I can not afford a new ‘affordable’ house, as I am too poor court terraces to the rear of Granville Significant and too old for a mortgage, that I should not be forced to take out at my Street and to the Anlaby Road Sustainabi age. I am not the only owner in a similar situation. The houses are frontage between Granville Street lity Effects sound and worth refurbishing, as is proposed for the east side. and Ruskin Street. All the other Table 1. No mention has been made of compensation, yet we are being asked to houses in this particular area will be Considerat comment on demolition. Will compensation offered be fair, using a retained and improved (frontage ions to be market value of similar property that has not been subject to many years improvement) – see Proposals Map used planning blight? in the Area Action Plan. during the Sustainabi Page 24 lity Table 1. Considerations to be used during the Sustainability Appraisal Appraisal Issues for Details Consideration Type of Affect Positive or negative Direct or indirect Cumulative Temporary or permanent Magnitude & Where will it impact? Will it be within The Spatial extent Masterplan boundary or outside it? Will it cause trans-boundary issues and impact on adjacent areas or regionally, nationally or internationally? What is the geographical area and size of population likely to be affected? Who will it Older & young people affect? Socio economic groups (variable)

Page 52 of 141

Women & men John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 25, last * Not enough consideration has been given to the stress generated by The effect on resident’s and Coburn lity West Park Street paragraph having one’s home condemned for no good reason. The old and communities that may have to move Appraisal vulnerable are being frightened by the proposals to demolish houses that to allow demolition has now been across the street are to be refurbished. included in the Sustainability If my proposals were implemented: Appraisal. • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved area and road badly in need of repair The proposals have been revised. • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street Demolition will only apply to the • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear court terraces to the rear of Granville gardens. Street and to the Anlaby Road • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens frontage between Granville Street (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new and Ruskin Street. All the other development in Newcastle) houses in this particular area will be All of these proposals would in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes retained and improved (frontage envisaged in the Reports, yet would bring much relief to the 12 improvement) – see Proposals Map households that have had the threat of demolition hanging over them for in the Area Action Plan. many years.

P25

The impact on human health and population is a key consideration of the SEA Directive. The SA Matrices have therefore been designed to encourage the impacts on different groups and communities to be considered. This is in order to avoid direct or indirect negative impacts on different communities and to promote equality, optimise positive impacts and identify enhancement opportunities. It was not possible to assess the significance of the AAP on different communities because of the insufficient baseline data available to base the assessment.

John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 27 * The report states: The proposals have been revised. Coburn lity West Park Street 2.3 Paragraph 3.3.21of the ODPM SA Guidance 2005 also suggests that the Demolition will only apply to the Appraisal Technique following court terraces to the rear of Granville s Used for mitigation measures: could be considered‘Changes to the DPD as a Street and to the Anlaby Road Assessme whole or options concerned, including bringing forward new options, or frontage between Granville Street nt of adding or deleting options; Refining options, in order to improve the and Ruskin Street. All the other Significant likelihood of positive effects and to minimize adverse effects (e.g. by houses in this particular area will be Sustainabi strengthening policy criteria); My proposals should be considered as retained and improved (frontage lity additional mitigating measures: improvement) – see Proposals Map Effects My Proposals: in the Area Action Plan. 2.3.3 • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved Mitigation area and road badly in need of repair and • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street Enhancem • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear ent gardens. Opportunit • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens ies (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new development in Newcastle) All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports.

John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 30 * My Proposals will not make any difference to the Baseline Situation The proposals have been revised. Page 53 of 141

Coburn lity West Park Street 4 Baseline and Key Sustainability Issues. Demolition will only apply to the Appraisal Situation I propose: court terraces to the rear of Granville and Key • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved Street and to the Anlaby Road Sustainabi area and road badly in need of repair frontage between Granville Street lity Issues • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street and Ruskin Street. All the other 4.3 • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear houses in this particular area will be Baseline gardens. retained and improved (frontage Conditions • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens improvement) – see Proposals Map (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new in the Area Action Plan. development in Newcastle) All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports. John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 414.4 * In the table below, I have shown my opinion for each Key Sustainability The Sustainability Issues are Coburn lity West Park Street Sustainabi Issue. focussed at the NaSA spatial scale Appraisal lity Issues If my proposals are implemented, they will not make any difference to rather than a road by road or and the Baseline Situation and Key Sustainability Issues. neighbourhood scale. Problems I propose: The proposals have been revised. • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved Demolition will only apply to the area and road badly in need of repair court terraces to the rear of Granville • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street Street and to the Anlaby Road • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear frontage between Granville Street gardens. and Ruskin Street. All the other • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens houses in this particular area will be (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new retained and improved (frontage development in Newcastle) improvement) – see Proposals Map All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes in the Area Action Plan. envisaged in the Reports.

P 41 4.4 Sustainability Issues and Problems There are a number of sustainability issues, both positive and negative, that are relevant in particular to the Newington and St Andrew’s Area Action Plan. These are summarised in Table 3 below.

KEY Description SOURCE (see SUSTAINAB References ILITY for further ISSUE details).

Type and Poor quality housing stock and (3) quality inappropriate types of housing. of housing. Including tenure and size / type AS EAST SIDE IS TO BE REFURBISHED, THIS DOES NOT APPLY AS WEST SIDE IS JUST AS GOOD. Viability of New housing should aim revitalise (3) the the NaSA housing market and housing contribute towards improving overall market. housing market in Hull. Page 54 of 141

NEW HOUSES ARE NOT PROPOSED AS OPTIONS WISH TO REPLACE WITH CIVIC SQUARE WHICH WOULD BE BETTER LOCATED IN WETS PARK. Contributing Improvements to quality and type of (1) towards the housing stock in NaSA should also conditions contribute towards creating the for conditions for sustainable economic sustained progress across the wider city area. economic There is also a need to address the progress. transport links between NaSA, the city centre and wider Hull area in order to support sustainable economic progress. REFURBISHMENT OF ALL HOUSES IN RUSKIN STREET WILL HAVE NEUTRAL AFFECT ON THIS. Provision of NaSA already contains existing key (3) and leisure and access to recreational facilities for the city. The recreational largest of these is the KC Stadium in and the north east corner of NaSA. leisure There is also the West Park and facilities. smaller areas of open greenspace that also contribute towards the overall range of recreational facilities. Similarly Anlaby Road also provides a key leisure function. NO AFFECT Provision of Retain existing services e.g. [1] and the and schools, doctors, childcare. general review access to The is however a need to provide of the NaSA key additional local services such as baseline local convenience stores, cafes and pubs situation. services. and consider how these can be spread more even across NaSA to improve accessibility and reduce people’s need to access them by car. NO AFFECT Social and Anecdotal evidence indicates that [3] and ethnic the NaSA area is home to a sizable discussions equality. immigrant population living in a with Gateway range of housing. However, there is Pathfinder. a scarcity of detailed data on the distribution of these ethnic groups and as a result it will be necessary to give this issue careful consideration during the appraisal. Similarly, there will be a need to develop a mix of Page 55 of 141

housing and service that integrates different ethnicities and social groups to prevent segregation and encourage equality as area develops. NO AFFECT Crime & The level of crime in the area is a [1] crime safety significant issue and as a statistics and consequence the Area Action Plan indices of provides an opportunity to reduce multiple the opportunities for crime through deprivation planning the range of land uses and their distribution across NaSA to improve natural surveillance and incorporate the objectives of ‘Secured by Design’. There is also a need to allow people to move around NaSA and access public transport with out being at risk from crime. NO AFFECT Improving Need to maintain the characteristics Review of the of the character areas to allow them Relevant quality of to maintain their identity. Plans, public Protect and enhance the Programmes realm and Conservation Areas and Policies. townscape. Improve areas of poor quality public realm and townscape. SAVING ALL OF RUSKIN STREET IS A BETTER WAY TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE STREET AND ALLOW IT TO MAINTAIN ITS IDENTITY Reducing the NaSA currently has high pedestrian (2) need to and cyclist numbers and as a travel and consequence there is an opportunity minimising to build on this by providing more reliance on infrastructure. Improve the North and cars South links with key routes into and for transport. out of the city e.g. the Anlaby Road. NO AFFECT Cultural Listed buildings and other buildings [1], [4] and the heritage of note should be preserved and Review of and protected and the Relevant archaeology. design/improvement of neighbouring Plans, buildings should contribute to them. Programmes Not only are they important from a and Policies. heritage point of view they also add value to character of the area and help to give NaSA its own identity within Hull. NO AFFECT Page 56 of 141

Greenhouse Reducing the emission of Scoping gas greenhouse gas emissions, from Report emissions both existing and future Baseline data. developments are a fundamental requirement for creating the Government’s ‘low carbon economy’. Key areas for the SA to concentrate on are energy generation and consumption in housing and transport. Promoting public transport use and creating more energy efficient homes would reduce GHG emissions. NO AFFECT Climate Hull is at particular risk from the Scoping change effects of climate change, such as Report adaptation rising sea-level and increased Baseline data. and frequency of intense storms. As a flood risk. result, flooding from the Humber Estuary and River Hull as significant issues due to low lying nature of the city. Similarly, there is a need for the AAP to consider how it can encourage adaptation and minimise the risks for the future climate on NaSA. The provision of gardens to the rear of the houses on west side of Ruskin Street will reduce possibility of the area flooding, whereas a paved Civic square placed there would have a detrimental affect on flood risk. Environment Although NaSA is predominately (4) al residential it is does contain quality. industrial sites, particularly between Sir Clive Sullivan Way and the Humber Estuary. These current land uses, along with historic land uses, means that there is a low to moderate risk of contaminated land within NaSA. NO AFFECT Sustainable Homes should be designed, built Code for Design and renovated to reach as high a Sustainable Standards. level as possible in the Code for Homes. Sustainable homes. This includes considering the material use and selection for buildings. NO AFFECT John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 46 * As a result of the Report taking “ the most pragmatic approach …… to The SA now reflects the impacts on Coburn lity West Park Street 6 assess the options rather than assess the effects of different options on existing residents. Appraisal Newington a street by street or site specific basis which would have been time and Saint consuming and incompatible with the high level strategic overview Page 57 of 141

Andrews required for SA and SEA”, the impact on the west side of Ruskin Street APP has been ignored. The stress and bewilderment caused to west side Options householders by proposing to refurbish the east side whilst demolishing SA the west side, shows callousness and insensitivity on the part of the planners.

My Proposals will not make any difference to the Newington and Saint Andrews APP Options SA , i.e. • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved area and road badly in need of repair • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear gardens. • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens (as shown in photos I I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new development in Newcastle) All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports.

John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 54 * If my proposals are implemented, they will not make any difference The proposals have been revised. Coburn lity West Park Street 6.5 Key (and may even provide enhancement) to the Baseline Situation and Key Demolition will only apply to the Appraisal Sustainabi Sustainability Issues. court terraces to the rear of Granville lity Effects I propose: Street and to the Anlaby Road of the • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved frontage between Granville Street Options area and road badly in need of repair and Ruskin Street. All the other 6.5.1 • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street houses in this particular area will be Strengths • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear retained and improved (frontage 6.5.3 gardens. improvement) – see Proposals Map Opportunit • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens in the Area Action Plan. ies (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new development in Newcastle) All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports.

John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 55 * The report states: The proposals have been revised. Coburn lity West Park Street 6.6 Demolition will only apply to the Appraisal Selection 6.6 Selection of the Preferred Option court terraces to the rear of Granville of the the preferred option is a hybrid of the three options and will result in Street and to the Anlaby Road Preferred varying levels of interventions and sustainability performance across frontage between Granville Street Option NaSA. The assessment of the preferred AAP option for NaSA is and Ruskin Street. All the other discussed in the following chapter. houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage Consequently, the preferred option can be altered again by implementing improvement) – see Proposals Map amendments as outlined below, without making any difference to the in the Area Action Plan. Baseline Situation and Key Sustainability Issues. I propose: • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved area and road badly in need of repair • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear gardens. • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new Page 58 of 141

development in Newcastle) All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports.

John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 56: * By implementing my proposals below, will not have any additional The proposals have been revised. Coburn lity West Park Street Preferred affect on these issues: Demolition will only apply to the Appraisal Option: • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved court terraces to the rear of Granville 7.1 area and road badly in need of repair Street and to the Anlaby Road Introductio • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street frontage between Granville Street n • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear and Ruskin Street. All the other P 57: 7.2 gardens. houses in this particular area will be Appraisal • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens retained and improved (frontage of the (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new improvement) – see Proposals Map Preferred development in Newcastle) in the Area Action Plan. Options to All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes P 59 end envisaged in the Reports.

John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 61 * Consequently, the preferred option can be altered again by The proposals have been revised. Coburn lity West Park Street 7.3 implementing amendments as outlined below, without making any Demolition will only apply to the Appraisal Assessme difference to the Baseline Situation and Key Sustainability Issues. court terraces to the rear of Granville nt of I propose: Street and to the Anlaby Road Individual • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved frontage between Granville Street Character area and road badly in need of repair and Ruskin Street. All the other Areas • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street houses in this particular area will be 7.3.2 • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear retained and improved (frontage Character gardens. improvement) – see Proposals Map Area 2: • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens in the Area Action Plan. West Park (as shown in photos I I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new Significant development in Newcastle) Effects All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports.

John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin P 62: 7.3.3 * The refurbishing of all of Ruskin Street will have the affect of The proposals have been revised. Coburn lity West Park Street Character maintaining the character of the area. The location of a Civic Square Demolition will only apply to the Appraisal Area 3: here would not, whereas if the square where placed in West park, it will court terraces to the rear of Granville Anlaby enhance the park. Street and to the Anlaby Road Road: My proposals are: frontage between Granville Street Significant • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved and Ruskin Street. All the other Effects area and road badly in need of repair houses in this particular area will be P64: 7.4 • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street retained and improved (frontage Cumulativ • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear improvement) – see Proposals Map e Impacts gardens. in the Area Action Plan. • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new development in Newcastle) All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports.

John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin p. 8, Hull * SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL REPORT The proposals have been revised. Coburn lity West Park Street Sustainabi My proposals will not affect these objectives: Demolition will only apply to the Appraisal lity court terraces to the rear of Granville Appraisal My Proposals: Street and to the Anlaby Road Objectives • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved frontage between Granville Street Page 59 of 141

area and road badly in need of repair and Ruskin Street. All the other • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street houses in this particular area will be • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear retained and improved (frontage gardens. improvement) – see Proposals Map • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens in the Area Action Plan. (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new development in Newcastle) All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports.

John Sustainabi Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin Page 9 * SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL REPORT The proposals have been revised. Coburn lity West Park Street LIKELY My proposals will not have any adverse affect on the Action Plan Demolition will only apply to the Appraisal SIGNIFIC court terraces to the rear of Granville ANT My Proposals: Street and to the Anlaby Road EFFECTS • Civic Square to be located in West Park on existing paved frontage between Granville Street OF THE area and road badly in need of repair and Ruskin Street. All the other NEWINGT • Refurbish all houses in Ruskin Street houses in this particular area will be ON AND • Provide houses on west side of Ruskin Street with rear retained and improved (frontage ST gardens. improvement) – see Proposals Map ANDREW’ • Provide all houses in Ruskin Street with small front gardens in the Area Action Plan. S AREA (as shown in photos I sent to […] [Gateway], showing new ACTION development in Newcastle) PLAN All of these proposals will in no way affect the objectives/ outcomes envisaged in the Reports.

John Area 2 – Ruskin [NB: Additional statement submitted, available for inspection at the The proposals have been revised. Coburn West Park Street Planning Department, Planning Policy, Kingston House, Bond Demolition will only apply to the Street, Hull, HU1 3ER, please call 01482 612391 to make an court terraces to the rear of Granville appointment] Street and to the Anlaby Road frontage between Granville Street and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Miss Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin West Park I am writing this letter to object to my house being demolished. I own my The proposals have been revised. Sheila Cox Options West Park Street section, own house and lived in Ruskin Street for 34 years and I cannot do with Demolition will only apply to the Ruskin the upheaval of moving. I am not happy about it, I am 73 years old and I court terraces to the rear of Granville Street want to stay here for what years I have left. Also it is a very quiet street, Street and to the Anlaby Road not one house boarded up, all the houses are occupied, we do not get frontage between Granville Street any trouble down here so I see no reason why it should be demolished. and Ruskin Street. All the other So I hope you reconsider the plans for demolition. I have no objection to houses in this particular area will be refurbishment to front ways. retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. R. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin Whole 1. There are no timescales, People do not wish to be bothered by The proposals have been revised. Greenall Options West Park Street vague predictions that may or not happen sometime. If the idea had Demolition will only apply to the been properly organised there would be no problem. court terraces to the rear of Granville 2. A map was produced supposedly showing all predictions. Upon Street and to the Anlaby Road enquiring, a resident of Ruskin Street found the predictions for frontage between Granville Street Ruskin Street were incorrect on the map. Does this mean the whole and Ruskin Street. All the other map is useless and the rest of the predictions also useless. Please houses in this particular area will be take the time to revise a poorly thought out concept and come up retained and improved (frontage Page 60 of 141

with a viable scheme. improvement) – see Proposals Map 3. No mention of cost. Why? in the Area Action Plan.

R.G. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin Whole Three years ago we were told there is no plans to tackle the Ruskin The proposals have been revised. Greenall Options West Park Street street area for at least ten years. Now we are told it could be five to Demolition will only apply to the fifteen years. Houses are still being sold and renovated in the area court terraces to the rear of Granville (those that have just bought a property are going to be very angry). The Street and to the Anlaby Road map circulated shows no programme for Ruskin Street but everyone is frontage between Granville Street told half of the street is to be pulled down. Is the rest of the map a and Ruskin Street. All the other complete shambles, the whole idea is poorly conceived and badly houses in this particular area will be operated a complete waste of public money. A few pounds spent on retained and improved (frontage grants on most of these streets would save millions. improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mr D. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Ruskin West Park The West Park area is shown on your plan as to be completely The proposals have been revised. Clark Options West Park Street and area, demolished and replaced with new houses. It would be better for the Demolition will only apply to the surroundin Ruskin residents if the area was refurbished and not demolished. It would also court terraces to the rear of Granville g area Street be a much cheaper option and would maintain the community. Street and to the Anlaby Road Demolishing the whole area would split the community and would result frontage between Granville Street in a different group of people moving in. and Ruskin Street. All the other If the area was refurbished and more control made of the Council’s houses in this particular area will be resources regarding private landlords and their tenants, the area would retained and improved (frontage once again be a lively and popular area. I also the stress put on green improvement) – see Proposals Map areas will not have the effect you hope. in the Area Action Plan.

E. Pooley Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Walliker * Objection could be resolved by Hull City Council getting a court order The proposals have been revised. Options West Park Street on landlords who let their properties rundown to rack and ruin. If they Demolition will only apply to the were made to keep their houses in order and maintained properly they court terraces to the rear of Granville would get some decent tenants. Why should we have to suffer after Street and to the Anlaby Road we’ve worked all our lives, struggled to buy our own houses, spend frontage between Granville Street money maintaining the property when landlords don’t care less and and Ruskin Street. All the other renting to any[one] I sent to […] . They’re getting away with [it][…] and houses in this particular area will be decent people are suffering. If you pull the houses down you are not retained and improved (frontage solving the problem because all these landlords will buy houses improvement) – see Proposals Map somewhere else and the people will move to another area so you will still in the Area Action Plan. have the same problem because you are just moving the rubbish from The Area Action Plan also includes a one area to another area. These people aren’t bothered because they policy which prevents the division of know you move them. You have to re-house them and where you going houses into flats. to put them nobody wants to move to […]. The Council say it’s a rundown area but what do they know they don’t live round here. I have lived here for 40 years and I can honestly say I have never been burgled or had my car broke into. If I had a problem with the area I would have moved years ago, but I am happy where I am.

John Tweed Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Walliker RE: 48 Walliker Street The proposals have been revised. William Accommoda Options West Park Street I am the owner of the above property. I object to the demolition proposed Demolition will only apply to the Tweed, tion by yourselves. A better way is to adopt option 2 and to tidy up the street court terraces to the rear of Granville scene or renew the front wall and windows as you have done to Plane Street and to the Anlaby Road Street and St Georges Road. I must say you have done a good job with frontage between Granville Street these two areas.. and Ruskin Street. All the other 48 Walliker Street is in reasonably good repair with new gas central houses in this particular area will be heating system and double glazing. Tthe house is in a popular area and retained and improved (frontage has always been let, usually let to doctors or nurses at Hull Royal improvement) – see Proposals Map Infirmary. The house is situated in a popular area with a good community in the Area Action Plan.

Page 61 of 141

spirit. We do not have an anti-social behaviour problem or drugs. It is not necessary to demolish this area, with a little T.L.C the houses and community are good for many years.

Mr James Preferred Supporting Area 2 – Walliker Page 41 [No specific comment provided] The proposals have been revised. Start Options West Park Street Demolition will only apply to the court terraces to the rear of Granville Street and to the Anlaby Road frontage between Granville Street and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mrs Preferred Area 2 – Walliker Para Preferred options say houses will front into simple pattern of streets:- The proposals have been revised. Doreen Options West Park Street 4.2.3/4 Should the preferred option take place, although I object, to demolition of Demolition will only apply to the Patching my property, it would be essential for dwelling where I live to have court terraces to the rear of Granville “natural lines of sight”. I have a great fear of dogs and should I not be Street and to the Anlaby Road able to see clearly to the end of the street I would be too fearful to leave frontage between Granville Street the house. At the moment I go out daily with easy access to local and Ruskin Street. All the other transport which runs regularly and often. This is vital to me. houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mrs Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Walliker Map I object to a compulsory acquisition of my property. Certain possible The proposals have been revised. Doreen Options West Park Street showing options have been explained to me particularly the ‘equity release Demolition will only apply to the Patching Preferred mortgage’ and I am currently unhappy with this as an option. At my time court terraces to the rear of Granville Options in life, I do not want to re-locate. However, if there has to be changes Street and to the Anlaby Road for and I can understand many of the arguments and benefits for frontage between Granville Street Walliker regeneration of the area, I feel an improvement to the existing properties and Ruskin Street. All the other Street may be an option. houses in this particular area will be This could be done on a rolling programme, those physically able to retained and improved (frontage cope with changes/improvements to their property could be in the first improvement) – see Proposals Map phases, those like myself, who would find upheaval stressful could in the Area Action Plan. perhaps be built into the latter phases. However, nor would I want changes to the area to make it like living in a ‘bomb site’ should my property be in the latter phases.

Mrs Preferred Area 2 – Walliker Any which I am a pensioner. I currently have no mortgage and therefore no The proposals have been revised. Doreen Options West Park Street relate to payments to make on the property I own other than insurance. I have a Demolition will only apply to the Patching demolition two bedroomed property, with two bathrooms- one on ground floor, one court terraces to the rear of Granville + re- on first floor. I live alone but family come to visit, from away, at least Street and to the Anlaby Road housing three times a year. I therefore would require the exact same space and frontage between Granville Street facilities I have now so that I can accommodate my family as I do now. and Ruskin Street. All the other My property is a fixed asset, which I worked hard most of my life to houses in this particular area will be purchase, I wish to retain this asset so there is something for my children retained and improved (frontage to inherit. improvement) – see Proposals Map I strongly object to the demolition of my property and would urge the in the Area Action Plan. Council to consider more appropriate ways for re-generation of the area.

Mrs Preferred Supporting Area 2 – Walliker Page 41 [No specific comment provided] The proposals have been revised. Lorraine Options West Park Street Demolition will only apply to the Start court terraces to the rear of Granville Page 62 of 141

Street and to the Anlaby Road frontage between Granville Street and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Phillippa Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Walliker Walliker street could look very impressive when coming into Anlaby The proposals have been revised. Hillam Options West Park Street Road, if only our houses were given the same makeover as other streets Demolition will only apply to the e.g. railings and trees, trees along fencing by railway. Remove bridge court terraces to the rear of Granville and situate in St. Georges Road. Simplicity not dramatics. Street and to the Anlaby Road We need to keep some history in Hull. These houses are/will be if they frontage between Granville Street are continually demolished. and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Sharon Preferred Supporting Area 2 – Walliker Walliker Support providing compensable purchase and re-housing is carried out. The proposals have been revised. Fairhead Options West Park Street Street Current house has been disabled articulated. But would like bungalow Demolition will only apply to the house with two bedrooms. Need a mix of housing types especially court terraces to the rear of Granville ground floor with two bedrooms. Street and to the Anlaby Road Like neighbours friendly etc. when it comes to it mainly keep people frontage between Granville Street together. and Ruskin Street. All the other Don’t want to be where there is loads of kids. Area formed more towards houses in this particular area will be elderly. Not too much of a mix. retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. T. Both Objecting Area 2 – Walliker 1. Most of the properties are double glazed, central heating, fully The proposals have been revised. Humphrey West Park Street modernized, so why knock them down? Demolition will only apply to the 2. I do not wish to be put in debt as I am debt free and will be court terraces to the rear of Granville forced to take on a debt as I am disabled and there is no way Street and to the Anlaby Road to pay it back. And to be forced to leave my home so frontage between Granville Street someone can build on it. My home is not a slum or in the way and Ruskin Street. All the other of a road and to be forced out. I WILL NOT LEAVE houses in this particular area will be 3. To be told I have not got a garden is why you want to have my retained and improved (frontage home is not my idea of a reason as I have hay-fever and do improvement) – see Proposals Map not like gardening at all. It is not a valid reason. in the Area Action Plan. 4. I have looked at all the homes in the street and there are about 9 properties which cannot be living so why? 5. No one has visited my home to see the state of the homes you wish to demolish. So you cannot tell what the streets are like by looking at the outside of the houses.

Auril Preferred Supporting Area 2 – Walliker Regenerat The demolition of Granville street, Walliker Street and regeneration of The proposals have been revised. Cassidy Options West Park Street, ion of all the area is an excellent idea, I am all for it. Demolition will only apply to the Granville the area court terraces to the rear of Granville Street and Street and to the Anlaby Road surroundin frontage between Granville Street gs and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan.

Page 63 of 141

Mr R. J. Preferred Supporting Area 2 – Walliker Demolition I am in complete agreement in the regeneration of the area. I feel it is Noted, although the proposals have Cassidy Options West Park Street, and something that has needed looking at for a number of years especially been revised. Demolition will only Granville regenerati with the demise of Granville street and surrounding area in general apply to the court terraces to the Street and on of the rear of Granville Street and to the surroundin area as a Anlaby Road frontage between gs whole Granville Street and Ruskin Street. All the other houses in this particular area will be retained and improved (frontage improvement) – see Proposals Map in the Area Action Plan. Mr Pooley Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Walliker Walliker Taking our rights away everything we worked for plus breaking up the The proposals have been revised. Options West Park Street, Street, community and families. Demolition will only apply to the Perry Perry [Please indicate how your objection could be resolved] By doing houses court terraces to the rear of Granville Street and Street, up to scratch and making sure landlords keep houses in order. Street and to the Anlaby Road Ruskin Ruskin The reason I object to demolition is because I own my own property and frontage between Granville Street Street Street. have lived here for 40 years all my family was brought up round here and and Ruskin Street. All the other still live in the area if we move you will be braking the families up if we houses in this particular area will be move we will be worse off because we are on low income and can’t retained and improved (frontage afford to move. We’re too old to buy another house. We will lose out improvement) – see Proposals Map because my doctor’s is on the door step, dentist’s is top of the street. We in the Area Action Plan. do all our shopping Walton Street market, I take my grandchildren to Albert Avenue swimming baths, we take the children to West Park to play on the swings, instead of letting them play in the street. It’s also handy for shopping on Hessle Road, handy for buses to town especially the Park and Ride, it’s handy for the grand kids for St Georges Road school. If we give our house up it means we will lose all these facilities which have used and supported for many years plus we will lose touch with all of our neighbours whom we have known for years. Losing our house is like being made redundant. Nothing to look forward to.

Mrs E. Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Walliker Walliker Ill Health to old to move Age 87 The proposals have been revised. Pooley Options West Park Street, Street, [Please indicate how your objection could be resolved] Doing houses up Demolition will only apply to the Perry Perry to scratch making sure landlords maintain there house. The reason I court terraces to the rear of Granville Street and Street and object to demolition is that there is nothing wrong with the houses I lived Street and to the Anlaby Road Ruskin Ruskin here for 40 odd years and I am quite happy to carry on living here till I frontage between Granville Street Street Street die. We’ve good neighbours who don’t want to move, they take pride in and Ruskin Street. All the other looking after their houses. Over the years we’ve spent a lot of money houses in this particular area will be doing them up and modernising them. 20 years ago they gave us all retained and improved (frontage grant. Spent 20,000 pounds on my house building new extension, new improvement) – see Proposals Map roof, and double glaze all mod coms. I am on a pension and draw my in the Area Action Plan. money and pay my bills through the post office because its handy on the door step. I rely on one of my daughters who lives nearby to do the shopping for me. I rely on her she visits me every day to make sure I am alright. I am not in the best of health because the doctor says I am suffering with depression due to worrying about having to move and where am I going to finish up. I don’t want to move because I have lived in the area for so long and know all the neighbours who look after me. If I move to a new area it will be like starting all over again not knowing anybody travelling miles to the nearest post office..

John Preferred Objecting Area 2 – Whole Preferred The plans propose the demolition of 2000 houses as part of the HMR The plan is fully costed. Coburn Options West Park Area and Options programme. There is insufficient funding guaranteed for this scale of

Page 64 of 141

Ruskin Document: intervention. The proposals have been revised. Street THE Demolition will only apply to the ENTIRE I wish to object on the grounds of uncertainty as the plan does not show court terraces to the rear of Granville DOCUME how and when the proposals will take place. Street and to the Anlaby Road NT frontage between Granville Street How do the Hull City Council propose to deliver the demolition -for and Ruskin Street. All the other instance, do they intend to use CPO powers? The law makes it quite houses in this particular area will be dear that land should only be taken compulsorily where there is evidence retained and improved (frontage that the public benefit will outweigh the private loss. I do not believe this improvement) – see Proposals Map is true for west side of Ruskin Street, especially as I have identified in my in the Area Action Plan. previous Responses a more suitable location for the civic square, i.e. in West Park.

I also wish to object to the demolition on the grounds that all of the existing housing in Ruskin Street is sound and occupied. The indicators normally used to determine whether a housing market is failing (and therefore whether demolition is required to regenerate the housing market) are the number of vacant properties, the condition of the housing and the number owned by private landlords. At least 50% of the west side of Ruskin Street is privately owned and none are empty. Therefore the west side of Ruskin Street exhibits none of these characteristics, so the case for demolition under HMR grounds is weakened.

Also is there sufficient compensation money available, if my house and the others on the west side of Ruskin Street are demolished? I would expect to get a 'proper' market value (compared with a property in a similar area but not having been subject to planning blight)+ a bit for relocation, etc.

Mr Srini Preferred Supporting Area 2 – All [No specific comment provided] Noted. Kovvuri Options West Park and Whole area John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Area 2 - Anlaby Area 2 – Blot Spots Some of these are included in the Netherwoo Society Options West Park Road West Park There are some very ugly blot spots/eyesores and areas of dereliction new square intervention and so will d and Area and Area which should be attended to as an early priority. be replaced. 6 – 6 – These would include the terraces on Anlaby Road opposite East Coltman Coltman Yorkshire Motors and opposite the KC Stadium -public intervention/ Street Street compulsory purchase is needed.

Tesco Preferred Supporting Area 3 - Tradex Para Whilst we support this Preferred Option in principle, we do wish to make Noted. The AAP does not wish to Stores Options Anlaby site 7.2.13 the following comments: be overly prescriptive on the type of Limited Road Conclusio • It is agreed that “first impressions are important”, and that the retail use. (Agent: ns for reconfiguration of the junction at the western end of Anlaby Road DPP) Anlaby will be important in this regard, but that the value in providing a new Road landmark building on the former Tradex site should also be Character promoted. Area p.44 • More comprehensive development of the Tradex site would also enable measures to promote streetscape and the urban layout of the wider area. • In respect of the Tradex site itself, we would suggest that it provides the opportunity for mixed use development that would include community uses and retail uses. Page 65 of 141

• Focusing upon the retail element, this should incorporate an anchor development that can tangibly improve the retail offer to promote the vitality and viability of the centre, whilst still being appropriate to the needs of its identified catchment. • We conclude that the wording provided in paragraph 7.2.17, stating that “…the Tradex site will unlock the potential to create a new mixed use and retail hub that will provide both the immediate and wider area with a strong anchor in terms of facilities”, is substantially more appropriate than the wording at paragraph 7.2.13, and for consistency, should replace the following from paragraph 7.2.13 “…possible higher order goods as part of the Tradex redevelopment opportunity”. • We would go further and suggest that this strong anchor retail facility must incorporate a convenience superstore alongside ancillary comparison provision and other town centre uses. This will substantially enhance the retail offer of the centre, and through the incorporation of physical measures to promote linkage and the provision of adequate car parking, will also provide the opportunity for further multiplier benefits associated with improved linkage to and between existing facilities.

Barrie Boulevard Preferred Support Area 3 – Para All other proposals for shops etc are acceptable and have our Noted. Marsden Neighbourho Options Anlaby 7.2.10 commendation. od Watch Road Barrie Boulevard Preferred Comment Area 3 – Para The raised junctions for side roads is acceptable but not over the entire Concerns noted, although the Marsden Neighbourho Options Anlaby 7.2.10 junction. This we feel will create false pedestrian ideas of free movement principle of improved pedestrian od Watch Road as well as increasing the accident risk. It will also create an up and down access to West Park from the south motion on vehicles that due the frequency of junctions will cause a ‘sea remains important – the challenge is type’ travel experience. to better balance free-flowing traffic with a more people-friendly environment, without compromising safety. There are successful examples that can be drawn on. More consultation will take place about the detail of actions to improve movement along Anlaby Road in the delivery stage. Barrie Boulevard Preferred Objecting Area 3 – Para The present bus stops are there because people use them so whilst This proposal has been revised in Marsden Neighbourho Options Anlaby 7.2.10 buses do stop at them it is because they are needed. It would be much the Area Action Plan. od Watch Road better to reduce the amount of through traffic rather than supposedly improving bus stop set down times. This is contrary to all our thoughts and we will object to any change to the sites of bus stops.

Barrie Boulevard Preferred Objecting Area 3 – Para We welcome the bus lane provision [Medium Option] as this will improve More consultation will take place Marsden Neighbourho Options Anlaby 7.2.10 the buses and do away with the ridiculous situation we now have of bus about the detail of actions to improve od Watch Road lane here -then gone etc. along with the buses having to fight their way movement along Anlaby Road in the back into the traffic stream. The present bus lanes westbound do not delivery stage. work in any case due to this. You state that by removing the bus lane inbound you will reduce the barrier effect [Maximum Option]. If more traffic was removed from the road you would have exactly the same effect without delaying buses.

Page 66 of 141

Carole Access Preferred Area 3 – Page 42 Page 42 Area 3 Anlaby Road raised surface at junctions, this does Junctions is a matter for detailed Sewell Improvemen Options Anlaby Area 3 facilitate easier crossing for some mobility impaired but needs to be done design. Other proposals objected to t Group Road well to avoid making it more difficult for the visual impaired. Anlaby Road now dropped from Area Action Plan. already has some narrow footways which cause problems now.Reduction of Anlaby Road to two lanes, removing the bus lane seems to contradict other comments and some recent publicity from HCC.Improved lighting and crossing points supported.

Carole Access Preferred Area 3 – Page 44 Page 44 Rationalisation of bus stops could create difficulties for some, Agree and have reconsidered Sewell Improvemen Options Anlaby maximum distance needs to be agreed, stated earlier in document that proposals. t Group Road bus service within 400m of residential areas. Some older and disabled people would even struggle with this distance. Consideration also needs to be given to the route people might need to take to the bus stops to ensure they are accessible and safe, especially at night.

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Objecting Area 3 – p.44, table Refers to the possibility of higher order goods as part of the Tradex Higher order policy will apply. Options Anlaby / Facilities redevelopment. The proviso should be alignment with higher order policy Road and and the City Centre AAP (city centre uses / sequential testing) Services Ian Smith English Preferred Comment Area 3 – Page 44, Whilst we welcome the proposals for a Frontage Improvement Scheme This has been considered. This can Heritage Options Anlaby Area 3 – along this section of Anlaby Road, consideration should be given to be delivered through future Yorkshire Road Anlaby extending this to encompass other buildings within this area, particularly opportunities other than Gateway and the Road those which have been identified by the Council as being of local funding which unfortunately cannot Humber importance. be used for such purpose. The plan Region only shows actions which can be Paragraph 8.1.2 of the AAP states “this is the area’s shop window and delivered. action is needed here to ensure that it puts its best on display”. Given that the intention of the AAP is to accentuate the distinct identity of this area and to create an attractive townscape, investment in the buildings which most contribute to the character of this part of the Newington and St Andrew’s area would assist in raising the environmental quality of the area and the delivery of this part of the strategy for the area.

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Supporting Area 3 – p.13, para It is right to note the need for caution in adding new facilities to Hessle Agree. This has been addressed in Options Anlaby 3.8.1 Road and Anlaby Road. This could be supplemented with reference to the Area Action Plan and its Road and the need to protect their function as district/local shopping centres, and Proposals Map. Area 8 – in particular to prevent erosion of the character of these areas with their Hessle predominance of independent retailers by any future large scale Road proposals (single retailer/superstore type proposals for example).

Tesco Preferred Supporting Area 4 - Tradex Para 8.3.2 In respect of the Tradex site, we note that 8.3.2 promotes “…new local Text has been reviewed although Stores Options Hawthorn site Housing, shops and community facilities at the Tradex site…”. the policy and approach remains the Limited facilities same. (Agent: and As highlighted previously, this is inconsistent with the guidance at DPP) services paragraph 7.2.17. We would recommend that the text at paragraph 8.3.2 Preferred be replaced with the text provided at paragraph 7.2.17, stating: “new Option mixed use and retail hub that will provide the immediate and wider area p.67 with a strong anchor in terms of facilities.”

Tesco Preferred Supporting Area 4 - Tradex Para Whilst we support this Preferred Option in principle, we do wish to make Noted. Stores Options Hawthorn site 7.2.17 the following comments: Limited Avenue Conclusio • It is noted that the redevelopment of the Tradex site is also (Agent: ns for considered in respect of the Preferred Option for this Hawthorn Page 67 of 141

DPP) Hawthorn Avenue Character Area, as well as the Anlaby Road Character Area Avenue referred to at paragraph 7.2.13. Character • We support the wording of 7.2.17 in respect of a “new mixed use Area p.47 and retail hub that will provide the immediate and wider area with a strong anchor in terms of facilities.” as this properly identifies the development opportunity, and the need to address deficiencies in the wider service offer of Anlaby Road Large Local Centre. • We concur that the provision of new shops and facilities will provide a more attractive interface between the new residential area, providing a sense of activity and movement.

[No name Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Page 47 Having just received the deeds to this property, it’s hard for me to accept The options appraisal and the nature provided] Options Hawthorn 7.2.17 that demolition is the ‘preferred option’. Why you can’t tidy them up like of the problem here means that Avenue you have in the surrounding streets, I don’t know! demolition is proposed. The options after the house is bulldozed don’t sound very attractive either. Why should I be part-owner of a new house that I didn’t need We are convinced that homes need when I fully own this one? I think you’ve got a bloody nerve. Is this just to be demolished to achieve the another P.R. exercise to get ‘resident opinion’ or have you already made level of change that the area needs. up your minds anyway? Looks that way to me. A generous compensation package will be offered.

Robert Fields Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Stirling Page 47 - I am objecting to the demolition of properties in Stirling Street, Anlaby Demolition is no longer proposed in Medd Residents Options Hawthorn Street 7.2.17 Road. In particular the four properties on the left hand side going into the the Area Action Plan for Stirling Association Avenue (housing) street from Anlaby Road. These are really good examples of terraced Street. Houses and are in really good order. I do not see the point of demolition for the sake of it when refurbishment would be preferred for these houses. Carole Access Preferred Area 4 – Page 45 Page 45 Same as previous comment Noted. Sewell Improvemen Options Hawthorn Demolition or redevelopment of terraces/courts supported as these have t Group Avenue always caused difficulties for wheelchair and scooter users due to their narrow access routes. Point on language usage, in Hull the court housing is commonly referred to as terraces and a distinction needs to be made between terraces and terraced housing which is not in the courtlayout.

Christophe Preferred Supporting Area 4 – Overall Fully support overall Preferred Option Noted. r Michael Options Hawthorn Preferred Young Avenue Option Dominic Preferred Supporting Area 4 – Page 47 Hawthorn Avenue needs a big revamp as many houses are in poor Noted. Peter Options Hawthorn 7.2.17 condition. New life is needed to be injected into the area. Hoping this will Barron Avenue Page 63 improve the moral and pride in the area. 8.1.2 Crime prevention and open spaces are needed. Hawthorn Avenue Franciso Comment Area 4 – I don’t object or object about demolition of properties within the area. Noted. Egua Hawthorn But if the time comes I will like to help with the improvements within the Avenue area. If this yard, where my house is situated, I don’t mind to help with money or work as long as the area is better. But or the landlord, they neither to help and be together in the job. As money probably ok working with the Council or with the development team.

Geoff Preferred Supporting Area 4 – Just wish things would start to happen, and we could find out what, were, Noted. Rimmingto Options Hawthorn when, and then we could start making plans for ourselves. Page 68 of 141 n Avenue

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Objecting Area 4 – p.45, table Medium & Maximum options refer to retail use at the Tradex site. The Higher order policy will apply. Options Hawthorn / Facilities proviso should be alignment with higher order policy and the City Centre Avenue and AAP (regarding city centre uses and sequential testing). Services Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Objecting Area 4 – p.47, table Refers to retail development potential including at the Tradex site. The Higher order policy will apply. Options Hawthorn / Facilities proviso should be alignment with higher order policy and the City Centre Avenue and AAP (city centre uses / sequential testing and protection of other Services centres).

Mr Preferred Supporting Area 4 – All of it I think the plans are very good, just two concerns A relocation package will be Akelsey Option Hawthorn 1. Will I be able to afford a new house, if I go into a half mortgage/half available, taking account of the Avenue rent scheme what is to stop the rent rocketing up in years to come? housing market prices. Shared- 2. We have heard all this before. When will we know which option the ownership would be with a housing Council is going for? association. The Area Action Plan constitutes the next steps of the plan preparation and contains the proposals and policies that are intended for adoption. Mr and Preferred Supporting Area 4 – 5.1 5.1 Minimum Option Plan Noted. Mrs J.H. Options Hawthorn Brooks Avenue

Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Map 2/3 We would like to add our views to the proposals put forward regarding These points can be decided at the Mrs Options Hawthorn the regeneration of the Newington and St. Andrews Area. detailed design stage. Sedgwick Avenue We agree with the need to build new houses in the area if the existing properties are beyond repair and to create more appropriate housing for today's families, but at the same time we have to protect our interests.

We are concerned that when the houses are demolished in Whyte Street and Seymour Street on Hawthorn Avenue and the new housing is built, that we will lose our security regarding living in a no through road for vehicles and pedestrians alike. We previously lived in Berkeley Street on Spring Bank which was also a no through road but with pedestrian access through to Princes Avenue and Beverley Road which was always noisy after closing time and our car had its window smashed by a reveller. We would not want that access to be granted in this street, in this area.

We are also concerned about the lack of parking spaces in our street for residents and visitors alike and so would agree with our neighbour to ask that when the houses behind Glencoe Street are removed, the residents could be granted a ten foot that allows access to the rear of the properties with parking lay-bys behind each property, but that would need to have proper lighting for security. We would also ask that when the houses on Whyte Street are removed that Glencoe Street be extended far enough to create a 'T' turning place for large vehicles that seem to come down this road more frequently to be able to turn without the risk of walls or lampposts being knocked down and for the safety of the residents in Numbers 82 and 84! Page 69 of 141

In conclusion, we commend the plans to turn this area into a more pleasant and contemporary place to live, but have worries about the upheaval in the short-term and the calibre of residents that would become neighbours in the long-term, probably being children of a growing minority of anti-social adults who would not appreciate the efforts being made on their behalf.

\\Ire sincerely hope that our views, particularly on the parking and turning place ideas are given due consideration for the improvement of the current residents of Glencoe Street.

Mr K. Preferred Supporting Area 4 – Page 45. [No specific comment provided] Noted. Harman Options Hawthorn Maximum Avenue Option Nicola Preferred Supporting Area 4 – Some of the houses should be demolished in the Hawthorn Avenue area Noted. Lawson options Hawthorn to make it better for kids and families. Houses in this area are old and Avenue unsuitable. We would need a playground as part of the redevelopment. Agree with the demolition proposals in the Hawthorn area.

Nigel Preferred Supporting Area 4 – I am for all housing to be knocked down and rebuilt. The houses are very Noted. Arbon Options Hawthorn old and some do not look too bad but we get damp on the walls because Avenue all of the bricks at ground level are porous and cracked it does not matter how much you inject them it does not stop the damp. People want gardens and a bit more space not old terraced housing. One thing that has made me quite worried is that they intend to knock the south side of Cecil Street down and leave the north side up which is the side I live at I think it will cause you a lot of problems especially when earth removers and HGV to wagons come bouncing down the street I feel our houses will end up falling down also we will be looking at a building site which I’m not happy with.

Peter and Preferred Supporting Area 4 – Fig 8.1 Yes – support proposals, however would seek assurances that A relocation and compensation Maureen Option Hawthorn Gateway/Hull City Council will make all efforts to ensure that the resident package will be available. Each case Bland Avenue can be re-housed within locality / surrounding area. will be treated individually and every Has disability issues and would seek a new house within the Hawthorn effort will be made to meet the Avenue area and does not want to be re-located outside the area due to needs of households being health problems and essential need to be close to existing family. relocated. Will not be able to receive new mortgage and wants every effort made to ensure financial assistance will be given and circumstances will be improved.

Mr and Preferred Support Area 4 – Area 4 – Page 67, We strongly support the key changes covered in the Preferred Option in Noted. Mrs Options Hawthorn Hawthorn 8.3.2, terms of housing change. Specifically the investment to the Frontage McNeil Avenue Avenue Area 4, Improvement Scheme and key street / public realm works. We also and Hawthorn support all new community facilities and the investment in the Edinburgh Edinburgh Avenue, Street Community Centre. Street Preferred Communit Option y Centre Mr S. Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Area from Fig. 5.8.5 I object to the phasing of years 4-6. The area around Granville should A potential secondary school does Carter Options Hawthorn Anlaby Proposed be moved forward to allow the area from Anlaby Road to Cecil Street to feature in the AAP. This will be Avenue Road to phasing be done in one hit. Instead of being broken into 2 separate phases which subject to confirmation from Page 70 of 141

Cecil will cause problems to those living in the 7-9 year acquisition. Surely it is government. Street and logical to demolish and build in a large block rather than 2 small blocks. whole Also people coming into the area would have a much nicer view when area going into Hull City Centre. I would also like to submit that without a Secondary school in the area, and the distance pupils will have to travel to what I believe are schools that are failing children from the area. Homes will not sell. As most young families take schooling as a top priority when buying their home.

J. D. The Lower comments Area 4 – Glencoe We propose the need for a tenfoot that allows the Glencoe Street This can be decided at the detailed Foster Glencoe Hawthorn Street tenants car access to the rear of their properties with small parking lay- design stage, but parking to the rear Street of Avenue bys behind each property. of dwellings will not usually be Road encouraged. Parking This will help elevate increasing parking problems on what will be the Scheme main throughfare on Glencoe Street and make it easier for the fire Committee engines, ambulances to negotiate the narrow street

It will also help stress levels of tenants who have to constantly play a sort of parking musical chairs with the parking wardens.

We have a mixture of tenants, young families, middle age professionals, disabled, and pensioners.

We realise that when White Street at the bottom of Glencoe Street and Seymour Street to the rear of Glencoe Street and the houses in between White Street, Seymour Street, are to be demolished and the area regenerated, we hope and pray they may be the possibility to put in parking areas to the rear of Glencoe Street for houses that were designed and built before cars were invented.

Peter and Support Area 4 – Glencoe The We agree with the regeneration proposal, but would like to know if it is This can be decided at the detailed Patricia with Hawthorn Street parking possible for the houses to have a tenfoot at the rear of our properties so design stage, but parking to the rear Fitzgerald conditions Avenue down we have somewhere to park our cars. The houses behind us are due to of dwellings will not usually be Glencoe be demolished leaving land that would benefit all of us, leading to front encouraged. Street. roads being clear for large vehicles to be able to have access through to Yellow Hawthorn Avenue as it is now we are always getting parking tickets. lines If you were to sell us the land or build garages we could rent or buy, it is a thought but a tenfoot sounds good.

Eileen and Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Greek Figure 8.1 We object to 21 Greek street being demolished because we have been All new homes will be far more Peter Options Hawthorn Street Preferred there since 1984 and it has sentimental value because our parents suited to the needs of disabled Digney Avenue Option helped us to buy it. Also I (Eileen) am disabled and it will be difficult to people than the existing housing. Plan relocate. I can’t keep my balance. If we were to be relocated we would need specific help. We would want to be relocated in this area and near the shops and facilities such as Newington Health Centre. We are both vulnerable.

Miss Objecting Area 4 – Greek I have just paid off my mortgage last November. I live on low income. A relocation and compensation Sharon Hawthorn Street House prices outside the regeneration area are £118,000. I would get package will be available. Relocating Dew Avenue less than £60,000 for this house in 3 years time. within Newington and St Andrew’s I’ve replaced my mortgage money for a car. I cannot afford a £50,000 will be encouraged. Each case will plus mortgage on a property. I can’t afford to rent, rent is £110 a week at be treated individually and every

Page 71 of 141

the moment on a good week I earn £170 a week, most weeks £140. if effort will be made to meet the my money doesn’t change in 3 years time what will I do? I’ll be 41 years needs of households being old, no qualifications, no work experience. All I’ve done since leaving relocated. school is cleaning and gardening. I can’t move from here, I’ll be homeless. I don’t get any form of benefits because I don’t have children. Why do people have to move out of these homes for anti-social behavior when we don’t cause it. It’s like we are punished. People who cause anti- social are also going to be moved to another area and bring another area down. If you can think of a solution if I do have to move let me know. For money reasons I cant afford to move.

Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Greek General Would like refurbishment instead. Moving very difficult especially due to All new homes will be far more Mrs Options Hawthorn Street Comment special housing needs. suited to the needs of disabled Digney Avenue people than the existing housing. Ann Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Greek Figure 5.1: In comparing the two plans, it would appear that the ‘court terrace’ The Area Action Plan proposes the Parsons Options Hawthorn Street – Minimum known as Ashbourne Grove would be subject to a Frontage demolition of Ashbourne Grove, as Avenue Ashbourne option Improvement Scheme on Fig 5.1, the Minimum Option Plan, however it part of the transformation of the Grove plan appears on the Figure 5.2 Medium Option plan as to be unsuitable for wider Hawthorn Avenue area. Figure 5.2: frontage improvement scheme, or demolition. Medium My question/comment is on what grounds is this the case, given that on option the Preferred Option it would be demolished and on the minimum option plan have the benefit of a frontage improvement scheme. Ashbourne Grove and the houses that front it onto Greek Street are as described in 3.3.3 and are no different to any other properties fitting that description on the north side of Greek Street. If the medium plan is adopted this is a serious issue for my property at no.3 Ashbourne Grove Greek Street. My objection would be resolved if the terrace known as Ashbourne Grove was considered suitable for either a Frontage Improvement Scheme or demolition as shown for other properties if its type on the north side of Greek street.

Ann Preferred Supporting Area 4 – Greek Figure 5.3: [No specific comment provided] Noted. Parsons Options Hawthorn Street – Maximum Avenue Ashbourne option Grove plan Michael Preferred Both Area 4 – Greek Area 4 – I agree with the fact that the area is very run down and in need of major Keal Options Hawthorn Street and Hawthorn regeneration. A lot of the properties, down this street especially, are in We concur with your view that the Avenue surroundin Avenue, very poor state of repair, and this in turn leads to high crime levels and problems of the area need to be g wider 45p Map attracts undesirables to the area. The area in general is very run down, addressed; this can only be area 8.1 dirty and forgotten by the local authorities in terms of general repair to achieved through demolition and roads, paths And properties. I agree with the proposal of demolition and new build. rebuilding of the area, and see this as the best way forward. Whilst we acknowledge that there My objection is that, after visiting the regeneration headquarters on will be some inconvenience whilst Hawthorn Avenue, I was surprised to find that no one on the the demolition takes place which is regeneration team seemed to realise that 74 and 76 Greek Street were unavoidable, we will work with you to actual houses. They thought that our 2 houses were garages joined onto minimize any disruption to you and the rear of Bentley Court. Now this means that the demolition and your family. The substantial benefits rebuilding process will be taking place around my home, we will be slap that will arise from the new build bang in the middle of all this disruption which, I think you will agree, will properties coupled with the public not be a very pleasant experience for me, my partner and my young realm improvements will both add

Page 72 of 141

family. We will be surrounded by noise, dirt, dust, disruption, vermin and value to your property but will also to a multitude of other problems that go along with living on a your quality of life. demolition/building site. As you may, or may not, appreciate this is not something we are looking forward to with joy and anticipation. My property is less than 10 years old and it had risen in value since I bought it. This led to me getting a re-mortgage on my property a few years ago. I now owe approximately 59K + on my mortgage and, for obvious reasons, the value of my property is on the decline and will be worth less and less as this process of regeneration continues.

I would like to meet with someone to discuss my options because, as I have stated, I do not wish to live in the middle of a demolition/building site, and selling up and moving on at this point, with the housing market as it is, is not really an option at this time. So if we could discuss the possibility of coming to some kind of an arrangement about transferring into one of the new build properties on the old Riley high or Amy Johnson sites when they are built, this could be beneficial to both myself and my family and also to yourselves.

Mr SL & Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Greek Diagrams There are no plans for the renovation of properties in all the options The Government funding has to be Mrs R Options Hawthorn Street and of provided. spent in such a way that will bring Upfold Avenue surroundin minimum, The scheme appears to revolve around demolishing some houses and transformational change to the area. g wider medium improving the frontages of others. There is no plan to improve area and structurally or internally the homes which will remain. The council is preferred committed to bringing all council homes up to decent homes standard – options in ideally by 2010 - surely this commitment should also be applied to the houses in the regeneration area. Cosmetic exercises cannot truly be preferred classified as regeneration. options document HOW THIS COULD BE RESOLVED Part of the money allotted from central government for regeneration should be used to improve all homes in the NASA area to the decent homes standard.

Mr SL & Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Greek Map of The money allocated is being used mainly for cosmetic improvements to All new homes will be far more Mrs R Options Hawthorn Street and preferred properties, wide-scale demolition and building of new properties. This suited to the needs of disabled Upfold Avenue surroundin option in could be better used building new houses in areas already cleared and people than the existing housing. g wider the selective demolition in other areas to open up small areas for pocket area preferred parks, garages and parking spaces while at the same time renovating all options the remaining houses to at least the decent homes standard. document A few rudimentary calculations show that it will cost in excess of £10m to purchase and demolish approx 170 houses in an area bordered by Greek Street, Clyde Street, Hawthorn Avenue and the projected extension to Melrose Street. According to the preferred option the developers will build less than 50 houses in this area so the cost of land alone for each house is in excess of £200,000. To make the new houses even remotely affordable Gateway will have to virtually ‘give away the land’. £10m would renovate a lot of houses to decent homes standard.

‘The system’ seems to be geared towards demolition rather than renovation as the government imposes VAT at 17.5% on renovation

Page 73 of 141

costs but new-build is zero-rated. I also understand that large tracts of land on which to build are more attractive to developers so there is an impetus to clear as large an area as possible.

HOW THIS COULD BE RESOLVED Most of the money allotted from central government should be used for selective demolition to improve the area and to bring all remaining homes up to the decent homes standard.

Mr SL & Objecting Area 4 – Greek Informatio The package on offer to residents whose homes are being demolished The relocation and compensation Mrs R Hawthorn Street and n obtained seems to be unrealistic and insufficient for people’s needs. The package is updated annually in line Upfold Avenue surroundin from the maximum amount on offer is £100k in a package which includes property with inflation/cost of dwellings. g wider open values and interest-free loans provided certain conditions are met. This Relocating within Newington and St area events seems to be a rather arbitrary figure arrived at and reviewed by the Andrew’s will be encouraged. Each held regeneration team. case will be treated individually and throughout every effort will be made to meet the the area HOW THIS COULD BE RESOLVED needs of households being The amount available to residents should be based on quantifiable relocated. factors – e.g. the cost of a similar house in the Holderness Road area. It should also be calculated for each individual property - someone in a 3 bedroom house with a garage and large yard area will require more money to obtain a comparable property elsewhere than someone in a 2 bedroom house.

Further to this The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says on average people moving house because of urban regeneration are £35k worse off. This could be overcome by a home-swop scheme such as that operated by Salford City Council where people choose a new property and Salford gives a loan for the difference in the value between the two properties. This loan is discounted over time (unlike the Gateway plan) and after 5 years the loan is written off.

Mr Dennis Both Objecting Area 4 – Hawthorn My wife and myself are objecting to any proposals unless it is beneficial Noted, but it is considered that the Hood And Hawthorn Avenue to us. demolition of most of Hawthorn Mrs Avenue Avenue is needed to achieve the Sandra Our ideal solution would be to remain in our home. My wife has lived on level of change that the area needs. Hood Hawthorn Avenue for 67 years and myself 48 years, we are part of the A generous compensation package local community and we brought up our family in this house. At our age will be offered. (67 and 73) moving to a new area would be distressing and extremely unsettling, we feel secure in this area. We also don’t drive and everything we need is in this area i.e. local amenities. Other streets have been renovated; can you provide a logical explanation why our house is to be destroyed?

If it is not possible to stay in our home we want to be rehoused in the local area in a property that is equivalent to our current home. You need to take into account the standard of our house, it is impeccably decorated and maintained, a total of £100,000 would not allow us to move to an equivalent property (including redecoration)

We deserve a compensation package that does just that ‘compensates us’. As we understand it, the £100.000 maximum consists of the value of our property, plus 10% or £4.400, and a loan to make up the difference.

Page 74 of 141

We paid off our mortgage many years ago due to very hard work. We are both pensioners and simply cannot take any additional loans to be re-housed. The very meaning of the word compensate is ‘to give an equivalent for loss’, if we have to take an additional loan to be re-housed in a property of the same standard then this is not equivalent. We have no income, are we supposed to make payments out of our pension, if so what do we live on?

You simply seem to ignore the emotional trauma we will undergo if asked to leave our home. As mentioned above we raised our children here, this is not a house, not just bricks and mortar, it is our home with great sentimental value, how do you propose to compensate for that?

Lastly, our home is our investment for our children and grandchildren, it is their inheritance and therefore it is understandable we are trying to protect it.

Richard Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Hawthorn Preferred I am objecting to my property (109 Hawthorn Avenue) being demolished! Noted, but it is considered that the Stamp Options Hawthorn Avenue Options demolition of most of Hawthorn Avenue Plan My objection can be resolved by not taking my property off me and my Avenue is needed to achieve the family, and not destroying it! level of change that the area needs. A generous compensation package will be offered. Bernard Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Plowden I object to your proposed plan for the Amy Johnson field area. I would Housing on the Amy Johnson site Harold Options Hawthorn Road not like flats or three story houses built at the bottom of my garden will be designed so that only 2- Brown Avenue keeping daylight and privility from my property. I prefer bungalows if storey homes back onto existing anything or property for older people. gardens.

Melanie Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Plowden Figure 8.2 Putting road from Plowden Road to new estate. 8.2.2. Housing on the Amy Johnson site Goodfello Options Hawthorn Road Preferred Don’t want three storey town houses at back of me. will be designed so that only 2- w Avenue Option Garages built at back of my fence. storey homes back onto existing Wouldn’t want rented housing at the back of my property. 8.3.2. gardens. Need better drainage as my house was an inch away from flooding. Maybe give them longer gardens so not on top of us. I would like bungalows at back of my house if any built.

Mrs J Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Plowden Amy We live in one of the houses which back on to the Amy Johnson site and Housing on the Amy Johnson site Wake and Options Hawthorn Road Johnson object to any three storey dwellings being built too close to our property. will be designed so that only 2- Mr S Avenue Site We would prefer bungalows or two storey houses which do not over look storey homes back onto existing Donnelly our property. gardens.

Geoff Pickering Preferred Supporting Area 4 – Rainbow Map I have written previously re. our car parking problem. Residents of It is not the role of an AAP to identify Martindale and Options Hawthorn Centre Hawthorn Plowden Road object to visitors to our centre parking outside their specific parking at this scale. Newington Avenue Avenue/ houses (although regularly parked). However, we are aware of the Developmen Wheeler Our centre visitor numbers have over the past two years exceeded parking issue within this locality and t Association Street. expectations. Any income generated through the centre is put back into will endeavour to address the community services ( as PANDA is a non profit working volunteer situation through the redevelopment organisation). of the Amy Johnson Site. Through We also run a café on the premises which are open to all – a valuable the AAP the need for car usage local facility. should be reduced alongside a Wouldn’t it be possible to allocate some space in the plan for additional general reduction of density in the car parking for the Rainbow Centre? I understand Wheeler Primary area. In addition new streets created School has a similar need. on the Amy Johnson site and the Page 75 of 141

new community hub will increase parking capacity in the surrounding area.

J. Walker Preferred Area 4 – Stirling All I put my house on the market at the end of last year and my tenant told The plan has been changed Options Hawthorn Street me about the proposed demolition of my house. I really need to sell my and demolition does not now Avenue house, and now with this happening, how is this supposed to happen. Can the Council buy it off me now, as I see that being the only solution to feature for Stirling Street and my problem. What can be done to help me in my predicament, where I the terraces off it. want to sell but can’t because of this???

Mr & Mrs Preferred Supporting Area 4 – Stirling Pg 27 and We strongly support the preferred option as we fully agree with the The plan has been changed and C H Options Hawthorn Street, 42 reasoning at 7.2.17. demolition does not now feature for Fieldhous Avenue Vera However, having lived within the area for 16 years we have very strong Stirling Street and the terraces off it. e Grove ties to the community, the local school and surrounding neighbourhood and we would like to remain a part of the community after the project has ended. Unfortunately, under the proposed timescales our particular property is earmarked for acquisition and demolition in years 7-9. Clearly, if the project is approved and our house is set for demolition we will no longer be able to sell privately, and we will be forced to wait until it is purchased as part of the project. We have been told that existing residents will be able to purchase newly built properties within the area as they become available, however, we - and those in the same position as us - will not be able to arrange mortgages to purchase these new properties if we cannot sell our existing homes, and our real concern is that we will have to suffer 7 years of building works and depreciation of our property only to find that we are displaced from the area. With these concerns in mind, we feel that the plan should include facilities for existing resident to have our properties purchased earlier in the project or to be able to use our properties in part exchange for new properties as they become available.

S. Walker Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Stirling 7.2.14 I live in Vera Grove, Stirling Street. It’s a lovely terrace with 8 properties The plan has been changed and Options Hawthorn Street, Page 45, the best down the street. I would not like to see the demolition of these demolition does not now feature for Avenue Vera Area 4 properties but a frontage improvement scheme to restore them as they Stirling Street and the terraces off it. Grove Maximum were when originally built whilst I appreciate there must be change and Option regeneration why can’t good terraces be preserved as a reminder of the past they can blend in with new look how good St Georges is looking now also there is some good houses facing the front of Stirling Street.

Mrs L Preferred Objecting Area 4 – Walliker Breaking up the family, the community. The plans for Walliker Street Pooley Options Hawthorn Street To whom it may concern me and my family live on Selby Street. My Dad have been revised. Avenue and Nanna live on Walliker Street where I was born and brought up and went to school. I am worried that if the houses come down and my Dad has to move, it will make it harder for me and the [grandchildren] to keep in touch and visit him. At the moment the children and I see Grandad everyday and the kids look forward to Granddad taking them to Albert Avenue swimming baths and going to visit West Park especially on school holidays and at weekends. Grandad always takes the eldest one to the KC stadium to watch Hull City as they are keen City supporters. If he moves we’re all going to suffer not just me but all the family as well as my brother and sister as we all look forward to seeing Nanna and Granddad especially at weekends as they sometimes babysit for me. I

Page 76 of 141

hope you take all this into consideration as I am not just thinking about myself there are other people with families in the same situation.

Dominic Preferred Objecting Area 4 – White Page 45, My area of White Street the terraced area at the end of white street is This area is earmarked for Peter Options Hawthorn Street Figure 5.1 coloured in as having ‘existing refurbishment programme’. This is not demolition in the Area Action Plan. Barron Avenue p.22 & correct as shown in the minimum, medium and maximum options plans. Figure 5.2 There has been no refurbishment work in my street. p.24 & Please amend the plans minimum, medium and maximum options plans Figure 5.3 to coincide with the rest of White Street plans. Or refurbish my house as p.26 it says it should have been.

Dominic Preferred Objecting Area 4 – White Page 47 I like my house, it’s not in great condition but I like it. This area is earmarked for Peter Options Hawthorn Street 7.2.17 Would prefer selective demolition like making terraces into semi- demolition in the Area Action Plan. Barron Avenue detached houses with garages and garden in between, my kind of Several options have been housing. considered and the demolition is the most viable solution to transform this area. Dominic Preferred Objecting Area 4 – White Figure 8.2 I don’t like the plan of open streets. Prefer the situation now of Hawthorn Dead ends are not considered good Peter Options Hawthorn Street Page 65 Avenue with dead end streets. There is less traffic, no rat runs, and more design practice and are against Barron Avenue of community spirit. government guidance. Dead ends equal quiet safe streets from traffic, reduction of burglary and areas for children to play safely. Please make more dead ends and play streets to help reduce crime and promote safety, speed humps don’t work to reduce speed.

Lynda Preferred Objecting Area 4 – White I think wholesale demolition of these houses is ridiculous. Take a good The homes on White Street are in Denton Options Hawthorn Street look at White Street. This street has so much potential it is ridiculous to similar condition to others in the area Avenue and demolish it the same goes for Stirling Street. These are decent solidly that are being demolished. The surroundin built Victorian properties for the most part. In other areas of the country options appraisal has confirmed that g wider where areas have been improved and re-built streets like Stirling and this is necessary to bring about the area White Street have been renovated and therefore increased in value. The major change needed in the wider housing is not the problem, the house-owners in this area are proud of area. their homes and look after them. Bay-fronted Victorian homes are in demand in every other city and in Cottingham, Hessle and outlining Demolition is no longer proposed at villages, why not here? This Council has allowed this area to become Stirling Street. derelict by its neglect and its refusal to bring to book all the absentee landlords who let the properties go to rack and ruin. The people at Pathfinder talk to residents like they should be grateful, for what?? Personally I have no desire to be thrown out of the home I have lived in for 25 years.

Another point I would like to make is during the June floods these houses were untouched. The land that they are on obviously was chosen because it is not a flood plain. You may say "well that's great we're going to build new 'eco friendly houses' there anyway." I cannot see how demolishing perfectly good, and up to now flood free homes is helping the environment in any way, what will happen to all the tons of bricks windows wood etc that will be left? Quite a handful for the landfill sites I would presume.

You want to improve the housing market, what about young couples who find it difficult enough to get on the housing ladder without taking away the most affordable houses in the area and despite what your documents

Page 77 of 141

say on White street there are new couples buying homes or at least renting them and keeping them in good order.

What is going to happen to the 'undesirables' in the area? Surely they have to be given homes somewhere. Is this problem just going to be moved elsewhere? I have raised three children in this area my eldest son is an engineer, my second son is in the RAF currently serving in Afghanistan and my daughter is a visual display manager. This area and good parenting turned them into responsible caring adults with a hell of a lot of common sense. The homes are not the problem it is the adults who have no interest in their environment their neighbours or their offspring. These issues will not go away just because you demolish an area they will simply move elsewhere. The drug addicts, drunks and criminals are the scourge of this area you tackle these problems and help the majority of hard working people then and only then would you see an improvement.

Chanterlands and Princes Avenue are the same type of houses, they do not have the same problems, why? Because that area has not been allowed to become run down.

Maybe you could also re surface the side street all the council seems to do is repair holes in the road which are soon as bad again. It is little wonder this area looks like a war zone.

I and some of my hard working neighbours have no desire to see our homes bulldozed and intend to fight these proposals.

Max B&Q (agent: Preferred Supporting Area 4 – Tradex Area 3 We write on behalf of our client, B&Q Plc, who are the leaseholders of Welcome comment – Any detailed Plotnek Savills) Options Hawthorn site (Page 42- the Tradex unit on Boothferry Road. The site falls within the boundary of proposals would be subject to a Avenue 44) and the Newington and St. Andrew's Area Action Plan (AAP) and more planning permission. and Area Area 4 specifically within Area 4 -Hawthorn Avenue. The premises and the 3 – Anlaby (Page 45- wider site also has a strong relationship with Area 3 - Anlaby Road. Road 47) Area 3 is broadly the are designated as a Large Local Centre (LLC) in the adopted Local Plan. The Tradex unit falls within this designation. We write in support of both the continued designation of this site and its surroundings as a local centre, which should be the focus for new shopping, leisure and community uses. Furthermore, we support the Council's proposal for the site being used for "New Mixed Uses" as part of Area 4 in the Preferred Option Document.

The Tradex site, as an existing retail destination, provides the most suitable location for improved retail development. One of the objectives of the AAP is to improve the quality and quantity of housing in the area and new residents, who will help breathe new life into Newington and St Andrew's. This can only be achieved if there is the quality of local shopping provision to meet their needs and stimulate the demand for people to reside in Newington and St Andrew's.

The Tradex site provides a perfect opportunity to provide this stimulus as it can cater for either or both the convenience and comparison goods needs of local residents. Our view is that the Tradex site could be Page 78 of 141

refurbished or redeveloped and the retail use of the premises altered, which will help provide the retail anchor required for the area. This will help achieve this objective as set out in Area 4 (page 47), to provide the retail hub to serve the wider area.

As noted in the conclusions to this section, a robust frontage onto Anlaby Road is critical for this site. Although our client does not hold the freehold to either the Tradex site or the petrol station site along the road frontage, we support this objective in its entirety. We would be grateful to be informed of further consultation stages on emerging DPDs.

Nicola Network Rail Preferred Comment Area 4 – Railway Pg 19 – Any further discussions regarding the removal of the railway line within Discussions have been ongoing with Holmes Options Hawthorn line para the area would need to involve Network Rail. At this point I can not the relevant Network Rail planners. Avenue starting provide any specific comments however I would recommend contacting and Area “The Network Rail’s Route Planners if you have not done so already. 2 - West railway Park line…” Network Rail support the statement that for any crossing of the railway Noted. line, these need to be comfortable, safe, clean, obvious and attractive to use and in addition should meet Network Rail guidelines for such structures.

Mrs Norah Support Area 4 – Figure 8.1 I agree fully that the complete area to have a real impact needs to be Noted. Griffin Hawthorn and Figure totally reconstructed. Old properties that are run-down or empty only Avenue/w 8.2 invites anti-social behaviour, vandalism and criminal activities. This is the hole chance to do the job in completion which can only benefit everyone still Newington there. No one likes living next to rundown empty and vandalised houses. and St We can only hope that these visions do indeed become reality and for Andrew’s me the sooner the better.

Trisha Both Objecting Area 4 – Regarding the proposed regeneration of Newington and St Andrews, I The consultation process, which is Buscada Hawthorn wish to make the following comments regarding the proposed scheme. described in the Statement of Avenue/w Compliance, has been very hole While I do not reject the fact that most of this area does have problems extensive, exceeding what might Newington that require solutions. I believe the proposed scheme will make things normally be expected. and St worse for a large proportion of the local people for years before there is Andrew’s any improvement be creating ghettoes. The points I’d like to make are as A relocation and compensation follows. package will be available. Relocating within Newington and St Andrew’s 1. The so called consultation period was nothing of the sort due to. will be encouraged. Each case will be treated individually and every A. Designing the initial information notice to look like a party political effort will be made to meet the news letter so that a large proportion of the affected people would throw needs of households being is straight in the bin. relocated.

B. Failing to put the response forms or the detailed information packs The Area Action Plan provides a with the initial information notice, and ensuring these were only available consistent framework to regenerate at the seminars or from a limited number of sources few of which were the area. This includes, for example, open outside the councils limited opening times or buried in a priority for investment in a way which deliberately difficult to find part of the councils web site. There was no will eventually turn the area around, provision for anyone who had difficulty in reading or travelling to any of achieving a greater mix of people, these locations beige able to get at the relevant information. I.e. none of providing better facilities (including

Page 79 of 141 the locations were open during Easter or had the regeneration office potentially a secondary school) and open outside it very limed office hours or made any provision for home creating safe places. visits for the disabled or elderly.

C. Ensuring that all the seminars were placed at the start of the process with none being timed to occur near the end of the so called consultation period. With very little advertising or the events or the fact that 2 of them had their opening times extended due to local public pressure. I.e. there was only a few posters placed in shop windows no local radio advertising and what little was placed in the local press as buried well away from the main pages.

D Even when the detailed information packs were acquired vital information was missing such as the required homes standard, with such plans as was available been deliberately vague.

2 The proposed scheme will generate an effective ghetto in the areas that are left to last. This will last for 7-15 years at best,(assuming the scheme does not run out of money / political will before completion). Leaving those who are unable to move being unable to sell their homes and move out and having to suffer increasing worse conditions for years as the undesirable element of the local population move into these areas in ever increasing numbers as the areas currently worst effected by there overwhelming presence are demolished and private landlords rent out to anyone with no checks or concerns for the suitability of the tenant. This is what has happened with Rhodes Street and the surrounding areas as there has been no provision for those decent people who wish to stay in the area to be adequately re- housed locally while dealing with the undesirable element. Indeed it would appear that this is a deliberate aim of the scheme to suppress house prices in the effected area and drive out a large a proportion of the local population as possible so that they can acquire the properties for the lowest possible price.

3 There is no mention that the proposed replacement housing will be made available to local people at an affordable price. Or that local people will even be given the option of living in this area upon completion.

4 The current housing stock while may not be of ideal quality is at least affordable by the vast majority of local people the proposed replacement housing is very unlikely to be so. And there is no other location in the area were local people will be able to get on the property ladder.

5 The proposed compensation scheme for home owners will leave many of them been turned from home owner occupiers with absolute title to there property to tenants, or been forced to accept part ownership or having a large mortgage or charge in a home they would not have moved to if not for the fact that there original home has beige sold out from under them for the sake of demolition. Leavening them far worse off than currently. As they will then be stuck in property they cannot sell as the charges taken out will be so large as to leave them unable to afford to bye anywhere else.

6 The proposed scheme does little to tackle the root problem with the Page 80 of 141

area, with its years of deliberate poor policing and lack in investment in local facilities/services, I can only assume this has been in at temped effort to drive out the local population.

A. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Snowden Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. B. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Garrigan Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. C. A. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Elsom Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. C. Smith Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. C. T. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Marshall Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Candice Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Netherton Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. D Tong Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Page 81 of 141

D. Bunby Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Donna M. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Gregor Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. E. Dolman Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. J. Cowley Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. J. Rorir Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. J. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Snowden Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Jane Scott Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Jean Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Kirkby Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and Page 82 of 141

types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Kelly Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Broderick Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. L King Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. L. Y. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Edmondso Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been n s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Lisa Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Taylor Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. M. A. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Carlson Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. M. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Batchela Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. M. Short Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Maria Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Page 83 of 141

Hawley Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Miss M. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Goodwin Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Mr and Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Mrs Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been Murray s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Mrs Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Ainsworth Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Mrs B. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Goodwin Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Mrs G. P. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Atkinson Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Mrs J. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Edmondso Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been n s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Mrs K. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Nelson Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are Page 84 of 141

encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Mrs P Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Major Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Mrs P. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Jessop Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. P. Herman Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Patricia Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Tranter Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Peter Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Beaver Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. R Cropper Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. R Hogben Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. R J Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Beaver Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been Page 85 of 141

s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. R. Burton Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. R. F. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Carlson Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Robert Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Brigham Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Robert Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Netherton Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. S. Higgins Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. S. P. Fox Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. S.E. Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Marshall Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed Page 86 of 141

proposals put forward. Sandra Preferred Comments Area 5 – Junella Not I support the “minimum” proposal for Housing (Pensioner bungalows) on The minimum option is the Tong Options Dairycoate Fields Specified the former Junella Fields, with entry to the site off Woodcock Street. Preferred Option and has been s taken forward in the Area Action Plan. However, a mix of tenures and types/sizes of dwellings are encouraged for any detailed proposals put forward. Lynn Preferred Supporting Area 5 – Somerset All of How soon is the improvement work going to start down Somerset Not every home will be improved, Allison Options Dairycoate Street/who Dairycoate Street? but around 2000 will be eligible. The s le s Area Are improvements going to be made on every home in Newington Area? same goes for pavements. Youth Newington Are all pavements going to get a make-over? facilities will be a priority. and St Will home owners be offered grants to improve their properties to keep Andrew’s up with the new builds? Is there going to be enough money to finish work once it has started? Is there going to be some facility to keep teenagers off the streets? Are my council tax payments going to be sky high?

Jean Centre 88 01482 Supporting Area 6 – Saner Page 53, Centre 88 on Saner street, is a local charity providing accommodation We would encourage Centre 88 to MacEwan 324541 Coltman Street Para and training facilities to a variety of local voluntary/community find means to improve their property. street. 7.2.25 organisations. The centre has a 6’– 6’6” brick boundary wall on four The AAP can only show actions Area 6 – sides facing onto Saner street, Ena street, and Malm Street, all of which which are deliverable. Funding is Coltman are included in the Preferred Option for inclusion in the Frontage available for Housing Frontage Street, Improvement Scheme. The wall has been in place since 1912 and is Improvement Scheme only. The Preferred very weathered, particularly at end of Malm Street. Frontage Improvement Scheme is Option, funded through Gateway which can Housing I understand from one of the officers attending the consultation at intervene/fund housing related Lonsdale Community Centre on Wednesday 19 March 2008, that it might projects only. be possible to negotiate for improvements (pointing and rendering) to the wall to be included as part of the Frontage Improvement Scheme. This would improve the overall appearance rather than leaving a community facility looking shabby and thus spoiling the newly renovated area.

Bob East Preferred Objecting Area 6 – Para The introduction of raised pedestrian crossings is incompatible with the Agree. Rackley, Yorkshire Options Anlaby 7.2.10 strategy of improving bus speeds and priority. Motor Road Services Limited Bob East Preferred Objecting Area 6 – Para A reduction in the number of bus stops would reduce the accessibility of This proposal has been reviewed Rackley, Yorkshire Options Anlaby 7.2.10 bus services for local residents and users of local stops. and amended. Motor Road Services Limited Ian Smith English Preferred Objecting Area 6 – Page 53, We welcome the requirement that new housing should relate to the local With limited funding, the programme Heritage Options Coltman Area 6 – distinctiveness of the wider Coltman Street area – this is particularly has to focus on those areas that are Yorkshire Street Coltman important given its two Conservation Areas. most in need of intervention. and the Street Historically, a lot of funding has been Humber It is disappointing, however, that the opportunity to undertake frontage allocated to the Coltman Street area Region improvements of the properties in the Coltman Street and Boulevard and it is judged that at the moment Conservation Areas has been discounted as an Option. These streets requirements are greater elsewhere. make an important contribution to the distinct identity of the area and, given the quality of some of the buildings along their length, can act as flagships for the wider regeneration of this part of the city. Page 87 of 141

In the case of Coltman Street, the document recognises (in Paragraph 8.1.3) that “some of the historic fabric here is good but much needs investment if this area is to be seen as a housing location of choice”.

In view of the intention that, as a whole, the Newington and St Andrew’s Noted. area should be a part of the City where people choose to live, enhancing the best which that area currently has to offer would appear a sound investment. This could be accompanied by an Article 4 Direction to ensure that mirror changes undertaken under permitted development rights do not detract from the character of these areas.

Mrs E. Preferred Objecting Area 6 – Coltman All of it * I see on the plans that Coltman street has been left out of the There are only limited funds and Temple Options Coltman Street regeneration plans. When you pull down Wellsted Street and rehouse all difficult choices have had to be Street the [unemployed people] […], drug addicts and drug dealers, will they made. end up down Coltman Street, again bringing down the area affecting the price of my property? Is this the impact of the regeneration of the NaSA area on Coltman Street? Is Coltman Street being left out because of the money spent on it in the past which didn’t work out and (by the admission of the woman at the Hessle Road community wardens meeting) did not work. So because of the Council’s mistakes in the past, the residents of Coltman Street are to suffer in the future- Thanks. Don’t you think the money available could be distributed more evenly or is it a forgone conclusion and all this is just a waste of my time? When all this started Woodcock Street was a priority so how come Melrose Street etc. have all been done first? Seems to me the money has already been allocated.

Victoria Preferred Objecting Area 6 – Gee Street Figure 8.2 Whilst welcoming moves to improve the area and appreciating that The homes are in similar condition to Gibson Options Coltman and (map) p.61 stretches of empty/vandalised houses on Wellsted street should be others in the area that are being Street Wellsted and p.67 - addressed, I object if this extends to Gee Street where the majority of demolished. Street Demolition houses are occupied. I also object on financial grounds. I currently own A relocation and compensation of property 40 Gee street and am the occupier. I have no mortgage and feel that to package will be available. Relocating Wellsted, buy another house of the same standard would entail me having to get a within Newington and St Andrew’s Gee Street mortgage of £50,000 plus to bridge the difference between the market will be encouraged. Each case will price of my current home and the market price of similar sized houses be treated individually and every which are in areas not earmarked for demolition. I have never been effort will be made to meet the burgled or experienced damage to my property, get on OK with needs of households being neighbours and find the location convenient. I have no real desire to relocated. move and do not want to incur debt from being forced to move through no choice of my own. I attended the drop in sessions when the project first started and was advised of financial assistance that may be available but I understand that is means tested so I would not be eligible as I am not on minimum wage.

Mrs M. Preferred Supporting Area 6 – No area Everything seems to be in order for some demolition and some Noted. Scarodimo Options Coltman specified renovation the sooner the better. Can we have a better quality of people s Street moving in once it is all finished. We have had enough of vandals, druggies and under age drinkers, also fly tipping.

E. Preferred Objecting Area 6 – Wellsted Area 6 No 52 Wellsted street The homes are in similar condition to Williams Options Coltman Street Coltman Proposed improvements to rear of property. Ongoing frontal others in the area that are being Street Street – improvements in progress. Demolition proposal out of the question for demolished.

Page 88 of 141

Preferred this property. Option Evalynne Preferred Objecting Area 6 – Wellsted Wellsted It is my view that the problem with this area (Wellsted Street) is not the The homes are in similar condition to Kimberley Options Coltman Street Street properties; it is the small minority of people who spoil general street life others in the area that are being Street for the rest of us. My property is fully functional as many of them are. demolished. “Regenerating” the area will not change much about the social problems. Also I disagree with building a health centre at the top of the street. Boulevard and Hessle Road already have these facilities. I think the most logical and effective way to help the area is to simply give grants for refurbishment.

Graham Both Objecting Area 6 – Wellsted All of it! The houses on Wellsted street do not need demolishing; the area is The homes are in similar condition to Brooks Coltman Street starting to repopulate and the less desirable tenants have moved away. others in the area that are being Street Demolition is short sighted; the houses are generally sound and any demolished. dilapidation is due to absentee landlords/speculative buy-to-rent purchasers and unduly tenants. The area needs better policing and investment to curb social problems; a facelift for the properties would help stimulate a more positive attitude. Demolition and subsequent new builds would not provide affordable housing for the local residents; many would be unable to purchase the new properties and would not wish to endure the “preferred option” regeneration which would be unsettling and unsupportive for the local community. Renovation not demolition will ensure the local community survives.

John Giroscope Preferred Objecting Area 6 – Wellsted The demolition of fully-occupied, structurally sound & well-built Victorian The assessment has been carried Wood Options Coltman Street and terrace houses, located at the Hessle Road end of Wellsted Street (from out according to Government Street Hessle Hessle Road down to 56 Wellsted Street & the park on the other side of expectations, based on a broad Road the street, including all court terraces) can not be justified. These are the range of criteria including an best properties on Wellsted Street, in terms of their condition, build- evaluation of stock condition. Where quality & occupancy level, many of which have recently been refurbished it is felt that renovation (or ‘do to a high standard. nothing’) is the most appropriate and sustainable option, this has been To replace these perfectly good Victorian properties with a new health pursued. centre and new housing is totally unacceptable and completely unjustified. These proposed actions breach several objectives identified in the SA (Sustainability Appraisal). The proposed location of the new health centre at the Hessle Road end of Wellsted Street has to be reviewed on several grounds. Firstly, all of the existing housing & retail stock which would need to be pulled-down to make way for this development are currently fully- occupied, structurally-sound and in good condition. Secondly the need for a new health centre on Wellsted Street can not be justified as there are plenty of health care facilities very close to this proposed development site. For example, the Marmaduke Health Centre on Hessle Road & Newington Healthcare Centre on Plane Street.

Resolution -the option of large-scale demolition should be re-considered. Other options namely the renovation and improvement of the existing housing stock, should be fully considered based on detailed survey work. Much of the housing stock in the proposed demolition zones are structurally sound, well-built Victorian/Edwardian terraced properties. This makes the justification for the demolition of these houses highly questionable and should be reviewed.

Page 89 of 141

Mr and Not Objecting Area 6 – Welsted My wife and I object to the plan. All we need is a small grant to do odd The homes are in similar condition to Mrs T.A. specified Coltman street repairs in the house. others in the area that are being Jarrett Street demolished.

Mrs C.E. Preferred Supporting Area 6 – Wellsted p. 53, I am supporting the Preferred Option Plan Maximum Option. I think it will Noted. Smith Options Coltman Street and paragraph make Hessle Road more popular to people and think a lot more people Street and Hessle 7.2.25 will want to live in this area. Hessle Road at the moment is not a very Area 8 – Road nice place to live. I have lived down Wellsted Street for 30 years. I was Hessle happy when I moved here in 1978 but have seen a decline over the Road years. It is a very depressing area. It needs to change with the new improvements. I will stay in the area and hope to be a much happier person.

Barrie Boulevard Preferred Comment Area 7 - Para Boulevard is presently improving and becoming a better place to live. These are very helpful comments Marsden Neighbourho Options Boulevard 7.2.26 Both our associations have played a big part in this over the past 6 and in line with the Council’s od Watch years. We expect this year the new fountain at the junction of Gordon expectations of how the open Street and Boulevard; we have installed the wildlife park near the library spaces will be designed and and are funding the flower baskets again this year. The improvements managed. Best practice in some years ago to the street lighting has been beneficial in removing the designing out anti-social behaviour on street prostitution and through our efforts with the police has made shall be adhered to. inroads into the drug cultures and absent landlord problem. We accept a good deal of work is required behind Boulevard and accept this in general. We do have some concerns however with the premise of open spaces and if these are built then we must have considerable community policing to keep them up to standard. Unless the youth is better educated then we will be giving them more space to run amok. We know a school is possible on the Hessle Road plan but unless the standards are raised with education this will not be enough. Likewise the open spaces require to have some use and not just for grass. Games, themes and other such uses must be made available. We need to have a youth culture consultation and youth facilities built into the plans, not just green spaces. Please consider consulting the youth of the area to see what they would like. It is an opportunity that cannot be missed. The housing plans are acceptable.

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Objecting Area 7 - p.57, table 3rd box down refers to demolition to allow for mixed use development The Area Action Plan specifies now Options Boulevard / Housing including leisure facilities. The proviso should be fit with higher order / the potential for a secondary school strategic policy and not having a detrimental impact on other centres. for this site, subject to confirmation The nature of any leisure use proposed will be the issue. from government.

Maisie Preferred Supporting Area 7 - HDF Page [No specific comments provided] Noted. McGuines Options Boulevard 54 – s Maximum Option Maurice Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Map [No specific comments provided] Noted. and Options Boulevard Edward Allan Lord Mr Gavin Sustainabi Objecting Area 7 - Airlie Page 15 Do not want to move because this is my own house (paid for in full). Noted. Mark lity Boulevard Street Paragraph Ideal for transport (north and south) Hessle Road, Anlaby Road. Walks Wilcox Appraisal : A in West Park (not much shops on Anlaby Road, yet!) but ideal on Hessle Sustainabl Road and Yorkshire Bank. e Page 90 of 141

Communit y Table: 4.2.3 Anthony Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Aylesford Page 54, We support the medium option because we have lived here for 20 years Noted. and Options Boulevard Street Medium spent a lot of money improving and repairing our property, converted the Lorraine Option loft into a home office due to my husband working from home. We don’t O’Keefe want to live anywhere else and hope that the regeneration scheme arrives in our area sooner than later because there are numerous houses boarded up and vacant and some of the houses have less than desirable occupants living in them e.g. alcoholics and drug addicts. Myself like many residents in this area believe that the prioritisation scheme is a shambles, as there are areas with less pressing needs than this have already been upgraded or are in the process of being upgraded.

Diane Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Aylesford I support the preferred options document, because the area where I live Noted. Campbell Options Boulevard Street and has been getting worse for years. The area merits demolishing and new surroundin houses building. g area Mr Shaun DMQA Preferred Objecting Area 7 - Boulevard Page 58, We note that in the action plan for Newington & St Andrews detailing the The ‘green lung’ proposals form a Rennison Holdings Ltd Options Boulevard Stadium Area 7 – preferred options that on page 58 the document sets out the options for centre piece of the Area Action Plan (Hull Boulevard, the Boulevard Stadium. As a key stakeholder and sitting tenant at the and are crucial for making Greyhounds Green stadium we are somewhat surprised that the preferred option appears to Newington & St Andrew’s a more ) Spaces be the demolition of the existing stand at the stadium and the desirable place to live and spend replacement with a new more informal rugby ground and multi use time. The community multi use pavilion. We object most strongly to this course of action. proposal is key to this vision and this This makes no sense from a cost perspective; the stadium should be left comment is welcomed. The stadium in its current form but adapted for community multi use. We have today does not, however, interact invested heavily in the infrastructure at the Boulevard and whilst well (in physical/built environment accepting that we have only 3 year tenure, had hoped that the stadium terms) with surrounding areas, so would become a significant block within the re-development of the area. some kind of redevelopment is The East stand developed in 1992 at considerable cost is in good necessary. condition and has benefited from substantial refurbishment in the past 9 months. Greyhound racing is attracting visitors from out of .our region The Council’s assessment of the and continues to foster good working relationships within the sport existing stadium is that it would nationally and with the local population. require extensive works to meet the We are currently working with Hull City Council on developing improved sustainability criteria required, facilities for the return of field sports, Rugby and Football in particular. although this is a matter for detailed We believe that with a detailed approach in terms of available space design. there is the possibility of bringing together 'other sports opportunities on the site which will benefit the community as a whole. The possible demolition of Gordon Street school and South terracing would open up space to develop gymnasium facilities for locals, professional sportsman and local schools. Airlie Street and the North terracing could similarly be removed with the possibility of either additional green space or with the removal of the North terracing there would be sufficient space to consider a sports hydrotherapy centre for sportsmen and women to the West of the city. We have indicated to Hull City Council our commitment to the stadium and the area in general and are prepared to work in partnership with developers. We feel it is important that as residents of Hull and substantial employers

Page 91 of 141

that we face our obligations to assist wherever possible in terms of providing the right facilities for the local community and that any development at the Boulevard Stadium should become a focal point for the area and the renewal of both Newington & St Andrews wards. There will inevitably be conflict with enterprise with development on such a scale as that planned for the area, losing sight of the employment and commercial propositions is not an option. We request that Hull City Council carefully review the options for West Hull and the Boulevard Stadium in particular.

Jack Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Carrington Figure 8.1 I fully support the preferred option but I am worried about timescale Careful consideration is being given Flintoft Options Boulevard Street , Preferred involved. to phasing, but not everything can Airlie Option I have seen the refurbishment that has taken place i.e. Plane Street etc. be done at once. Street, Plan and in my opinion the streets that have been done were in far better Albermale condition than Airlie Street, Albermarle Street etc. Street The big worry round here is that it will come too late as this area is rapidly declining and lots of people I speak to think 5 or 6 years to start in this area will be far too late. This immediate area should have a priority status before work commenced on other streets which were in far better condition than ours. Overall a good preferred option but I fear it will be too late for this area.

Barry Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Glasgow 8.1 1. I would like to see the whole street demolished, if not We are sympathetic to these Beach Options Boulevard Street 2. I would like to see a small garden or walled frontage, to combat proposals but issues such as land people spitting on my window, risking getting killed everyday by a push ownership mean that they may not bike and not to have to stand in dog faeces almost daily. be practical. This is easy to achieve as you could make the road one way as an example, which would cut down substantially on the boy racers, that come racing down the street. We have a chance to make this area a nice place to live, lets take it.

Benjamin Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Glasgow Page 57 Proposal for Glasgow Street. We are sympathetic to these and Joyce Options Boulevard Street Preferred To make our lives more pleasant we would like a bit of frontage to our proposals but issues such as land Bateman Option, houses, only a meter would do. It would stop a number of things people ownership mean that they may not Figure 8 looking in, and banging on windows late at night, and cyclists riding on be practical. Page 73 the pavement close to the front of our houses. It’s an accident waiting to happen especially to a child going out of the front door onto the street. Pulling television wires off the wall also spoutings. We would also like a one way street with a 20 mph speed limit, or alternatively a stachain, to slow speeding traffic down. This may also stop heavy vehicles as well such as buses and other heavy lorries. Since speed bumps have been put down in St George’s Road, this practice is more frequent. Regarding our property we would not say no to a new front door.

C.L. comments Area 7 - Glasgow 1/ Safety: Personal Agree that these are real issues that Donachie Boulevard Street Bicycles riding on the pavement, sometimes at great speed. This can affect quality of life. situation is especially difficult when leaving the property.

2/ Safety: Personal Hygiene Dustbins left on the front of properties at the Woodcock Street end of Glasgow Street. This practice is particularly bad in that invariably excess refuse and accompanying filth is blown the entire length of the street.

Page 92 of 141

Just about all the homes on the west side of the street are the older type terraced property and quite a number of them have their front rooms accessed directly from the pavement.

3/ Safety: Traffic KC Stadium – Football and Rugby Matches KC Stadium – Special concerts and events Hull Fair week. Above scenarios block both sides of the street inhibiting local residents, some of them disabled, their parking areas.

4/ Safety: Traffic Rail crossing at St Georges Road: since rail schedule increase and consequent crossing activation Glasgow Street has increasingly been used as a short cut in both directions.

5/ Property Vandalism to property. Damage to walls, Telephone and TV cables being pulled from walls or sometimes cut. Gutter fall pipes being pulled away from retaining clips. Damage to double-glazed windows caused by cyclists.

6/ Safety / Financial Practicality The pavement areas on the west side of Glasgow Street are in quite a poor state. The metal gullied drain covers are prone to breaking away and tilting at awkward angles causing tripping / injury hazard. As can be seen in the photographs, when a cover has been damaged or removed the councils solution has been to place 1½” PVC pipe in the bottom of the drain and cementing over which is not particularly ideal.

Residents proposal to transform Glasgow Street We are sympathetic to these 1/ To turn Glasgow Street into a One-Way street running South to North proposals but issues such as land (Woodcock Street end through to Selby Street). Due to our present ownership mean that they may not parking problems during KC matches and events and of course Hull Fair, be practical. Glasgow Street Must be Zoned accordingly for Residents. This should not affect emergency services as they have right of way. If a driver can’t see flashing lights coming towards him and take appropriate action he shouldn’t be on the road.

2/ Utilizing part of the space recovered by this process to allow homes on the west side of the street a small walled area in front of their properties.

3/ If regeneration money is to be spent in this area it must be spent in a way that offers the best possible, long term value. The present frontage regeneration plan for the west side properties could be safe-guarded and given further longevity by these small, cost effective measures.

Brief Outline: The proposal would enable all homes on the old west side of the street to have a small walled area extending out to the present metal gully area of the pavement. The walls, railings and gates would be exactly the same as those being adopted in St Georges Road / Sandringham Street Page 93 of 141

areas. Prefabricated concrete sections of ‘new’ pavement walkway can be laid over the remaining ‘lip’ of the old pavement and extend out into the street ‘n’ feet as required. Small support pillar sections can also be fabricated at ‘roadside’ areas if need be so that no alteration to drainage is required. The proposed ‘new’ walled areas in front of the properties should not have to be excavated and would remain as is.

Miss Sustainabl Supporting Area 7 - Glasgow Regenerat [No specific comment provided] Noted. Deonne e Boulevard Street ion to Raspin Appraisal Glasgow Street and surroundin g areas Mr and Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Glasgow 8.1 1. We would prefer for the whole street to be demolished. We are sympathetic to these Mrs Options Boulevard Street 2. We would like new walled frontage to all properties to stop vandalism proposals but issues such as land Donachie i.e. damage to aerial wires, walls, windows and doors, things being ownership mean that they may not thrown at windows. be practical. Also it would stop people being hurt by cyclists riding on the little pavements and it would also give us much wanted privacy, without people looking straight into windows which could lead to more burglaries. 3. We would also prefer the street to be made one way to stop all the racers using the street as a shortcut when the railway line is in use and it would give people more chance to park outside their own properties when events are taking place at the KC Stadium.

Mr and Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Glasgow Map sent We will be supporting the refurbishment and improvement of Glasgow Noted. Mrs G. Options Boulevard Street through Street and objecting to the demolition of the houses on above street. Groves post Please could more information be sent to my address Mr and Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Glasgow Map- No to demolition. Houses are sound. Frontage to be upgraded and to be We are sympathetic to these Mrs P. Options Boulevard Street Frontage improved by wall on front, to avoid opening front door straight onto proposals but issues such as land Green improvem footpath, plus other repairs that may be found. ownership mean that they may not ent be practical. scheme

S.H. Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Glasgow 8.1 I would like to see my property demolished! Demolition is only being proposed McMahon Options Boulevard Street for streets with serious problems. Kevin Preferred Objecting Area 7 - St Impact on After hearing consistent rumours about plans to demolish the court The AAP needs to prioritise which Pengelly Option Boulevard George’s your terraces in the area, which are cramped and rundown I see that there interventions to make. Road neighbour are to plans to demolish St Georges Grove. Even though the outer hood Area brickwork is rotten and pitted with holes. One part of St Georges Grove 4 Page 15 was flattened a number of years ago and the area became a haunt for the bad druggies and prostitutes. By removing the rest of the grove, the land could be given/sold to the houses on St Georges Road that back onto it for gardens, a rear parking which would also eleviate the problem of parking in St Georges Road for the shoppers on Anlaby Road.

Colin Sustainabi Objecting Area 7 - Tyne Tyne I own 1 Tyne Street backing onto Hessle Road shops . If you pulled The condition of Tyne Street means Bryan lity Boulevard Street Street down this side you would have to build a wall 30ft high and about ¼ mile that demolition is the most Appraisal long to hide the barbed wire guarding the shops. Also I would like to say appropriate option. I love living in my house I have no wish to move and start paying rent at 68 years old I’m too old to start paying a mortgage again. All the necessary support will be Page 94 of 141

offered to those needing to move. I would like to say something about Woodcock Street. People did not move because of the housing, they moved because vandalism made their house a living hell.

David Sustainabi Supporting Area 7 - Tyne After living in Tyne Street for 36 years I and decent/honest working Noted – this is what the proposals Southwick lity (demolitio Boulevard Street people deserve better than being forgotten and made to put up with a seek to do. Appraisal n) run down area. A new start is what’s wanted and needed. Doing houses up is no good we will be worse than ever in 5 years time. Bring us down and live us a chance to regroup as a community of proper Hessle Roaders.

Ian Swift Both Both Area 7 - Tyne * Whilst I support the need for regeneration this came as a shock to me Noted. Boulevard Street with the delivery of the Standard, I found out my house is to be demolished. I bought the house in August last year having checked with yourselves that Tyne Street was not included in the regeneration […], Tyne St is not due for regeneration). In the last week 5 houses have now gone up for sale in this street as word has spread. My house is now valued at £79,950 by an estate agent but they have warned they could be worthless once the plan is finalised. Having spoken with the team on Hawthorn Avenue I believe you offer market value + 10% therefore please let me have my money and be able to be move to an area that you have already regenerated (and it is an improvement I have to agree) and you be able to develop this city into a top ten city in England.

Karen Supporting Area 7 - Tyne Tyne Tyne Street/Dee Street has declined rapidly over the last 5 years – This is what the proposals seek to Southwick (demolitio Boulevard Street Street/Dee private landlords/graffiti inappropriate characters/anti-social do. n) Street behaviour/damaged roads/pavements/rubbish – I could go on!

I think its about time the decent people who live here were taken seriously by the Council:-

Upgrading the street would do no good that won’t solve the problems. It should be demolished so people can start again and enjoy a better quality of life.

Miss Preferred Objecting Area 7 - Tyne Figure 8.1 I object to the option plans of the Figure 5.2 Medium Option and 8.1 The condition of Tyne Street means Paula Bell Options Boulevard Street Preferred Preferred Option plan. This objection is due to the obvious reasons. I am that demolition is the most Option a home owner of the property at 36 Tyne street and this would be the appropriate option. and Figure subject of demolition. I have noticed the surrounding streets within the 5.2 NASA regenerating area have had front of houses improved, such areas All the necessary support will be Medium being e.g.: St Georges Road and Plane Street. Why can’t Tyne Street offered to those needing to move. have this instead of demolition? I attended the meeting and was informed that buildings new homes would make the area safer and prevent anti-social behaviour. How would this happen? The more open green space the Council make to the area will just give youths more option to gather in gangs, drink and cause trouble for the residents. If the Council do decide on either of the two options then as a home owner in the area will require financial help in relocating within the West Hull area. I will want “like for like” in housing type, full market value for my home and land. If this does not go my way then the Council will have to apply for compulsory order.

Page 95 of 141

Mr Shaun Preferred Objecting Area 7 - Tyne Figure 8.1 I fully object to the Councils proposals for Figures 5.2 Medium Option All the necessary support will be Hutson Options Boulevard Street Preferred plan and Figure 8.1 Preferred Option plan for the obvious reasons been offered to those needing to move. Option my property at number 36 Tyne Street would be subject to demolition. plan and Other neighbouring areas i.e. St Georges Road, Plane Street areas have Fig 5.2 had frontal improvements and they look great. So why is Tyne street not Medium even an option for this? Why is it that the Council believe that Option demolishing homes and rebuilding will prevent anti-social behaviour, this plan will not prevent this at all. If any of the two options do go ahead then I, as a homeowner in the area will require financial help in relocating within the area, I would want “deed for deed” in moving home and full market value for my property and land otherwise a compulsory order would have to be applied.

Mrs J. Preferred Objecting Area 7 - Tyne Page 54 I am not happy with the demolition of my home. I’ve lived in this street All the necessary support will be Dawson Options Boulevard Street Medium (Tyne) since about 1935 until now. I have many happy times and offered to those needing to move. and memories with good friends and I love my large terraced house the area maximum and the people. I am too old to move! option

Mrs V. I. Sustainabi Objecting Area 7 - Tyne Tyne I am the owner of 1 Tyne street it is an attractive well built sound house. I The condition of Tyne Street means Bryan lity Boulevard Street street, do not want it knocked down. I am on the side of Tyne street that backs that demolition is the most Appraisal Hessle onto the Hessle Road shops. I think the older houses to look at have a appropriate option. road, Hull charm of their own. I find the new type houses unattractive. So my objection could be resolved by keeping my house standing. All the necessary support will be If some houses in Tyne Street are short of your expectations refurbish offered to those needing to move. them. My objection solved.

R. Objecting Area 7 - Tyne My house to stay up! All the necessary support will be Fletcher Boulevard Street offered to those needing to move. Mrs JC Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Tyne Figure 8.5 Timescales for clearance of court terraces behind Tyne Street are too These are problematic terraces and Kirk Options But See Boulevard Street – Phasing. long. Existing problems with fly-tipping, burglary, people climbing into will be removed as soon as possible, Comments area Page 73 back yard, because of design of terraces you can’t see people coming. dependent on the timing of available funding. Mr and Preferred Objecting Area 7 - Tyne Page 54 We are not happy with the demolition of our home. We would like some All the necessary support will be Mrs D. Options Boulevard Street, Medium frontage improvement. We do not wish the upheaval for ourselves and offered to those needing to move. Scaife Leura and our elderly neighbour, we all love this area. Grove maximum option Anthony Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Tyne Figure 5.1 I am not happy with the demolition of our houses by your scheme. If they All the necessary support will be Murray Options minimum Boulevard Street, were to stay up and be up graded that would be fine. I have lived in this offered to those needing to move. (minimum option Ribble area all my life and so as my family and friends. We have just spent option plan Avenue £25,000 on the property. plan) When your plans come to fruition our property will nearly be ours. And I do not intend to start paying you rent. If I could afford to buy one of your properties out right that would be fine, quiet a few of my neighbours feel the same.

Mr David Preferred Supporting Area 7 - Whole Page 63, I am supporting the Preferred Option plan because of the rundown state Noted. Kirk Options Boulevard area Hessle of properties and the congestion on Hessle Road itself. Getting away Road Area from terraced housing can only be a good thing, more new housing and 8 bungalows would look smarter and cleaner, along with more green areas, the shops are looking better so let’s make the housing the same. Page 96 of 141

Mr Roger Supporting Area 7 – Glasgow Map Fig In the frontage improvement scheme would it be possible to give the We are sympathetic to these Stoneley Boulevard Street 8.1 residents of Glasgow Street privacy to the front of their property's by proposals but issues such as land means of a small walled area and parking permits. ownership mean that they may not be practical.

Ian Smith English Preferred Support Area 7 – St John’s Page 57, We welcome the intention to improve the Grade II Listed St John’s Noted. Heritage Options Boulevard Church Area 7 – Church as a community centre. Yorkshire Boulevard and the Humber Region The Ven. Church of Preferred Comment Area 7 – St John’s p.58, row I note that within the proposed developments there is a plan to provide a Noted. David England Options Boulevard Church 3, col.2 new community resource building at St John's Church, Newington. To be Butterfield – and and p.67 precise, I believe that this planned development relates to the church hall Church 8.3.2 point and does not affect the church building itself. Hall 12 Given the fragile nature of the church community at St John's, The delivery partners will continue Newington, I would want serious consideration to be given as to how the working with you. church building itself might be developed in part for the use of the wider community while retaining a smaller area within the building for worship.

The church building is very large and is an attractive building with a rich history connected to the fishing community. The church building has already been considered for redundancy and, unfortunately, this has been halted -a proposal that I supported. However, its long-term viability is by no means secure and having the building developed for use by the wider community would help to ensure its survival as an attractive landmark building in the area. I would therefore urge those responsible for the development of this area to have conversations with the relevant bodies with regard to how the church building (and not just the church hall) might be part of the development proposals.

John Both Objecting Area 7 – Massey P.O.D Fig. * Firstly I refer to Figure 8.2, which shows the Holy Trinity Cemetery, as These are useful comments to be Cullen Boulevard Street 8.2 and part of the Massey Fields with a direct link from a proposed civic square. picked up at the detailed design and whole Playing 8.3 Also Figure 8.3 identifies the cemetery as a future Wildlife / Ecology stage. area Field – S.A. Fig park. […] Burial 21 ground May I remind you that this cemetery was used for burials up until 1952. and whole During the early 1970's the Hull City Council took it upon itself to area obliterate this cemetery without any consideration for the families who have family members buried there. You will know that councils have a responsibility to maintain cemeteries, so why not this one? Now you have the opportunity to atone for the disgusting and insensitive method of desecration […], by establishing a Remembrance and Memorial Garden to the Hessle road people buried there. Please remember that the people buried in this cemetery were the very people who established Hessle road. Without them the fishing industry would not have existed and Hull would not have been the city it was with all of the ancillary industries. There is talk of a memorial to the Trawler men lost at sea, which is very fitting and I feel the proposed new civic square would be an ideal Page 97 of 141 location for it, especially as it would be adjacent to the Holy Trinity Cemetery where all of their relations are buried, providing the Dee street proposals are carried out. This in turn would give the opportunity to combine the memorial with a Remembrance Garden to all of the Trawler men's families. It must be stated that the Trawler men caught the fish but it was their wives who made the nets and worked in the fish curing and smoke houses. Please note that these people are the same people who caught the fish, the only distinction is that they had the good fortune to die at home and be buried on Hessle road. They are due the respects of all genuine people of Hull including councillors with a conscience. Please also note and don't forget the families of the interned paid for the plots in this cemetery. They also expected their graves would be maintained properly and in perpetuity. I am sure they did not foresee that the Church of England and the Hull City Council would treat their bodies with such distain after all it was Hull that benefited from their endeavours. Please honour them in the way that they should be honoured. You should also note there are war graves in this cemetery.

Landscaping Proposals for The Holy Trinity Cemetery 1) All legal requirements for dealing with closed cemeteries. 2) Burial laws and policy in the 21 st Century, published January 2006. Ref CP(R) DCNHO/l/05. Also published June 2007 Ref: T 0207210 0049/0066 for the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice should approve all works. 3) All works to be approved by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Jenton Road, Sydenham, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV31 1XS. 4) Please refer to the Church of England for their approval. Holy Trinity Church. 5) I would also like to have some input into any proposed works if possible as my mother, father, sister and other relatives are buried in this cemetery.

Sustainability Appraisal Report Refer to Fig. 21 Identification -Amenity Landscape Area -Think again please.

Comments on the omissions from the HDF Plan: There appears to be no reference to the following:

1) Self Build / Owner Occupation. I see no reference to self-build. This will be the only chance to build in an element of responsibility in to the areas where houses have been demolished. This will also be an opportunity for self-expression in design.

2) Retirement Villages Please give consideration for the needs of the elderly. They have a requirement for a self contained secure possibly walled and warden managed site.

Page 98 of 141

3) Indoor Sports Facilities With this rough British climate there is much need for an indoor sports building. The youth of today need facilities to occupy their time, which will also benefit their health.

4) Cemeteries and Allotments The council are required to provide cemeteries. They currently own cemeteries in the north, east and west of the city, why not the south? I propose some thought should be given to locating one on the Massey Fields. The site has been proved suitable; it also has an adjacent church and is within the city boundary unlike the wet Priory Road site, which is in the East Riding area. Consideration should also be given to the need for Allotments, which the council is also required to provide.

Barrie Boulevard Preferred Comment Area 8 – Para Pedestrianising Hessle Road is not required. It would mean the quick trip Agree - The AAP does not propose Marsden Neighbourho Options Hessle 7.2.30 to the shops would be a thing of the past as buses would not be there, if to pesdestrianise Hessle Road; a od Watch Road they were how would you be able to speed them up? By removing stops blanket door-to-door ‘shared space’ of course - silly me - in which case what’s their purpose? By all means treatment would not be expected to improve the raised junctions and ped crossings but do not raise it all to work here. create a single level. This would be an accident waiting to happen and would not speed buses up at all.

Barrie Boulevard Preferred Comment Area 8 – Para Street lighting must be one of the first things to be completed. It is below Agree. Marsden Neighbourho Options Hessle 7.2.34 inc. par now by better lighting you can get the quality of street life in the od Watch Road Table darker months so a more street and event friendly as in other towns could be had.

Barrie Boulevard Preferred Comment Area 8 – Para Hessle Road is an important shopping area which you accept in the plan This proposal has been reviewed. Marsden Neighbourho Options Hessle 7.2.30 as well as the premise to improve the facilities etc. This is most More consultation will take place od Watch Road acceptable. Having said this you fall into the same trap as Anlaby Road about the detail of actions to improve by reducing bus stops to enable more traffic flow. You need to reduce movement along Hessle Road in the the traffic flow not the buses. Change the culture of the car and you will delivery stage. enhance the quality of shopping in Hessle Road. There have been planning decisions made on Hessle Road that have increased the traffic congestion over the past 4 years or so. Once again the community must be able to be consulted on any plans that affect the area.

Bob East Preferred Support Area 8 – Para 3.7.2 The company supports the extension of bus lane priority. Noted. Rackley, Yorkshire Options Hessle Motor Road Services Limited Bob East Preferred Objecting Area 8 – Para Raising Hessle Road to pavement level between ASDA and boulevard The strategy is to support both bus Rackley, Yorkshire Options Hessle 7.2.33 would be incompatible with the need to improve bus speeds and priority. use and walking. The two are not Motor Road necessarily incompatible and Services detailed work will be undertaken and Limited consulted upon during the delivery phase. Bob East Preferred Objecting Area 8 – Para Reducing the number of bus stops would reduce the accessibility of This proposal has been reviewed Rackley, Yorkshire Options Hessle 7.2.33 services for local residents and uses of shops. and amended. Motor Road Services Page 99 of 141

Limited Carole Access Preferred Area 8 – Page 59 Page 59 Hessle Road same comments re raised crossings and Agree and have reconsidered Sewell Improvemen Options Hessle rationalisation of bus stops. Same as page 42 and 44 proposals. t Group Road Carole Access Preferred Objecting Area 8 – Page 61 We object strongly to the use of Shared space on a main road, we must Proposals reconsidered and are now Sewell Improvemen Options Hessle learn from the experience of Newland Avenue which only has a limited for raised junctions and crossing t Group Road amount of this and the effect it has had on people with a visual points only. impairment. The removing of wayfind signals and kerbs greatly increases the risk for someone who is visually impaired. See previous comments Page 35 Shared Surface Streets. Julia P. David Preferred Supporting Area 8 – Environme Regeneration – don’t you mean degeneration! Where do I start? This The improvement of Hessle Road is Mulchinoc Anthony Options Hessle ntal + area has gradually, over the years, become so run down, it’s untrue. It is a key priority in order to address k Jewellers Road Shop front a ghetto, no-go area, for drug addicts, thieves, unemployed receiving these problems. improvem stolen goods, prostitutes, uneducated people etc…etc… One by one, ents for shops are going. We are now surrounded by empty shops – so Hessle depressing. A few years ago, this area was thriving, now it is an absolute Road disgrace! The flagstones and pavements are completely dangerous. One lady had a terrible accident outside Cash Express last week. The drains, as we well know, are antiquated. As far as we are concerned we feel as Hessle Road has closed down. My father-in-law started on Hessle Road in the 1950’s with his first shop – he would be mortified now if he was still alive. So,.. we wait with baited breath and utter desperation to see what is going to happen to our livelihood.

Miss A. Uncles Preferred Objecting Area 8 – Page 59 I am objecting to my business being demolished. I have been there over The proposals have been revised. Ulliot Pawnbroker Options Hessle Demolition 12 years and on Hessle Road over 22 years. I own the building and also The shops are being retained in the s Road of shops a flat I rent out above it. Moving is not an option. Area Action Plan. between Dee Street and Division Road

Mrs A Molly Preferred Supporting Area 8 – Paras * I support whole heartedly the maximum plan option 3. However steps The improvement of Hessle Road is Brown Mallones Document Hessle 3.8.1, must be taken by Hull City Council to ensure Hessle Road does not a key priority in order to address Road 4.2.2., loose its variety and character and therefore its appeal as Hull’s only these problems. 4.3.1, remaining community shopping road. 4.4.5., To this end the planning and licensing departments must very carefully The AAP will set a new planning 7.2.30,31, study the long term viability of change of use to food/hot takeaway and framework. 32,33,34 additional pubs or to other licensed premises.

Please ensure adequate parking for shop keepers and staff. Dedicated park if possible.

[NB: Additional statement submitted, available for inspection at the Planning Department, Planning Policy, Kingston House, Bond Street, Hull, HU1 3ER, please call 01482 612391 to make an appointment]

Sandy Lee Preferred Objecting Area 8 – Figure 5.1 I own 342 Hessle Road. This property seems scheduled to be The proposals have been revised. Options Hessle Minimum demolished under all plans. Obviously as this is an investment property The shops are being retained in the Road Option and one from which is established as a shop, I object to this loss of asset Area Action Plan. Page 100 of 141

plan page and livelihood. My objection could be resolved by means of suitable 22. financial compensation. Demolition shops between Dee Street and Division Road Allan S. Military Area 8 – Further to discussions and ideas for the above planning [Newington and Family housing as described is a Razey Wear House Hessle St Andrew’s Area Action Plan] with respect to development I would like priority. Off road parking is one Road and to add the following proposals should they not yet be included in the element, as is on-street. Whole forthcoming discussions. NaSA The café atmosphere will be area 1. Housing to include the following separate areas:- encouraged in some places, as will tree planting. a) Family housing areas to include play areas, small gardens and appropriate facilities for families. Play areas to include adequate seating Opening up blocked streets is being for parents. investigated. b) Single homes within low rise flats having caretakers to allow facilities for single occupation, and including one bedroom flat lets, but mainly developed for single persons overall. No gardens but varied patio areas with seating and large plant containers. c) Grouped homes with easy maintenance and no gardens for elderly and infirm or disabled occupants. Supervised/ warden facilities to be included. d) Adequate car parking facilities -off road for most areas.

2. Princes Avenue and Newland Avenue have excellent cafe atmosphere which should be encouraged for Hessle Road as it is, in the evening, drab and dreary. Such facilities would be advantageous for the population to be and with promotion to encourage business development in this area add much to the environment for householders and visitors.

3. Tree planting on Hessle Road would additionally add much to environment and benefit of the residents.

4. Consideration should be given to the development of the ex Kwik Save store on Hessle Road, long vacant, being developed into an indoor market with diverse stalls.

5. Double yellow lines were originally put down to encourage free flow of traffic. Therefore putting down such yellow lines on cul de sac streets is taking away short term parking facilities which discourage motorised shoppers.

6. Some of the streets on Hessle Road (shopping street) have been blocked and should be opened up. The Hessle Road Traders Association have advocated such measure and this action would also enable rapid response vehicles (police, Fire, Ambulance), to divert and other traffic to disgorge from the main thoroughfare in times of emergency.

7. One of the main problems in the evenings is the wanton damage and Page 101 of 141 roaming of youths seeking engagement in activities through boredom. It is essential that something be made available to occupy younger members of the community other than organised youth clubs requiring, unwelcome (to the youths) of adult supervision and organisation. A Drop in centre would be useful and allow youngsters to meet, socialise and relax other than on the street. Naturally an adult supervision team would be available but able to converse and be sympathetic to the needs of young people.

8. An organised Youth Club should additionally be made available encompassing all manner of indoor and outdoor activities providing stimulus and physical exertion (sports, adventure training, camping and competitions as well as sponsored events.

9. Alliance with charitable events, associations and integration in older generation events should be encouraged for young people, making them aware of the needs of every sector of the community. Such activities could include gardening, shopping, visiting, dog walking, aiding the infirm and incapacity members of the area. Although it is suggested that older and younger generations should be separated for housing needs to allow for different recreational needs and peaceful existence, there is a requirement for understanding and co-operative existence between all sectors of the community.

10. To encourage community spirit amongst shop keepers and new business on Hessle Road adequate car parking facilities MUST be included in the developments to allow for business owners and employees to find all day parking available. Since the Council car park was sold to developers such facilities have become an urgent requirement.

11. Tree lining of HessIe Road should be undertaken and the provision of additional seating for perambulating visitors and local shoppers.

12. There is an urgent need for Hessle Road frontages to be modernised and updated to provide an overall semblance of prosperity, development and vigour. The present dilapidations do little for the environment and is an urgent need for the area to encourage new traders increase in customer flow and an air of successful development, expansion and an air of great potential for the future.

13. Finally, it is important that emphasis be laid on the housing/residential aspects of the development to avoid what might initially be a superb modem development deteriorating into occupied areas of unkempt gardens and public areas, assembly of inferior ability residents who might lower the standards of others and such ASBO type personnel be evicted to more suitable areas for their better supervision and assistance. Perhaps Home economic courses (compulsory) citizenship classes and sociology aspects in a controlled environment within a small warden maintained housing estate might be appropriate for such personnel/families. (isolated, temporarily, until they have passed satisfactory progress reports and can be brought back into normal environments. Problem families need help as much as the elderly, infirm, Page 102 of 141

handicapped and homeless.

14. Homelessness must be eradicated from the streets of Hull and Hostel facilities made available for the destitute, homeless and incapable individuals. Begging, in all its forms is an abomination in these days of welfare and support so must be banished from all areas.

Ian Smith English Preferred Comment Area 8– Page 61, We support the intention for a Frontage Improvement Scheme along Noted. Heritage Options Hessle Area 8 – Hessle Road. As the Document notes, this area has a unique character Yorkshire Road Hessle and Identity. The enhancement of this area would help to delver the and the Road aspect of the strategy relating to the accentuating the particular Humber character of the area and improve the image of one of the principal Region routes through into the City Centre.

Matt Highway Preferred Comment Industrial Preferred Preferred Option Noted. Rudman Agency Options Area south Option The longer term proposal for a ‘green link’ from West Park to the Humber of Hessle Riverside at the former St Andrew’s Dock would utilise the existing sub- Road way under the A63 Clive Sullivan Way. The Agency will have an interest in the design details of this link at the appropriate time.

Matt Highway Preferred Comment Industrial Preferred Preferred Option Noted. Rudman Agency Options Area south Option We note that the AAP options do not include any proposals for the of Hessle commercial area between Hessle Road and Brighton Street but it is Road identified as a long term Employment Improvement Area.

It is also noted that this commercial area is being considered by the City Council under a separate exercise to examine employment land throughout the city. This study will be of interest to the Agency in accordance with Circular 02/2007, as commercial developments often result in a material impact on the SRN.

Yasin Raja Government Preferred Comment Industrial Para 1.15 The industrial area south of Hessle Road has not been subject to options Agree. This particular area is outside Office for Options area south assessment but will form part of the final AAP. Policies and proposals the Area Action Plan area in the Yorkshire of Hessle for this area will be informed by work currently being undertaken that is Publication Draft. and the Road looking at the future potential for employment in the city as whole. If this Humber is the case would it not be appropriate to deal with this area in the wider DPD that will deal with employment land? (Soundness Test 7)

John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Outside Green space Agree but this is outside the Area Netherwoo Society Options area We would like to see the stretch of river bank between Macro and the Action Plan area. d Sainsbury's roundabout given major recognition as a place of outstanding beauty which makes a major contribution to the visual quality of the whole area.

Tesco Preferred Supporting Whole Section In respect of phasing, we would suggest that the ability and willingness Agree. Stores Options area 8.5 - of the private sector to contribute to the implementation of the Limited Phasing redevelopment proposed by the Area Action Plan should neither be (Agent: p.72 under-estimated nor discouraged. DPP) Paragraph 8.5.5 suggests that the scope, speed and scale of redevelopment are principally predicated upon the resources available to Gateway HMR. Whilst we accept that this is a material consideration, Page 103 of 141

there is clear opportunity for the private sector to participate in delivering this change.

Given the scale of development that is proposed by the AAP, we suggest that the private sector should be encouraged to deliver where they can, in order that Gateway HMR can focus upon redevelopment opportunities where market interest is more limited.

Ailie National Preferred Comment Whole Whole PPS12 ‘Local Development Frameworks’ notes that the core strategy The development of higher level Savage Offender Options Area Doc development plan document should set out broad locations for delivering policy as part of Hull Development Managemen the housing and other strategic development needs such as essential Framework - Core Strategy and t Service public services. Paragraph 4.1 encourages early involvement of Allocations DPD, will be the (NOMS) government agencies in the preparation of LDFs while paragraph B3 appropriate means to address the requires local planning authorities to develop a strategic approach to location and allocation of strategic infrastructure provision (including community facilities) when preparing sites in the City. local development documents.

Circular 3/98 ‘Planning for Future Prison Development’ highlights the continuing overcrowding within the prison estate and the need to replace outdated and inadequate facilities. Specifically there is a need to identify more sites for new prisons. The Secretary of State expects that local planning authorities will work together with the Prison Service to identify land for new prisons through the development plan process. The Circular advises that in order to enable authorities to make provision for prisons within their development plans the Prison Service will consult with authorities about likely areas of future need (paragraph 7).

Circular 3/98 recognises at Paragraph 2 that there should be guidance in development plans on community facilities and infrastructure requirements and also that they should take account of the need for new prison developments, which should be identified through the planning system.

The Circular notes that in identifying potential prison sites, the Prison Service has to take account of local and regional requirements for additional prison places, the court catchment areas served and the relationship of the site to nearby population centres. It goes on to specify a number of other site development considerations and also recognises that the objectives of sustainable development and in particular the need to reduce unnecessary travel should apply to site selection. Prisons should not be located too far from the centres of population they serve and there should be reasonably good accessibility to public transport services.

The Circular also recognises that new prisons have potential for a substantial and beneficial impact on the economy of a local area. New jobs are created on site (both during construction and permanent jobs), goods and services are purchased in the community and extra local income is generated as a result of the disposable income of prison staff.

In recent years there has been a significant increase in the prison population. In the 1970’s the prison population in England and Wales was in the order of 40,000; in July 2005 that figure had risen to 76,538.

Page 104 of 141

The prison estate is experiencing serious overcrowding. NOMS is doing everything it can to maximise capacity at existing prisons by bringing buildings back into use through refurbishment, new house blocks, temporary units and ‘ready to use’ units. However, many prisons are already operating at capacity and there is limited potential to significantly increase the number of places at existing prisons. The prison system is therefore heavily dependent on new prisons to provide the additional places.

While there are no specific proposals for new prison development in your district at present nor specific sites identified, in line with Government guidance NOMS requests that you consider the inclusion of a criteria based policy to deal with a firm prison proposal should it arise during the plan period. I would be pleased to propose a detailed policy for inclusion in your Development Plan Document and would welcome your views on how this proposal should be taken forward.

The economic benefits of prisons are recognised in Circular 3/98. Prisons provide significant permanent employment opportunities across a range of skills. Consequently, the Hull City LDF should acknowledge that HMPs Hull, The Wolds and Everthorpe are important community facilities serving local needs and which should generally be protected. In addition, a policy should be included to support the need for expansion where this can be justified. Similarly, along with other community facilities there should be a presumption against the loss of a prison use unless it is demonstrated to be surplus to requirements.

Andy Yorkshire Preferred Comment Whole Whole On this occasion, these are not documents the Assembly wishes to Noted. Haigh and Humber Options Area Doc comment on. Assembly Barrie Boulevard Preferred Comment Whole Para 3.7.2 There are cross city bus routes from Anlaby Road and Hessle Road. The Noted and corrected. Marsden Neighbourho Options area Anlaby Road service commencing from Arnold Street and going via the od Watch City and Greatfield to Asda Bilton (service 41). The Hessle Road service commencing Hessle Square and travelling via the City, Holderness Road to Asda Bilton (service 57). Both are operated by EYMS.

Barrie Boulevard Preferred Support Whole Para 4.5.3 We welcome the ‘step-by-step’ approach as this will enable the Noted. Marsden Neighbourho Options area communities to be involved and take more time over the plan. od Watch

Barrie Boulevard Preferred Comment Whole Whole doc We have restricted this response to the areas we are involved in. We Noted. Marsden Neighbourho Options Area commend most parts of the plan except those noted above. od Watch Bethan Yorkshire Preferred Comment Whole 4.2.3, Whilst we support the creation of accessible open space in close Agree, as reflected in the Area Stagg Wildlife Options area 4.4.5, proximity to where users live, it is important that the AAP does not Action Plan. Trust 7.1.2, recreate the existing design problems in Newington and St Andrews. The 7.2.17, buffer areas of amenity grass around Council Estates, for example, are 7.2.25 underused and suffer anti-social behaviour, probably because their small size excludes most legitimate uses, the design is bland and there is no ‘community ownership’ of these spaces.

Large open spaces are equally important as small ones; they provide wider opportunities for play since they allow ball games and other This is true of the south west area Page 105 of 141

activities incompatible in spaces adjacent to housing and are further from (although Boothferry Park is close busy roads and traffic noise. Large open spaces also provide more by) but the north east area contains opportunity for habitat creation and habitat areas that are large enough West Park. There is a general to be viable for less mobile species (for example many mammals, ‘greening’ strategy, including the reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates). green lung, onto which attention should be focused. Figure 8.3 indicates that there are no large open spaces proposed for the SW or NE areas of Newington and St Andrews and we encourage the AAP Team to consider designing more open space into these localities.

Bethan Yorkshire Preferred Comment Whole 4.4.5 Green links can only provide wildlife corridors if they contain habitats, for This will be included in the green Stagg Wildlife Options area example trees, scrub and species-rich grassland*, rather than amenity elements where practical. Trust grassland. These can provide commuting corridors for foraging bats, foraging and nesting opportunities for songbirds, and refugia for reptiles and amphibians. This approach is more in line with the Regional Spatial Strategy (POLICY ENV15: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE). *This is achieved through a wildlife-friendly mowing regime

Bethan Yorkshire Preferred Comment Whole 2.2.4, It is important that cycle and pedestrian routes are clearly way marked, The Area Action Plan is following Stagg Wildlife Options area 4.4.2, with clearly defined separate routeways for pedestrians and cyclists. As national best practice guidance (e.g. Trust 4.4.3 well as encouraging natural surveillance, the design team should engage Manual for Streets, Safer Places, By with Police (Beat Officers and PCSOs) and Neighbourhood Wardens to Design) on the design of such provide additional surveillance. routes. Bethan Yorkshire Preferred Comment Whole Open A number of studies show that natural greenspace (ie designed with Noted and agree – to be pursued in Stagg Wildlife Options area space wildlife in mind) contributes to the success of urban regeneration more the detailed design stage. Trust (pages 9, successfully than conventional amenity parkland1. Natural greenspace 11, 12, 16, encourages greater social interaction2, promoting relaxation and 67, 74) reducing stress3, whilst providing more creative play and learning opportunities for children and young people.4 Views of natural landscapes have been shown to increase property values between 6% and 18%, as well as requiring lower running costs.5 Such benefits have been demonstrated in numerous case studies, for example Iris Brickfields in Newcastle,6 Greenwich Millenium Village’s ecology park and Higher Broughton HMR area, Salford.7

We support the aspirations towards natural greenspace in 8.7.2 (Sustainability – Whole Area Actions), that is the use of native local provenance planting material and habitat creation. However, these aspirations are not referred to in any of the sections about openspace and are not evident on the maps (for example Figure 8.3), suggesting that habitat creation is currently a minor component of the openspace proposals. We encourage the Area Action Plan Team to adopt natural greenspace approaches more actively in the Preferred Options of the NaSA AAP and in the forthcoming Green Master Plan (as referred to in 8.4.1) to help create a Newington and St Andrews that is attractive, distinctive and desirable to residents. We would like to remind the Area Action Plan Team of the network of SNCIs (Sites of Nature Conservation Importance) in Hull and the value of incorporating new greenspaces into this existing green infrastructure, through habitat creation.

Examples of simple, low-cost elements of natural greenspace include: - reduced mowing of grassland in parks, verges and greens to

Page 106 of 141

encourage wildflowers; - establishment of field and shrub layers around park trees; - allowing habitat ‘patches’ or clusters of long grass, scrub and trees to establish in parks, through reduced mowing and planting of native scrub and tree species. These habitat patches are very attractive to songbirds and other wildlife, whilst still allowing natural surveillance and preventing concealment of potential criminals; - Allowing vegetation to establish along streams and waterbodies; - Incorporating buffer strips of habitat and wetland schemes into SUDs

One of the most effective ways of creating safe and popular openspaces, in addition to ‘designing out’ crime and encouraging natural surveillance, is to engage the local community in both the design and management of the greenspace8. Through its Greater Hull Programme, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust has achieved a number of successes engaging communities in this way. We would be interested in discussing how we could be involved in helping to shape and manage natural greenspace in the regeneration of Newington and St Andrews. One of the reasons why greenspace is poorly used in this area at the moment is the lack of ‘community ownership’.

Bethan Yorkshire Preferred Comment Whole Page 31, Need to also factor the environmental costs of demolition of 2100 Agree, although the homes Stagg Wildlife Options Area 6.3.3 houses, disposal of materials arising from demolition and construction of earmarked for demolition are very Trust 2100 new houses. energy inefficient. Where possible, materials will be recycled locally.

Bethan Yorkshire Preferred Supporting Whole 8.4.1 This paragraph states that the AAP will design streets for the people Home Zones and similar treatments Stagg Wildlife Options Area living there. We encourage this approach and suggest that the AAP are being considered. Trust considers the creation of Home Zones, schemes which aim to strike a balance between vehicular traffic and residential needs, offering substantial benefits to residents and creating a more attractive neighbourhood9. Such schemes have been successfully introduced in a number of places, for example Clifton (Nottingham), The Methleys (Leeds) and Northmoor (Manchester).

Bethan Yorkshire Preferred Objecting Whole Chapter 5 In none of the three Options does the green space look genuinely linked Agree. This has been revised. Stagg Wildlife Options Area - Options up, it looks scattered and discontinuous. In order to effectively support Trust for walking and cycling and biodiversity, the green space map needs to be Change revised. This would enable green space provision to genuinely contribute to green infrastructure, as detailed in the Regional Spatial Strategy (POLICY ENV15: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE).

Bethan Yorkshire Preferred Supporting Whole 8.6.4; We support the incorporation of SUDS into the openspace network and Noted. SUDs will be promoted Stagg Wildlife Options Area 8.7.2 encourage the AAP Team to use this exciting opportunity to create where feasible. Trust habitats for wildlife. Retention ponds, swales and wetlands can provide simple, low-cost habitat creation opportunities if designed properly, as demonstrated by a number of schemes, including Lamb Drove (Cambridge), Matchborough First School (Redditch), Hopwood

Page 107 of 141

Motorway Service Area (Bromsgrove).

Bob East Preferred Comment Whole Para 3.7.2 The paragraph is factually incorrect as the company has developed a Noted for correction in the Area Rackley, Yorkshire Options Area number of cross-city services in recent years: Action Plan. Motor - 57 Hessle-Hessle Road-City-Holderness Road-Longhill Services - 41 Arnold Street- Anlaby Road- City- Greatfield- Bilton Limited Grange- Asda Bilton - 1C Sibelius Road- Hessle Road – City – Bridlington Avenue – Beverley Road – Kingswood Carole Access Preferred Objecting Whole Whole The document overall has some issues with repetition and some Noted and points taken on board for Sewell Improvemen Options Area document contradictions. We would like to see less use of jargon. A quarter of the the Area Action Plan. t Group document seems purely to include aspirations which although probably quite honourable do not get to the facts and detail required to address the full issues. The print style in the main body of the text is fine however the text in the spreadsheet panels is of too small font for ease of reading. The keys on some of the pages and diagrams are totally illegible. Suggest you look at the standard, layout and philosophy of the Statement of Community Involvement'.

Carole Access Preferred Whole Page 29 Neighbourhoods fit for 21st century living, well designed and sustainable Agree. The policy framework is, or Sewell Improvemen Options Area 6.2 housing for all. This is a commendable objective and it can really only be soon will be, in place. t Group Objectives met by incorporating inclusive design practises and lifetime homes 6.2.2 point standards. Reference Hull City Councils recent document for 5 consultation Sustainable Development SPD Theme 2 The Built Form For residential developments 2.8, 2.10 Commercial development, 2.12 Appendix C Further Information on the built form.

Carole Access Preferred Objecting Whole Page 35 Suggest removing 5th photo of poorly designed stepped access to Photos do not appear in Area Action Sewell Improvemen Options Area building, we would like to see more positive images representing good Plan. t Group inclusive design. Carole Access Preferred Objecting Whole Page 35 Shared Surface Streets. Need to be made more aware of access Design team is aware of the issues Sewell Improvemen Options Area concerns. Reference recent shared space research. Both documents are and expect shared surfaces or t Group available from Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. Testing proposed similar to be designed with the delineators to demarcate pedestrian paths in a shared space needs of all users in mind, although environment. Shared Surfaces Campaign Report. Stop shared surfaces, they are still proposed in places. keep our pavements. Group have concerns about the use on main roads and although limited use in small courts might be possible it may still create issues for people alighting from vehicles on the road side of the vehicle.http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/sharedsurfaces

Carole Access Preferred Objecting Whole Page 35 Actions for improved safety, it is suggested that homes without rear Clear evidence from Police and Sewell Improvemen Options Area access are less likely to be burgled, we are not sure that this is a fully Home Office of strong link between t Group accurate assumption, we have concerns that this as a design aspiration rear access and burglary (see could create problems not only for disabled people and are very references in Safer Places: the interested in the comments that the emergency services may have Planning System & Crime made. Prevention, ODPM/Home Office). House types proposed to incorporate rear and side access where possible, but via ‘ginnels’ rather than long alleyways. Carole Access Preferred Whole Page 72 Page 72 8.4.5 Support improvements to routes to make them more Changes throughout the Area Action Sewell Improvemen Options Area 8.4.5 accessible to all. The detail in the rest of the document will not achieve Plan should meet these concerns. Page 108 of 141

t Group this, careful consideration and quality consultation needs to be carried out to achieve the aim. Disabled people need to be listened to. Carole Access Preferred Whole Page 75 Page 75 Building Standards 8.7.3 This paragraph needs to be clearer. It The Area Action Plan confirms that Sewell Improvemen Options Area Building would be good to make it clear what standard is expected to be followed Lifetime Homes is the standard to t Group Standards i.e. Lifetime homes. It would also be worthwhile to make reference of follow. 8.7.3 new document from government ‘A National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society’ http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/lifetimehomesneigh bourhoods ‘Independent Living’ A cross-government strategy about independent living for disabled people http://www.officefordisability.gov.uk/independent/strategy.asp Hull City Council’s recent document for consultation Sustainable Development Supplementary Planning Document.

Carole Access Sustainabi Comment Whole Whole Very difficult to negotiate around. Sewell Improvemen lity Area document t Group Appraisa Enhancing Communities, Health and Social Welfare – Sustainability Objectives 1 to 6 It is stated that improved green space will have a significant effect on the The Sustainability Appraisal and health and well being of residents and although we agree with the AAP in their current state cannot premise that the policy does suggest this in reality planning applications influence planning applications that are been submitted that do not provide this. are being submitted at the present. The opinion of the group is that the design on some of these applications However, once adopted, the AAP does not provide safe environments for all and therefore will not reduce will provide a means to ensure that the fear of crime. The distance to public transport is one issue and the there is continued community action plan suggests the rationalisation of bus stops. engagement. Quote ‘There is a significant opportunity throughout the planning and development stages for community stakeholder engagement so that the residents can gain a sense of ownership.’ To many people this is just jargon as their views are not listened to and only the few feel fully ‘engaged’.

Enhancing Local Neighbourhoods – Sustainability Objectives 12 to 16 Quote ‘The permeability of the neighbourhoods has been improved and safer street connections and pathways have been made.’ The suggestions for the use of ‘shared space’ could be detrimental for people with a visual impairment, the experiment of Newland Avenue shows lessons need to be learnt or costly reconstruction will be necessary. The most significant sustainability issue of housing seems to have been Agree, reference has now been virtually overlooked; Haig and other disability organisations in the city made, to the use of the ‘Lifetime have for many years asked for ‘Life Time homes’ as a minimum standard Homes’ standard for all homes. of design, national government have now realised the value of this and has produced two documents which we feel should be referenced and used to inform the development throughout the city. • Independent Living. ‘A cross-government strategy about These documents will be independent living for disabled people’ incorporated into future revisions of http://www.officefordisability.gov.uk/independent/strategy.asp the Hull SA Framework – Review of • ‘A National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society’ relevant plans, programmes and http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/lifetimehomesneigh policies. bourhoods The Sustainable Development SPD • Hull City Council has also produced a document for has not yet been adopted and as a consultation which appeared to have been overlooked too. Sustainable result has not been included in this

Page 109 of 141

Development Supplementary Planning Document. SA. It will be included, once All documents would also benefit from following the standard, layout and adopted, in the SA of future plans. philosophy of the 'Statement of Community Envolvement', which was recently adopted.

Chris Natural Preferred Comment Whole Whole doc Green Space Noted. McGregor England Options area Natural England would wish to see the provision of high quality green space for people and wildlife running through the heart of any option taken forward.

Natural England believes that all communities should have access to good quality greenspace, play provision and the natural environment close to where people live both at a local level and through green infrastructure corridors to enhance the quality of life. Natural England believes that local authorities should consider the provision of natural areas as part of a balanced policy to ensure that local communities have access to an appropriate mix of greenspaces providing for a range of recreational needs. As a benchmark, Natural England uses the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards Model (ANGST) as outlined in our response to your scoping document and reiterated below in our comments on the Sustainability Appraisal.

One of the stated aims of the master plan and the AAP is to improve greenspace and it is stated that greenspace is particularly important in the Newington and St Andrew's area (NaSA) due to the relatively intense nature of the built form. Linking with this is the health statistics for the area, these show that 11 % of Hull's population were in poor health, compared with 9% nationally. This aim links directly with Natural England's position with regards to Green Infrastructure, with the aim of getting more people to benefit from green infrastructure wherever they live; to achieve this GI needs to be made available on a local level. There are direct links with GI positively contributing to social, environmental and economic benefits by:

• Creating safer and stronger communities Reducing carbon footprints • Increasing economic development and regeneration in areas Improvements in health and wellbeing • Increasing economic development and regeneration in areas • Improvements in health and wellbeing

Natural England suggests that a planned network of green infrastructure throughout St Andrews and Newington wards with investment prioritised to encourage biodiversity enhancement, low impact health activities and healthier lifestyles is included in any option taken forward. Walking routes including safe routes to schools, cycling routes, areas suitable for green exercise and areas to improve mental health through contact and possibly management of natural areas by residents should also be identified and prioritised.

Natural England fully supports the creation of new greenspace and the enhancement of the existing green infrastructure. However, Natural England supports multi use greenspace with enhancement for wildlife Page 110 of 141

throughout the greenspace provision. With this in mind, all greenspace should be seen as able of supporting local wildlife as well as providing benefits to health and generally improving the quality of the local environment. Making a place that people want to live and work in and value as such.

Chris Natural Preferred Comment Whole Figure 8.3 Fig 8.3 would appear to separate wildlife/ecology parks from other Wildlife/ecology has a big role in McGregor England Options area – greenspaces. As above Natural England would wish to see wildlife many of the new and improved Proposed habitat enhancement in all greenspace and believes that this improves green spaces. Green the overall value of an area of greenspace even if its main function is for Spaces another end use such as formal recreation. and their Uses Chris Natural 01904435 Comment Whole Whole doc Green Infrastructure The relevant section of the Design McGregor England 500 area It is recommended that a definition of green infrastructure is used in all Guidance annex and the evidence documents as a starting point or introduction to the area. base address these points. Green Infrastructure (GI) is an important component of ensuring future development provides positive benefits for the region. GI consists of strategic networks of accessible, multifunctional sites (including parks, woodland, informal open spaces, nature reserves and historic sites) as well as linkages (such as river corridors and floodplains, wildlife corridors and greenways). These contribute to maintaining the region's biodiversity and environmental quality as well as people's well-being. GI networks should consist of a series of features (both existing and new), appropriate at various spatial scales, preferably with links connecting smaller, more local sites with larger, more strategic ones, including the region's National Parks and key nationally and internationally important habitats. Networks can provide links between town and country, between different parts of an urban area, and between existing and new development. Linear GI (greenways and riparian areas along rivers, streams, canals etc) is integral in securing connectivity for wildlife and accessibility for people. (The Yorkshire and Humber Plan The draft revised Regional Spatial Strategy incorporating the Secretary of State's proposed changes 2007.)

Natural England supports the identification of existing green infrastructure and identification of areas of potential enhancement and linkage. Specifically, Natural England supports the preferred options which:

1. Identify the green infrastructure corridors

a) within settlements b) linking to the wider countryside via the urban fringe c) linked to settlements in neighbouring authority areas d) linked to national trails/cycleways or strategic bridleways 2. Identify areas which are deficient in green space in both quality and quantity terms and prioritised for investment.

2. Identify areas which are deficient in green space in both quality and quantity terms and prioritised for investment.

3. Identify the range of functions which open space can provide and give

Page 111 of 141

an indication of whether all functions are available/accessible within the area.

Chris Natural Preferred Comment Whole Whole doc Protecting and Enhancing the Natural Environment Agree. McGregor England Options area Green infrastructure is hugely beneficial means of protecting sites and enhancing habitats, biodiversity, green corridors and connectivity between sites.

It is the view of Natural England that the consideration of the wider benefits that Green Infrastructure and multifunctional greenspace can have in the early planning stages of the Newington and 8t Andrew's Area Action Plan will result in economic, social and environmental benefits.

Chris Natural Preferred Comment Whole Section Flooding & Drainage SUDS is an important part of the McGregor England Options area 8.6 – Natural England believes that Green Infrastructure can be used to help strategy. The sequential approach Flooding & reduce environmental impacts, by planning greenspace in order that it has been followed. Drainage can alleviate flooding. To reduce the vulnerability of Hull to flooding and the potential impacts of climate change.

Green infrastructure offers potential benefits in terms of mitigating flood risk. Natural England especially supports the inclusion of SUDS, the use of green infrastructure to provide flood alleviation and wildlife habitat. Natural England also supports the inclusion of features such as green roofs, swales, basins (ponds and wetlands) which can provide valuable wildlife habitat as well as improved flood alleviation.

Natural England supports the use of the sequential approach to flood risk at a site level to reduce risk of flooding.

Chris Natural Preferred Comment Whole Para 8.7.2 Whole Area Actions Noted. McGregor England Options area – Whole Natural England fully supports the specific actions outlined in the whole Area area actions, specifically: Actions - The use of native and local provenance species in all planting plans. All plant material should be grown in non peat soils and be sourced from local suppliers from the UK if possible; - Provision of additional habitat for local biodiversity, identified as birds and insects.

Chris Natural Preferred Comment Whole Section Building Standards This is part of the AAP’s energy McGregor England Options area 8.7 - Natural England fully supports the use of Code for Sustainable Homes policy. Sustainabi (CfsH) including the requirements to fully consider site ecology. Energy lity and Co2 and other key sustainability issues.

Chris Natural Sustainabi Comment Whole Whole In Natural England's view the main SA objectives for the appraisal of the Noted. McGregor England lity area document NaSA are Appraisal 4.3.6 Greenspace - Provision of and access to recreational and leisure facilities - Improving the quality of public realm and landscape - Protection and enhancement of biodiversity - Maintaining the integrity of local, national and international Page 112 of 141

wildlife conservation sites.

Enhancing communities, health and welfare - To improve the health of everyone and encourage healthy lifestyles - To encourage involvement, a sense of community and identity

It would still be useful to link here the health benefits that can be gained from green infrastructure. The use of GI as a preventative ill health measure is widely acknowledged and an increasing practice, this needs to be achieved by targeting people who rarely or never use greenspace. Natural England feels that the use of green infrastructure in local neighbourhoods can have a significant positive impact on the health of the population, in terms of both mental and physical health and can be used as a primary means to help target obesity levels.

Health & Physical and Mental Well being - There is growing recognition of the benefit of green infrastructure to the health and physical and mental wellbeing of urban communities, especially access poor communities and vulnerable groups.

- Local Biodiversity Action Plans should be strongly linked to the health benefits of active leisure and exercise in an unpolluted and interesting natural environment.

- Local policies should reflect the health benefits of Green Corridors, by promoting for example healthy walks in the countryside.

A health centre A more accessible and attractive countryside and green space infrastructure close to where most people live and work provides and invaluable respite from the stresses of urban living. This makes it more likely that when a GP recommends their patients to be more active or to take a change of scene, that they will have the opportunities to do so close to home.

Enhancing Local Neighbourhoods - To positively contribute to the quality built environment, townscape and public realm and preserve and enhance the character of historic buildings, conservation areas, historic parks and gardens, and their settings.

- To enhance access to quality leisure, cultural and recreational activities for all.

The promotion of access to greenspace from the home is important, your options maps show s existing and suggested greenspace and green corridors linking them. Distances to these green areas can be measured and compared to the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGST) below.

Natural England believes that local communities are more likely to use Page 113 of 141

and benefit from greenspace if it is readily accessible, particularly for those who rarely or never use greenspace. It is therefore important to include some targets for which to aim. Such as ANGST.

ANGST Targets - No person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of natural greenspace of at least 2ha in size - There should be 1 accessible site of 20ha within 2km of home - There should be 1 accessible 100 ha site within 5km of home - There should be 1 accessible site of 500 ha within 10km of home

- The need to address access to natural greenspace for all communities, preferably within 300 metres. Preferably using GIS mapping techniques which are sensitive to barriers to access on the ground.

- To prioritise access to natural greenspace particularly where there is a coalescence of deprivation and poor environments and where it can contribute to delivering healthier populations and;

- To have a multiple hierarchy of provision of green infrastructure, in terms of location, function, size and levels of use, at every spatial scale and all geographic areas of the region.

Natural England would wish to see the above reflected as indicators under appropriate SA Objectives.

Chris Natural Sustainabi Comment Whole Para Para 4.3.15 Biodiversity -SA Objective 21 Noted. McGregor England lity area 4.3.15 Appraisal Habitats Regulations

Natural England supports the view that the AAP will need to be subjected to Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). Natural England will be happy to continue to provide advice to Huli City Council with regards to this issue.

For completeness the Humber Estuary Ramsar site should also be considered under the Habitats Regulations process.

Local Sites (SINGs) and Biodiversity Noted.

"Loss/degradation" of SING and/or LBAP habitat should not be regarded casually. The aspiration that loss of wooded areas and scrub should be replaced elsewhere is still vague. These areas should not be regarded as immediately replaceable, the existing biodiversity assets of the area do not seem to be afforded very much importance.

It is the view of Natural England that this position, although aiming for no net loss in biodiversity is weak. As stated above, simply replacing lost woodland with new planting will lead to a net loss in biodiversity with some species unable to survive Page 114 of 141

in new planting as apposed to existing developed woodland.

Chris Natural Sustainabi Comment Whole Appendix Appendix A Noted. McGregor England lity area A Appraisal Natural England advised that Joint Structure Plan policies which apply to Biodiversity and Greenspace issues be referenced in the SA. These do not seem to be reflected in Section 3 – Relevant Plans, programmes and policies or Appendix A. Natural England would also wish to see reference to relevant Planning Policy Guidance such as PPS 9 included.

Natural England supports the inclusion of reference to PPS 1 Planning and Climate Change and support the key targets and indicators which have been identified as relevant to the LDG and SA.

Natural England also supports the implementation within the AAP of all relevant requirements of PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk. Natural England especially supports the inclusion of SUDS, the use of green infrastructure to provide flood alleviation and wildlife habitat. Natural England supports the sue of the sequential approach to flood risk at a site level to reduce risk of flooding.

Our comments relating to the Humber Estuary descriptions remain the same.

With regards to Page A2 – SPA conservation objectives – implications for the AAP – the column refers to the SAC and should read SPA. This comment has not been addressed from our comments on the scoping document.

David Sustainabi Objecting Whole 4.3.12 “There is however, on current baseline evidence nothing to indicate that Noted. Bradley lity area Cultural there is likely to be archaeological remains within the NaSA area.” Appraisal Heritage - Archaeolo It has been rumoured that remains of the historic “Hull Racecourse” can gy still be seen.

David Sustainabi Objecting Whole Page 45 – “The option promotes sustainable use of land by renovating Brownfield Reference to the potential loss of Bradley lity area 7.2.1. sites for housing and greenspace as opposed to development on greenspace has been incorporated Appraisal Greenfield sites.” into the SA Report. However, significant proportions of new This statement is misleading and should be removed. The development will occur on previously proposals promote development of housing on a significant developed land. percentage of remaining Greenfield land and scrub as apposed to Brownfield sites.

David Sustainabi Objecting Whole Page 46 – “The provision of greenspace has been increased and access to this Reference to the potential loss of Bradley lity area 7.2.3. space will be improved.” greenspace has been incorporated Appraisal into the SA Report. This statement is misleading and should be removed. The proposals promote development of housing on a significant percentage of remaining Greenfield land and scrub. The opportunity for the provision of greenspace has been significantly reduced.

Page 115 of 141

David Sustainabi Objecting Whole Page 46 – “The preferred option promotes the sustainable use of land by directing Reference to the potential loss of Bradley lity area 7.2.4 development towards previously developed sites.” greenspace has been incorporated Appraisal into the SA Report. However, This statement is misleading and should be removed. The significant proportions of new proposals promote development of housing on a significant development will occur on previously percentage of remaining Greenfield land, scrub, playing fields developed land. and former allotments. To suggest that development has been directed towards previously developed sites is misleading.

David Sustainabi Objecting Whole Page A6 – “SA to consider site-specific flood risk assessments as appropriate (in Noted – the Hull Strategy Flood Risk Bradley lity area PPS 25 flood risk areas) Have regard to sequential approach at a site level to Assessment has been used to Appraisal Developm minimize risk.” inform the SA and the development ent and of the AAP. Flood Maps and data showing properties affected by flooding during Risk, Summer 2007 are available from Hull City Council. DCLG, 2006 Site-specific flood risk assessments should include the impact on existing neighbouring properties and the wider area.

No new housing should be built on low lying ground that has recently flooded until the drainage infrastructure of the City has been upgraded

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Supporting Whole p.5, The introduction would benefit from additional wording to reinforce why The Statement of Compliance Options area Section 1. this AAP is needed - why it is different to earlier strategies, the (background document) sets out the importance of formalising regeneration plans for the area through the detail of the Plan’s policy context. planning system as part of the LDF.

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Objecting Whole p.11, para States that the Hull economy is not very buoyant or dynamic. This should The Area Action Plan (Publication Options area 3.4.3 be re-phrased. The Hull economy is undergoing structural change but is Draft) does not contain such diverse with some well established sectors. City centre regeneration is statement anymore. However, these securing an upturn in investment interest for example in retail, leisure comments are noted and will be and financial & professional services. There is significant opportunity reflected in the background across the City in growth sectors - advanced ports and logistics, documents. healthcare technologies and environmental technologies/renewables - and which are targeted under Hull's new economic strategy. Reference should be made to these opportunities to reflect a more accurate picture of the local economy and the relevance of housing-led regeneration to support wider economic renaissance.

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Supporting Whole p.13 Agree the emphasis on a co-ordinated package with physical and non- Noted. Options area section 3.9 physical interventions.

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Supporting Whole p.15 & 16, Points to the need for a comprehensive approach and coordinated Noted. Options area para 4.2.4, programme of activity over a significant period of time. 4.4.2, 4.4.3 Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Supporting Whole p.18, para The term 'district centre' could be defined to promote understanding of High level policy will apply – Options area 4.4.5 what a district centre is to manage expectations and/or act as a signal including the definition of District 'Elements about the nature of development that may be deemed appropriate in the Centre in Hull Local Plan. of Urban future. Form / Hessle Road' Page 116 of 141

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Whole p.20, para Reference should be made to implementing complementary links to An updated Concept Plan and the Options area 4.5.3 connect new developments to existing facilities/amenities and to Proposals Map in the Area Action enhance connections between retained housing and other facilities, Plan show these links. including adjoining areas (eg: employment areas, city centre).

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Objecting Whole p.29/30, The strategic context is broader. Reference should be made to the need High level policy will apply . The Options area para 6.2.3 to bear in mind other national planning policy, such as the hierarchy of policy context is set out in the retail and employment areas and PPS6 regarding city centre uses and Statement of Compliance sequential testing. Hull's role within the Joint Structure Plan as a regional (background document). centre and in terms of strategic housing investment is also useful to note.

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Objecting Whole p.31, para The bullet point on economic sustainability should acknowledge the High level policy will apply. Options area 6.3.2 / hierarchy of centres and the need to ensure that other centres are not sustainabil undermined by inappropriate investment in the West Hull area. ity Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Objecting Whole Section 7 The document needs to be clearer about the impact on existing A standard relocation package is Options area commercial businesses. There are a number of existing businesses, currently being developed for such particularly in the Hawthorn Ave and Dairycoates areas, which will either businesses. relocation, investment or closure in order to realise the new housing aspirations. Therefore it would be helpful to understand the proposed impact of the proposals and proposed policy approach on existing businesses.

Gill King Hull Forward Preferred Objecting Whole Section 8 The document seems to place reliance on public transport to connect the The traffic impact of proposals have Options area (general existing and future population of the area to other parts of the city. been assessed and adequate comment) Deeper consideration needs to be given to the traffic impacts of the provision of parking is included in proposals which should secure a more diverse population mix, implying the proposed densities of key a likely increase in car ownership. Discussion is therefore needed development sites. around road and car parking capacity within the area, and any more strategic traffic impacts which may need consideration under the City's Transport Plan.

Ian Smith English Preferred Comment Whole Chapter 8 Although the density of designated historic assets is not particularly high These comments are in the spirit of Heritage Options area -The in this part of Hull, nevertheless, there are a number of important the AAP approach; a heritage Yorkshire Preferred buildings spread across the Newington and St Andrew’s area which section now exists which specifically and the Option for could play an important role in helping to give the individual refer to Listed Buildings and locally Humber Change neighbourhoods a distinctive community identity. Many of these buildings important buildings and the need to Region have been identified by the Council as being locally important and worthy retain historic urban form and layout of retention. In areas undergoing significant redevelopment, the retention in any proposal. and enhancement of these buildings would assist in reinforcing the community’s links with their past. Many of these buildings (such as the historic churches and schools) are already landmark buildings within their community, and offer the potential to form a focus for future regeneration schemes. In others parts of the area, groups of historic buildings might be used to form a distinctive heart around which the new communities might develop. Detailed proposals should seek to ensure that key elements of the environment are used positively in the regeneration of these areas to help reinforce the local distinctiveness of each of the neighbourhoods.

Ian Smith English Preferred Supporting Whole Chapter 8 In terms of designated sites, the Preferred Option is not putting forward Noted. Heritage Options area -The any proposals which seem likely to seriously threaten the area’s historic Yorkshire Preferred assets. Indeed, a number of the elements which have been suggested Page 117 of 141

and the Option for are likely to enhance the character of its Conservation Areas and, Humber Change potentially, the setting of its Listed Buildings - which we warmly Region welcome.

Ian Smith English Preferred Comment Whole Chapter 8 A key part of the transformation of this part of the City involves the Agree that the court terraces are an Heritage Options area -The demolition and redevelopment of large areas of court terrace housing. As unusual built form and quite peculiar Yorkshire Preferred a form of urban residential development, it is believed that this particular to this area. For this reason alone a and the Option for housing type is found in only one other Pathfinder Area elsewhere in large number of them will be Humber Change England. It is understood that an assessment of this part of Hull was retained and improved. Region undertaken by Taylor Young in order to inform the housing strategy for the City. Although details of this Research is not known, it would be However, in the light of the housing useful to know (as part of the evidence base for this AAP) to what extent market rejection that has led to the the historic significance of these areas of court terracing has influenced area being awarded Housing Market the identification of which areas are to be cleared and which are to be Renewal status by the Government, retained. It is noted that several of the courts are proposed for there are many problems with the improvement and, indeed, this type of accommodation may be court terraces. For example: particularly well suited to particular sectors of the community. - many of them are in a very poor condition with little viable possibility of improvement to meet modern expectations; - their layout and the fact that they do not front onto the street (accessed by an alley) mean they do not meet current expectations and guidance on urban design (particularly with reference to safety) - they are built to very high densities; - they have largely been rejected by housebuyers. Ian Smith English Preferred Comment Whole Page 11, It is not just the two principal roads which give a strong sense of identity Agree. Improvements are planned Heritage Options area Para 3.5.4 to this part of the City. The connecting roads at the eastern end of the for these important routes as well. Yorkshire AAP area, which are both designated as Conservation Areas, also make and the a significant contribution to the character of the Newington and St Humber Andrew’s area, as do the numerous Listed Buildings which are dotted Region throughout the area.

Ian Smith English Preferred Comment Whole Page 15, We would broadly support the emerging Vision for this part of Hull and Noted. Heritage Options area Para 4.2.2 would endorse the recognition the potential of its Victorian and Yorkshire Edwardian Heritage to create a distinct identity for this area. and the Humber Region Ian Smith English Preferred Supporting Whole Page 16, 7th bullet-point – We support the intention to accentuate the distinct Noted. Heritage Options area Para 4.3.1 identity of this part of the City and, especially, its historic street pattern Yorkshire and key buildings. and the Humber Region Ian Smith English Sustainabi Comment Whole Sustainabi As you will be aware, in terms of the historic environment, we considered Observations are welcomed. Heritage lity area lity that the Scoping Report identified the majority of plans and programmes Yorkshire Appraisal Appraisal which are likely of relevance to the development of the Area Action Plan Page 118 of 141

and the for this part of the City, that it put forward a suitable set of Objectives and Humber Indicators, and that it established an appropriate Baseline against which Region to assess the Plan’s proposals. In general terms, therefore, we believed that it provided the basis for the development of an appropriate framework for assessing the significant effects which the strategy for this part of Hull might have upon the historic environment.

Given the nature of the document, we would broadly concur with the assessment of the likely significant effects of the AAP upon the historic environment of this part of the City.

This opinion is based on the information provided by you in the document accompanying your letter dated 19th February, 2008 and, for the avoidance of doubt, does not affect our obligation to advise you on, and potentially object to any specific development proposal which may subsequently arise from this or later versions of the plan which is the subject to consultation, and which may, despite the SA/SEA, have adverse effects on the environment.

John Hull Civic Preferred Support Whole Whole General Noted. Netherwoo Society Options area document We welcome this report as the first overall and ambitious scheme to d regenerate the area. The writers are to be congratulated for the depth of analysis and attention to detail.

The analysis of each option against the key performance factors is a very useful way of assessing each option for effectiveness and value for money.

John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Whole Whole Scale Agree in principle. Netherwoo Society Options area document We believe that in virtually all cases, the most ambitious scheme should d be selected and worked towards. This is said on the basis that the area is in such a bad shape overall, that only a very ambitious scheme can possibly achieve the lasting and radical improvement which is necessary. Equally, unless the scheme is very comprehensive and carried out to a very high standard, we think that it will not be sustainable in terms of life span and will, after a few years, drift backwards.

John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Whole Whole Downtrodden Noted. Netherwoo Society Options area document The ambition to remove the downtrodden and depressing look of much d of the area should be near the top of the list.

This needs to be in terms of infrastructure provision and also subsequent maintenance. Without creating a feel good factor, the district will continue to be unattractive to new residents or to visit and will continue to decline.

John Hull Civic Preferred Supporting Whole Whole Green space Noted. Netherwoo Society Options area document We welcome the emphasis on green space and green corridors, d throughout the plans and in particular, the concept of linkage right through to the river.

Page 119 of 141

John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Whole Whole Public Squares Noted. The management of any Netherwoo Society Options area document We think provision of a few high quality public squares would be a great open spaces is being considered d asset and could provide small play areas for children, as happens in and closing them at night where Spain and Holland, for example. They may need to be fenced and closed feasible is an option. at night, just as they are in London.

John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Whole Whole Housing Density Resource constraints mean that Netherwoo Society Options area document We generally feel that the density of building in the areas which are to be selectivity in required in which d kept, is too great, with long monolithic blocks of housing We wonder if streets/blocks can undergo major these areas could be 'opened up'. change, although the streetscape improvements throughout the area We should explore what needs to be done to be able to present the should help in this regard. small terraced streets in such a way as to make them desirable in the Good points. Where major same way that almost identical properties in Beverley are worth three intervention is planned, it is usually times as much. Scarcity value must playa part as with all items worth envisaged to reprovide with possessing. If this sort of housing was in Islington, the streets would be examples of the terrace typology but called Mews and each property would be worth half a million. Whilst the in a style and standard that will be courts are in general, very run down, at least some examples need to be more attractive to prospective kept and could be a very attractive part of the heritage of the area. householders. This is set out in the AAP’s design guidance. Many examples of courts are being maintained and often improved.

John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Whole Whole Through Routes Ways of making it easier to move Netherwoo Society Options area document We think that the area is dominated by north/south through routes which through the area are being explored, d are visually boring and don't invite people to stroll through the area. although this must be done within Perhaps something can be done, as per Barcelona to make some zig- the confines of what is possible – the zag diagonal routes through the area to make it more attractive, and railway, for example, acts as a break up the contiguous blocks. barrier.

John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Whole Whole Shops and Shop Fronts Plans for Hawthorn Avenue will Netherwoo Society Options area document The area is very well served with a wide variety of local shops in a include provision for some retail d traditional setting which is a very valuable asset to the area. units. Beyond this, the focus for However, as the two main shopping streets are almost 'boundary walls' shopping must stay on Anlaby Road to the area at each end of the scheme, we wonder if a more central area and Hessle Road, where shops are of shops/facilities could also be established. already vulnerable and should be supported. John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Whole Whole Shops and Shop Fronts These are valid points and for the Netherwoo Society Options area document We strongly support the concept of trying to make shop fronts and delivery phase. d signage more elegant and uniform. However, too much uniformity could limit developments. Perhaps what is required is simply to agree on base line and top line heights to give some visual continuity.

John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Whole Whole Community facilities Noted. Well-used community Netherwoo Society Options area document There needs to be a number of community centres such as the Freedom facilities form a core part of the d Centre on Preston Road to provide focal points for community life and strategy. facilities for all to use like the traditional Village Hall.

John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Whole Whole Non-residents Plans for Hawthorn Avenue will Netherwoo Society Options area document As it currently exists, there is virtually no attraction for non- residents to include provision for some retail d visit the area except to pass through the north/south routes between units. Beyond this, the focus for Anlaby Road and Hessle Road. More needs to be provided in the centre shopping must stay on Anlaby Road of the area to get visitors for retail/ commercial purposes in, or just to and Hessle Road, where shops are Page 120 of 141

walk about. already vulnerable and should be supported. John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Whole Section Renewable Energy There is a realistic energy policy in Netherwoo Society Options area 8.7 - While we support the concept of local energy generation in principle, we the AAP. d Sustainabi are cautious about its current efficiency and practicality. We need to lity avoid making token gestures to the concept, which could both damage the built environment and have very limited contribution. Perhaps it would be better to have a few carefully sited full scale wind turbines to serve the area.

John Yorkshire Preferred Support Whole Whole doc We support in broad terms the strategy outlined within the area action Noted. Pilgrim Forward Options area plan, which is generally well aligned with the Regional Economic Strategy (RES). In particular, we support the focus on encouraging a mix of tenure types within NaSA, and also the focus on improving the quality of open space provision within the area. The preferred options outlined within this AAP have the potential to contribute towards meeting a number of RES objectives.

John Yorkshire Preferred Support Whole Whole doc We welcome the Council’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas Noted. Pilgrim Forward Options area emission as an element of the NaSA AAP, including considering the use of various renewable energy sources as well as Combined Heat and Power. This provide consistency with policy ENV5 of the draft RSS and Objective 5C(ii) of the RES, which seeks to reduce fossil fuel dependency by more energy efficiency and clean and renewable energy generation. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) schemes have significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and have been highlighted as a key action within the Regional Energy Infrastructure Strategy (2007).

John Yorkshire Preferred Comment Whole Whole doc As we commented during the previous round of consultation, it is Noted. Pilgrim Forward Options area important to ensure that the Newington and St Andrews AAP remains well aligned with the regeneration activities currently being developed in Hull City Centre by the Economic Development Company, Hull Forward. We would reiterate the importance of ensuring that these two regeneration initiatives remain well aligned as the AAP for Newington and St Andrews moves forwards towards adoption. John Bilton Parish Both Comment Whole Thanks for your letter dated 19th February 2008 regarding comments for Noted. Willingha Council area the Area Action Plan for Newington and St Andrews. We thank you being m the opportunity to pass comment, but would advise you we have no comments to make.

John Giroscope Preferred Objecting Whole The aims & objectives of the Preferred Option Masterplan are unrealistic, The fact that the area is in a position Wood Options area particularly in terms of the proposed large scale demolition (2,000 of housing market failure and low homes). Other Pathfinder schemes (e.g. ELEVATE) have turned away demand at the end of a sustained from large-scale demolition due to unexpected cost and delays caused housing boom is testament to the by the CPO (Compulsory Purchase Order) process. The assessment for fact that radical intervention is the Hawthorn Avenue area (where most of the demolition would take needed to transform Newington & St place) recognises the cost of the maximum intervention option as being Andrew’s into a ‘location of choice’ unacceptable. for those families and other residents looking to leave the city, Resolution -the option of large-scale demolition should be re-considered. and those seeking to move in. This Other options, namely the renovation and improvement of the existing is recognised in Government policy housing stock, should be fully considered based on detailed survey work. and through the awarding of Page 121 of 141

Much of the housing stock in the proposed demolition zones are Housing Market Renewal Status. It structurally sound, well-built Victorian/Edwardian terraced properties. is also recognised by the residents This makes the justification for the demolition of these houses highly of the Hawthorn Avenue area, who questionable and should be reviewed. are seeing the benefits of carefully targeted investment and, on balance, are welcoming more.

The negative score for ‘acceptable cost’ is a presentational issue. It reflects the fact that the cost would be high in relation to other interventions across the area. But, remembering the maximum intervention is rarely recommended elsewhere, the preferred option has been tested for viability and is achievable.

The demolition and rebuilding of properties to a standard that meets market expectations is just one element of a much broader, rounded strategy. Other elements include the improvement of over 2000 properties, extensive green space provision and public realm works on many streets. John Giroscope Preferred Objecting Whole The preferred option assessment does not appear to be based on any The assessment has been carried Wood Options area detailed survey of the properties that would be lost, in terms of their out according to Government condition or the cost of renovation. Other schemes (e.g. ELEVATE) have expectations, based on a broad been criticised for the lack of detailed survey work and this has range of criteria including an contributed to the move away from large-scale demolition. Also the value evaluation of stock condition. Where of the properties in real terms to their owners and occupiers can not it is felt that renovation (or ‘do really be quantified, especially those on benefits or lowest incomes. nothing’) is the most appropriate and sustainable option, this has been Resolution -the option of large-scale demolition should be re-considered. pursued. Other options, namely the renovation and improvement of the existing housing stock, should be fully considered based on detailed survey work. Much of the housing stock in the proposed demolition zones are structurally sound, well-built Victorian/Edwardian terraced properties. This makes the justification for the demolition of these houses highly questionable and should be reviewed.

John Giroscope Sustainabi Objecting Whole Table on Objective 4 of the SA (Sustainability Appraisal) is to "encourage The Sustainability Appraisal has Wood lity area p.35 – SA involvement, a sense of community and identity" but again this is not been amended to reflect the Appraisal adequately reflected in selecting the preferred options. Large-scale potential community effects from demolition and re-build will result in the loss of any remaining sense of demolition. community and identity and it's questionable whether this can ever be rebuilt.

Page 122 of 141

Much of the housing stock in the proposed demolition zones are structurally sound, well-built Victorian/Edwardian terraced properties. This makes the justification for the demolition of these houses highly questionable and should be reviewed.

John Giroscope Sustainabi Objecting Whole Table on p Objective 14 of the SA (Sustainability Appraisal) is to .positively The Sustainability Appraisal has Wood lity area 35 - SA contribute to the quality of the built environment, townscape and public been amended to also include Appraisal realm and preserve and enhance the character of historic buildings, locally listed buildings and other conservation areas, historic parks and gardens, and their settings", but buildings of local heritage significant. this is restricted only to listed buildings and Conservation Areas. There should be some recognition that the large-scale demolition of Victorian terraced housing (even if not listed buildings or within Conservation Areas) would result in the loss of the history, character and fabric of the NaSA region of West Hull.

Resolution - the option of large-scale demolition should be reconsidered. Other options, namely the renovation and improvement of the existing housing stock, should be fully considered based on detailed survey work. Much of the housing stock in the proposed demolition zones are structurally sound, well-built Victorian/Edwardian terraced properties. This makes the justification for the demolition of these houses highly questionable and should be reviewed.

John Giroscope Sustainabi Objecting Whole Table on Objective 3 of the SA (Sustainability Appraisal) is to "reinvigorate the The Sustainability Appraisal is used Wood lity area p35 - SA housing market and ensure everyone has the opportunity to live in a to inform the selection of the Appraisal decent and affordable home", but this is not given sufficient weight in preferred options along with a large selecting the preferred options. There is very little detail about how the body of evidence supporting the new replacement housing would be "affordable" and available first to the AAP. The criteria used to select the residents displaced from the properties to be demolished. The overall preferred options can be found in the scheme will significantly raise property values, making housing much AAP document itself. less affordable to those on Housing Benefit of the lowest incomes.

Resolution -the option of large-scale demolition should be re-considered. Other options, namely the renovation and improvement of the existing housing stock, should be fully considered based on detailed survey work. Much of the housing stock in the proposed demolition zones are structurally sound, well-built Victorian/Edwardian terraced properties. This makes the justification for the demolition of these houses highly questionable and should be reviewed.

Kate Hull Preferred Supporting Whole Whole doc The plans put forward do not directly affect HCHA properties which are Noted. Atkinson Churches Options Area situated on South Boulevard. We have therefore looked at these as a Housing whole, on terms of the realisable vision for the area, rather than a Association detailed area by area basis. Our knowledge of each area detailed is Limited insufficient for meaningful comment! What we would like to say is: The document is clear, coherent and addresses how you assess options in an understandable way. We think the team should be congratulated on this. Preferred options and the emphasis on viability sustainability and affordability underpinning them have our support. We think the emphasis on frontage boundary treatments particularly sensible / cost effective for areas not subject to change, including through routes. Thanks for the opportunity to comment and we hope the consultation is

Page 123 of 141

productive.

Matt Highway Preferred Comment Whole Whole The Agency’s key concern is to protect the primary role of the Strategic Noted. Rudman Agency Options Area document Road Network (SRN) and to ensure its safe and efficient operation. The Agency would therefore have concerns over any development proposals or plans which could have a material impact on this. Circular 02/2007 Planning and the Strategic Road Network As you may be aware, the DfT has published Circular 02/2007 Planning and the Strategic Road Network, which sets out the Agency’s role in the LDF process. It is worth highlighting the following extracts from the Circular which are specific to the LDF process:

Paragraph 20 ‘LPAs should ensure that the Agency is involved from the pre-production stage of the LDDs. It would be contrary to the aim of the current planning system to involve the Agency only at the late stage of statutory consultation.’

Paragraph 21 ‘The Agency will offer advice and technical support that will guide the scale and location of proposals in relation to the SRN.

The Agency will also provide guidance, for incorporation in the plan, on the scale and nature of improvements to the SRN and demand management measures …. that will be considered in order to facilitate development.’

Paragraph 22 ‘Where the Agency considers that a proposal in the LDD may not be deliverable,… because it would require improvements to the SRN that are not practicable, …or unaffordable, it will provide a full and reasoned case to the authority. The Agency would then work with other stakeholders to help ensure that deliverable LDDs can be prepared.’

Paragraph 23 ‘The Agency cannot be expected to cater for unconstrained traffic generated by new development proposals.…. Development should be located at sustainable locations and the Agency will expect to see demand management measures incorporated in development proposals.

The Agency will seek to engage with LPAs and the Local Highways Authorities in order to integrate demand management measures between the strategic and local highway networks and the development site itself.

Matt Highway Preferred Comment Whole Whole As you will be aware, the A63 Clive Sullivan Way, Castle Street and Noted. Rudman Agency Options area document Garison Road (and A1033 Hedon Road in east Hull) form part of the SRN in the City of Hull. The A63 section of the SRN has been the subject of a number of studies over the years due to the level of traffic

Page 124 of 141

congestion experienced during most of the working day.

As a result of the studies there is a proposal to improve the capacity of Castle Street and to help reduce the severance between the city centre and the waterfront / marina and Fruit Market areas. The improvement scheme has been considered by the Regional Transport Board and is in the regional scheme programme with a provisional start date of 2011, though all schemes are subject to review as more detailed information comes forward.

For trips generated by proposed developments in any part of west and central Hull, the A63 will be the first point of contact with the SRN. Most of the intercity traffic movements (especially that generated by the port) will use this route. The Agency would support policies that aim to minimise or indeed reduce the amount of development related traffic on the local and strategic road networks. Matt Highway Preferred Comment Whole AAP AAP Objectives Noted. Rudman Agency Options area Objectives The Agency notes that the objectives of the AAP are to improve the housing stock, widen the range of tenure and improve the Newington and St Andrews neighbourhoods with a view to making them an ‘area of choice’ for residents. There are no proposals for commercial developments on a scale that would attract or generate substantial amounts of new vehicular trips. Matt Highway Preferred Comment Whole Preferred Preferred Option Noted. Rudman Agency Options area Option We note that the preferred option is to provide some 2100 new residential units to replace a similar number of poor residential stock. It is unlikely that this will result in a material increase in peak period trips on the SRN and therefore the Agency would support the preferred option.

Matt Highway Preferred Comment Whole Whole Further consultation Noted. Rudman Agency Options area document The Agency does not have any particular comments on the preferred option for Newington and St Andrews. We would, however, like to continue to be consulted at further stages in the development plan process, particularly where proposals (and any major planning applications received in advance of the adoption of the AAP) could potentially have an impact on the safe and efficient operation of the SRN, particularly the A63 Clive Sullivan Way, Castle Street, Garrison Road and A1033 Hedon Road.

The Agency has considered options to address the current traffic congestion on Castle Street and an improvement scheme has been identified and considered by the Regional Transport Board. Thus until the Castle Street issue is resolved the Agency will need to be involved in planning proposals and decisions on planning applications that will have an impact on the A63 through the city centre.

Matthew Yorkshire Preferred Comment Whole Section Paragraph 8.6 The AAP will support the use of Naylor Water Options area 8.6 - Yorkshire Water (YW) encourages the use of SuDS whenever feasible. SuDS, but only where feasible and Flooding Correct implementation will reduce the rate and volume of surface water viable, bearing in mind water table and draining into the public sewer network by allowing the water to drain and related issues. Drainage naturally into the ground or slowing discharge into the public sewer. This p.74 in turn protects the public sewer from overload and the environment from pollution.

Page 125 of 141

From a YW viewpoint, there are however a number of constraints which impact on the implementation of SuDS.

SuDS will require maintenance to ensure that risk of failure is minimised. For example, if a SuDS were to fail, a sewer could be subjected to a level of discharge which it has not been designed to accommodate. This could lead to flooding and/or pollution of ground water. Consequently, the organisation responsible for owning and maintaining the SuDS should be clearly identified. Access would be required to adoptable SuDS on a 24 hour basis to ensure entry for routine maintenance and in the event of emergencies.

In particular circumstances, YW may not be the appropriate body to take responsibility for SuDS. As the sewerage undertaker, YW does not have responsibility for private drains, private sewers, highway drainage, land drainage or watercourses. Where development raises the issues of land and highway drainage, it may be more appropriate for the developer to discuss the implementation of SuDS with the responsible bodies, namely the Environment Agency, local Land Drainage Authority, any Drainage Board and/or the Highway Authority. YW will not adopt SuDS which have highway drainage, land drainage or groundwater inflow.

Comprehensive ground investigation is essential for SuDS to be implemented successfully. The water table often varies with the seasons, therefore SuDs should be designed to take account of such variations. Consequently, investigations should be carried out over all four seasons which unfortunately means that a long lead in time of up to 12 months is likely before an appropriate SuDs can be agreed for adoption by YW. This may deter the developer from exploring the use of such systems. Strong policy wording is therefore needed in the development plan to ensure that the developer is required to investigate the feasibility of SuDS in any development.

YW would support the inclusion of policy which

1. requires all developers to demonstrate that the feasibility of using SuDS has been explored in the design of their development. 2. requires developers to incorporate SuDS into the design of their development where a feasibility study indicates that it would be appropriate. 3. requires the developer to ensure that there is a maintenance plan in place for SuDS where such a scheme is to be implemented as part of a planning permission.

Mr and Supporting Whole We know your doing and your work is fantastic. The areas you have Noted. Mrs area worked on is a great improvement and we thank you for improving these Roberts areas please carry on with the great work. Mr N Health and Preferred Comment Whole Whole doc The Hazardous Installations Division of the Health and Safety Executive Development in Newington and St. James Safety Options Area has not considered the contents of the plan in detail on this occasion, Andrews will be subject to the usual Executive however the following general comments are made as we find them development control procedures applicable in most cases. Department of the Environment, Transport and including consulting the Health and

Page 126 of 141 the Regions, Planning Policy Guidance Note 12: Development Plans Safety executive and thus ensuring paragraphs 6.22 and 6.23 state: safe development in the area. We therefore consider it unnecessary for 6.22 Council Directive 96/82/EC (the Seveso II Directive) which entered a formal policy on dangerous into force on 3 February 1999 requires Member States to ensure that the substances and pipelines to be objectives of the Directive -the prevention of major accidents involving included within the Area Action Plan. hazardous substances and limiting their consequences for man and the environment -are taken into account in their land use policies. This is to be achieved through controls on the location of new establishments at which hazardous substances are present or are likely to be present; controls on modifications at existing establishments where hazardous substances are present, and controls on new developments in the vicinity of existing establishments where hazardous substances are present. It also requires Member States to ensure that their land use policies, and the procedures for implementing them, take account of the need in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments where hazardous substances are present and residential areas, areas of public use and areas of particular natural sensitivity or interest. These obligations have been implemented by the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999.

6.23 In preparing or amending development plans, local authorities will therefore need to ensure that they include a policy or policies relating to the location of establishments where hazardous substances are used or stored, and to the development of land within the vicinity of establishments where hazardous substances are present.

If such a policy statement is not included in your plan, the paragraphs in the attached Annex [see statement below] could form the basis of such a statement, which may avoid the submission of planning applications containing inappropriate proposals.

There may be a conflict between the development policies and the presence of any hazardous substance establishments or major accident hazard pipelines within the plan area. In your role as the Hazardous Substance Authority under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 and the Planning (Control of Major-Accident Hazards) Regulations 1999 and previous legislation, you should be aware of the location of these. Any proposals for developments should take their presence into account. You are strongly advised to consult the hazardous pipeline operators, to confirm the exact location and route of their pipelines in the area covered by the plan and to ensure that your records are kept up to date. In addition, we suggest that the proposals maps be marked to show the locations of the dangerous substance establishments and hazardous pipelines.

If you are aware of any significant development proposal within the plan which may be in conflict with the general policy mentioned above we would be pleased to consider such cases individually.

Suggested General Statement on Dangerous Substance Establishments: “Certain sites and pipelines are designated as dangerous substance establishments by virtue of the quantities of hazardous substance Page 127 of 141

present. The siting of such installations will be subject to planning controls, for example under the Planning (Control of Major-Accident Hazards) Regulations 1999, with the objective, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments and residential areas and areas of public use. In accordance with DETR Circular 04/2000. the Local Authority will consult the Health and Safety Executive, as appropriate, about the siting of any proposed dangerous substance establishments.

The area covered by this Local Plan already contains a number of dangerous substances establishments and major accident hazard pipelines. Whilst they are subject to stringent controls under existing health and safety legislation, it is considered prudent to control the kinds of development permitted in the vicinity of these installations. For this reason the Planning Authority has been advised by the Health and Safety Executive of consultation distances for each of these installations. In determining whether or not to grant planning permission for a proposed development within these consultation distances the Planning Authority will consult the Health and Safety Executive about risks to the proposed development from the dangerous substance establishment in accordance with DETR Circular 04/2000.”

Mr Russell Smart Preferred Objecting Whole Introductio I represent the Super Stadium Management Company Ltd who lease It is agreed that the KC Stadium is Forde Planning Ltd Options Area n and and manage the iconic KC Stadium. The general thrust of what I have to an asset to the area and should be whole say runs across the whole Preferred Options Document (POD) and I will treated as such. The potential of the document subsequently identify specific pages and paragraphs, with my comments stadium to act as an economic driver which must be read in the context of my general theme which is as is also understood, as is the wider follows. In a sense my objections relate more to what is absent from the need to foster economic POD than what is present, though not exclusively so. development locally.

Although we subscribe wholeheartedly to a planned process of The preferred option has now regeneration which has short, medium and long terms aims, there changed to include stadium-related appears to be a fundamental absence of thought in two key areas. use. These relate firstly and generally to economic regeneration which has been neatly sidestepped (paragraph1.1.5) and secondly, as part of the Any proposal will need to comply economic regeneration opportunities, there is a failure to recognise the with higher level policy to ensure potential of the KC Stadium both as an economic driver, but also as a that proposals at the stadium do not site which has incredible synergy with a host of other activities, possible undermine Hull City Centre developments, community and city links which together make it a regeneration/Hull City Centre Area formidable ingredient into any regeneration proposals. Action Plan.

The aspirations of the POD to improve the physical fabric of the area are all well and good but without the attraction of key economic drivers, it is possible, with reference to the experience of the Preston Road Estate in Hull, that the ploughing of Government money into schemes to provide improved housing, open spaces, a new community building but no new jobs and no business/community synergy then the problems of multiple deprivation will be perpetuated. The KC Stadium site could be a significant contributor to assist making sure this does not happen. Indeed Hull City Council invested Â£43.5M of public sector money into the KC Stadium site, not just to provide sporting facilities but to kick start the regeneration of this inner city area. The POD ignores this potential.

One of the key reasons for siting the KC Stadium in an inner city area Page 128 of 141

rather than on the outskirts of the city was to use the Stadium as a catalyst for regeneration but there is little or no recognition of the potential contribution which could be derived from this high profile, major visitor attraction in the POD. Indeed the prime function of the stadium site in the POD appears to be as an element of the proposed 'green lung' rather than as an economic motor. In addition to the obvious sporting activities, the Stadium currently provides office accommodation and facilities which are business oriented, and largely related to community and training. For example Hull College occupy part of the Stadium complex and are under pressure to expand. Improving standards of education and training is identified as a key part the regeneration process in raising the achievements of local residents and securing better paid jobs and increasing wealth. The Stadium site can be part of that process.

The POD refers to connections but seems to largely treat the Action Plan area as an island, failing to recognise and capitalise upon the significant economic potential stemming from proximity to the city centre and the opportunity to develop a westward axis of new economic activity from St Stephen's via the Hull Royal Infirmary, Anlaby Road frontage and railway triangle sites to the iconic KC Stadium.

We had hoped the POD would identify opportunities to participate in emerging economic strategies set out in 'Global Gateway: the Hull & Humber Ports City Region Development Programme 2, September 2006 which forms part of the Regional Spatial Strategy. This refers to the need to support 'productive growth driver clusters' but there is only passing reference, with no associated commitment in the POD.

Overall this is a disappointing document which focuses upon housing, green spaces, services etc. to the exclusion of the key requirements for promoting the economic regeneration of the area. This is a case of opportunities missed with a real danger that the proposed improvements to the physical environment will not address the key endemic problems of the area. The associated danger is that the KC Stadium site will be overlooked by adopted planning policies which fetter and limit its true development and regeneration potential. In this regard a much more proactive, economy led approach is needed which goes a lot further than stated good intentions and changes to the physical environment with greater aspirations and ambitions towards economic generation and fulfilling the business and community based regeneration and development potential of the KC Stadium site and of the Action Plan area more generally.

Mr Russell Smart Preferred Objecting Whole Chapter 2 These comments should be read in the context of my overall objections It is agreed that the KC Stadium is Forde Planning Ltd Options Area – The as set out to Preferred Options Document (POD) Introduction an asset to the area and should be Need for treated as such. The potential of the Change (2.1.2) The KC Stadium site is an 'asset' to the Action Plan area, with stadium to act as an economic driver great 'potential', very little of which is acknowledged in the POD. If the is also understood, as is the wider POD is adopted in its current form then the Stadium site will not fulfil its need to foster economic potential whether generally speaking or in regeneration terms. development locally.

(2.2.3) The KC Stadium site is of 'good quality' and a 'nugget of potential' The preferred option has now but not sufficiently acknowledged within the POD. changed to include stadium-related Page 129 of 141

Reference it more directly, acknowledge its potential. use.

Any proposal will need to comply with higher level policy to ensure that proposals at the stadium do not undermine Hull City Centre regeneration/Hull City Centre Area Action Plan.

Mr Russell Smart Preferred Objecting Whole Chapter 3 These comments should be read in the context of my overall objections It is agreed that the KC Stadium is Forde Planning Ltd Options Area – The as set out to Preferred Options Document (POD) Introduction an asset to the area and should be Evidence treated as such. The potential of the Base (3.1.2) I represent Super Stadium Management Company Ltd who stadium to act as an economic driver operate and manage the KC Stadium site. They are a 'key local is also understood, as is the wider stakeholder' and have not, as far as I am aware been the subject of need to foster economic recent, direct consultation in relation to the POD and its background development locally. evidence. The preferred option has now (3.3.1 & 3.3.2) I disagree. The need for change must be equally changed to include stadium-related dominated by the need for economic change and the POD singularly use. fails to effect any delivery mechanism of any kind. Any proposal will need to comply (3.4.1) The POD is ambiguous in that here it refers to the need for with higher level policy to ensure economic change but does not propose any. that proposals at the stadium do not undermine Hull City Centre (3.4.4) What does 'people focussed' mean? The evidence base does not regeneration/Hull City Centre Area appear to have analysed the training and job opportunities in the locality Action Plan. including those potentially emanting from the KC Stadium

(3.5.4) KC Stadium is the most recognisable landmark building in the locality, which gives a strong sense of place. It also has a strong community identity to which local people will rally. It is capable of engaging the hearts and minds of the community if it were to be planned and developed as a comprehensive component in the regeneration strategy.

(3.6.3) West Park is identified as being of 'citywide importance' but with no reference to KC Stadium. West Park is the foil for KC Stadium and the two together have potential that is greater than the sum of the parts. Access to West Park is synonymous with access to KC Stadium and at all levels of planning, whether in townscape/landscape quality, community benefit, sense of place, quality in the city environment, the two together have much to offer and should be referred to in that context. The development of KC Stadium facilities and associated developments and uses, in the parkland setting, could create a strong magnet and community focus.

(3.7.5) the relative accessibility of the Action Plan area and its 'inner location' are an asset which endorses the locational advantage of the KC Stadium for associated development and use, none of which is acknowledged in the POD. The POD rather seems to be seeking to prevent development and use of the KC Stadium site other than as a feature within the park.

Page 130 of 141

(3.8.2) the landmark status and accessibility of KC Stadium make it logical as a place in which to integrate and develop business, services and facilities.

Mr Russell Smart Preferred Objecting Whole Chapter 4 These comments should be read in the context of my overall objections It is agreed that the KC Stadium is Forde Planning Ltd Options Area – Ideas for as set out to Preferred Options Document (POD) Introduction an asset to the area and should be Change treated as such. The potential of the (4.2.1) the convenience and location of the KC Stadium are ignored in stadium to act as an economic driver the POD proposals. Despite these vision statements, the POD largely is also understood, as is the wider ignores the KC Stadium site, effectively preventing its reasonable need to foster economic development and making no serious proposals in to create in 'economic development locally. terms' drivers for regeneration. The preferred option has now (4.2.3) West Park must always be read in the context of the KC Stadium changed to include stadium-related which very obviously has the potential to create a hub of complementary use. activity which will increase use of the park and generate bouyant economic activity and a real sense of place with an outstanding Any proposal will need to comply environment. with higher level policy to ensure that proposals at the stadium do not (4.2.4) 'minor tinkering will not be enough' but insofar as the POD relates undermine Hull City Centre to KC Stadium, it proposes just that. The POD needs to be much more regeneration/Hull City Centre Area proactive in its treatment of KC Stadium and also to recognises the Action Plan. synergy it could create with the use of West Park. The POD is full of sound bites such as this which are not delivered in practice. There does indeed need to be a transformation of the area and its prospects and KC Stadium site is one of the key Action Plan area sites capable of making a significant contribution to that process. The POD needs to harness that potential which it currently fails to do.

(4.3.1) the bullet points here are all relevant to my comments above. points 3-7 in particular must be read in the context of KC Stadium and its latent potential.

(4.4.3) there needs to be a more radical master planning approach to the future of the KC Stadium site. It has huge poptential, NONE of which is recognised in the POD. Any restructuring should have regard to the stadium, its access and potential and the relationship to other sites and the link/proximity to the city centre. This potential should be specifically referenced in the POD and ultimate Action Plan.

(4.4.4) The degree of consultation with Super Stadium Management Company Ltd, a key stake holder, has not been commensurate with the importance of the site and this should be remedied in any future consultations.

(figure 4.1) fails to recognise the previously developed nature of the KC Stadium site as opposed to the green landscaped West Park. This plan is misleading and should be dramatically altered to reflect firstly the existing reality and secondly the potential of developing the areas around the Stadium site in a complementary high quality manner which has regeneration and business/community at its heart.. The proposal to make physical changes near the entrance to the park should be secondary to the major business/community attraction that could be Page 131 of 141

created at the KC Stadium site and this west of city centre location . The economic benefit of doing so will stimulate use of the Park much more than any physical changes and would assist in the funding of associated physical changes. KC Stadium should be indicated as a key area for action.

The Walton Street fairground site which appears to have been arbitrarily included as parkland wherein fact it does not possess parkland characteristics and of which the POD does not adequately explain its future or the evidence leading to implied rather than explicit changes. How well thought out is this?

(4.4.5) the KC Stadium is the pearl of all community focus and is recognised as such. Yet no thought has been given to the development this 'focus' and how that might stimulate further regeneration. An opportunity missed. The AAP should not be adopted without a much clearer picture of the future of the stadium site else community and regeneration benefitting development possibilities will be stymied. There is a reference to the need to utilise key areas to 'catalyse the change process in NaSA' but the POD fails to recognise the potential for building early economic momentum by promoting the development of the sites in the Stadium and teh Anlaby Road, HRI St Stephen's axis thereby creating some new jobs on the doorstep of the Action Plan area.

(Urban Form, Anlaby Road) - between West PArk and the city centre is the location of KC Stadium - the potential of the stadium site is missed once again.

(The railway line) - the relationship of the railway to KC Stadium is a key factor in its future and development.Any proposals to this effect need to be the subject of ongoing discussion to make sure that the community asset of the stadium site is comprehensively maximised for the benefit of the area.

(4.5.2) Employment support, training and job access linkages could all be improved through wise and thoughtful development of the KC Stadium site. The POD however does not make this connection thorugh any meaningful direct references to KC Stadium or other parallel or complementary measures.

(4.5.3) The KC Stadium site and those nearby towards the city are capable of releasing early investment opportunities if the ultimately adopted development plan including the AAP is conducive to its future optimum development, rather than just a stadium in a park.

Mr Russell Smart Preferred Objecting Whole Chapter 5 These comments should be read in the context of my overall objections It is agreed that the KC Stadium is Forde Planning Ltd Options Area – Options as set out to Preferred Options Document (POD) Introduction an asset to the area and should be for treated as such. The potential of the Change I found all three options (minimum, medium and maximum) lacking in stadium to act as an economic driver their commitment to economic regeneration, the attraction of new is also understood, as is the wider businesses and sustainable jobs to the area. Furthermore, in view of the need to foster economic lack of recognition of the role of the KC Stadium within the Action Plan development locally. area and as a motor for regeneration, the options for change are unacceptably constraining on the future of the KC Stadium site. It would The preferred option has now Page 132 of 141

be better if the POD was at least neutral on the future of the Stadium site changed to include stadium-related but in effect it places it in an area of complete restraint amd has no use. regard whatsoever to its potential for say hotel, conference, shopping, education, office or other business related activities which could create a Any proposal will need to comply dynamic focus of activity. Perhaps a new plaza could be created which with higher level policy to ensure attracts and leads people in to the West Park are, in a much more that proposals at the stadium do not dynamic way than the the physical changes to the Anlaby road frontage undermine Hull City Centre might do. regeneration/Hull City Centre Area Action Plan. The options should recognise the previously developed nature of the KC Stadium site and include within it the possibility of development to create a business oriented community focus, wheter as part of a wider leisure strategy or otherwise.

Mr Russell Smart Preferred Objecting Whole Chapter These comments should be read in the context of my overall objections It is agreed that the KC Stadium is Forde Planning Ltd Options Area 6– as set out to Preferred Options Document (POD) Introduction an asset to the area and should be Assessing treated as such. The potential of the the (6.2.2) housing market renewal is important, but economic development stadium to act as an economic driver Options is an equal partner in regeneration whcih the POD does not address or is also understood, as is the wider harness in any meaningful way. By missing it out, the POD fails to make need to foster economic the link between the success of community and the success of business. development locally.

(6.3.3) There appears to be a very conservative commitment to retaining The preferred option has now capability in these sectors which are currently vaible, rather than placing changed to include stadium-related emphasis on a more dynamic and forward looking approach towards use. generating new investment in additional sectors, growth sectors and sectors between which there is synergy between the composite Any proposal will need to comply elements as it is possible to provide at the KC Stadium site. with higher level policy to ensure that proposals at the stadium do not (6.3.4) the judgements made have the potential effect of ham-stringing undermine Hull City Centre the community/business development potential of KC Stadium and regeneration/Hull City Centre Area hence leaving it out of the regeneration equation, despite that being one Action Plan. of the main purposes of its existence. This needs whole heartedly reversing

Mr Russell Smart Preferred Objecting Whole Chapter 7 These comments should be read in the context of my overall objections It is agreed that the KC Stadium is Forde Planning Ltd Options Area – Impact as set out to Preferred Options Document (POD) Introduction an asset to the area and should be on your treated as such. The potential of the Neighbour (7.1.2) I am pleased to note that 'discussions are ongoing with ....KC stadium to act as an economic driver hood Stadium .... to determine what might be provided in terms of new is also understood, as is the wider facilities' and would be pleased to be involved further. The POD however need to foster economic excludes any such development potential and should be significantly development locally. adjusted so that the adopted AAP endorses such potential rather than prrevents it. The preferred option has now changed to include stadium-related (7.1.3) the connection between regeneration and employment needs to use. be made more explicit particulalry where it relates to the rare potential of the community based facility of the KC Stadium site. Any proposal will need to comply with higher level policy to ensure Area 2 - West Park. The greening of the Stadium site, the railway that proposals at the stadium do not triangle and the Walton Street fairground site is dismissive of their undermine Hull City Centre regeneration potential and is implied in the POD rather than properly regeneration/Hull City Centre Area discussed. The Stadium site should not be greened, but seen as a honey Action Plan.

Page 133 of 141

pot for associated developments which will contribute together to stimulate the regeneration of the area and to elevate the Action Plan area to a higher environmental status and an area of choice. Change the plan annotations to this effect

(7.2.8) These conclusions, like the rest of the POD do not acknowledge the KC Stadium site or its potential within the AAP. If not acknowledged it will not fulfill its potential at a great loss to the community and to the city generally. It is acknowledged that access from Anlaby road needs careful and cooperative attention.

Mr Russell Smart Preferred Objecting Whole Chapter 8 These comments should be read in the context of my overall objections It is agreed that the KC Stadium is Forde Planning Ltd Options Area – The as set out to Preferred Options Document (POD) Introduction an asset to the area and should be Preferred treated as such. The potential of the Option for (8.1.2) Incredibly ironic that at the end of the POD, the stadium is given stadium to act as an economic driver Change some recognition as "the area's shop window" attracting a large number is also understood, as is the wider of people, but makes no proposals to fulfil its wider potential in that need to foster economic regard. The POD consistently makes these cosmetic references and development locally. proposes physical changes but needs to firmly grasp the real economic potential of an iconic stadium in a parkland setting to attract high quality The preferred option has now business investment. Change the POD to incorporate the potential of KC changed to include stadium-related Stadium use.

(figure 8.1 & 8.2 & 8.3 ) change as described above to incorporate Any proposal will need to comply development potential at KC Stadium with higher level policy to ensure that proposals at the stadium do not undermine Hull City Centre regeneration/Hull City Centre Area Action Plan.

Paul Preferred Supporting Whole 8.1 P Overall I believe the plan is wonderful. My only concerns are how the Noted. Hodgson Options area referred current schools will survive when sites are demolished and families are Option then moved. Plan/Map Also will the money invested be worthwhile. Is the evidence in other communities substantial investment leads to improved community?

Robert Sport Preferred Comment Whole Para 2.7 Para 2.7 Opportunities for Sport and Recreation and Section 3.6 Green Noted. Deanwood England Options area and Space Section Sport England welcome the recognition of the need to match facility 3.6 -Green provision with need. The ongoing preparation of a City-wide green-space Space audit is noted, something which Sport England regard as critical to understanding the current level of provision within the area (in quantitative and qualitative terms), and also part of provision across surrounding neighbourhoods.

Robert Sport Preferred Comment Whole Section The case for change put forward in Section 3.6, namely: Noted. The emerging proposals for Deanwood England Options area 3.6 -Green . increasing the quantity of valued green space; the Boulevard Stadium, for example, Space . improving quality, access and range; and will help to meet this objective. . creating a place where the parks and open space make a real contribution to the area people choose to live in is supported as an important aspiration. However, the complementary role of built facilities must also be taken into consideration, offering residents a genuine choice of opportunities for participation in a wide

Page 134 of 141

range of activities. In order to be compliant with PPG17, the emerging green-space audit should also be considering the provision of built facilities. This is most important as a means of properly underpinning the rest of the Plan, such as the principles for a sustainable community set out in para 4.3.1, notably those which seek to offer a good range of facilities and services and high quality open space.

Robert Sport Preferred Comment Whole Chapter 8 Sport England welcome the adoption of the bold approach to the A PPG17-compliant assessment has Deanwood England Options area -The provision of new and enhanced green-space and facilities for sport and been undertaken to inform the AAP. Preferred recreation. The spatial analysis presented in Figure 8.3 and its Option for accompanying text is a particularly helpful summary and appears to Change present a wide range of opportunities for participation in sport and active recreation across the neighbourhood. However, we re-iterate the point made above in relation to the proper underpinning of the proposals with a PPG17 -compliant assessment of quantitative and qualitative provision. In this way, the contribution to City-wide provision of sport and recreation facilities could also be identified and the significant opportunities for change in the neighbourhood put into context.

Robert Sport Preferred Comment Whole Whole Design Matters Noted. Deanwood England Options area Document In preparing the AAP and during its implementation, reference to Sport England's guidance on creating environments which encourage physical activity could be of particular assistance in preparing detailed proposals. Taking widely accepted principles of good design (character, continuity, quality, legibility etc) as a starting point, the guidance uses three objectives to frame advice on positive design: improving accessibility; enhancing amenity; and increasing awareness. Using the three design objectives, the guidance explores in detail their application to three activity settings: • Everyday activity destinations (shops, homes, schools workplaces). • Informal activity and recreation (play areas, parks & gardens) • Formal sports and leisure activities (sports pitches, swimming pools etc)

All three activity settings are relevant to the Newington and St Andrews MP. Active Design poses a number of questions for master-planners to consider. The following table gives a flavour of these.

Theme Example Questions Accessibility • Are everyday activity destinations accessible to all (21 travel modes? questions) • Does the design enable the most direct and safe active travel route between everyday activity destinations? • Are everyday activity destinations co-located to offer the opportunity for linked trips? • Are active travel routes to everyday activity destinations prioritised? • Does the design and layout of everyday activity destinations help to priories pedestrian, cycle and public transport access? Amenity (12 • Are flexible and durable high-quality public spaces Page 135 of 141

questions) proposed? • Does the quality, design and layout of open spaces enhance the setting of development? • Does the design of informal sport and recreation facilities create a high quality environment? • Is the AAP masterplan underpinned by a strong and well-defined landscape framework that provides a range of formal and informal sport and recreation opportunities? Awareness • Are everyday activity destinations co-located with (13 sports and leisure facilities in a manner that questions) promotes awareness? • Are informal sport and recreation facilities located in prominent positions? • Is appropriate high quality provision made for all age groups within the community? • Are formal sports and leisure facilities located in prominent positions within the masterplan playing a positive role as landmarks and attractions?

The Guidance contains a number of case studies which could help to inform the proposals being made for Newington and St Andrews. The full guidance is available at: www.sportengland.org > get resources> downloads> design guidance> active design.pdf

The Sport England website also contains an array of design resources which can be used to help ensure properly planned and executed development schemes for sport and recreation facilities. Examples of technical guidance include those relating to sports pitches, sports halls, access for the disabled and car-parking.

www.sportengland.org > get resources> downloads> design guidance

Robert Sport Preferred Comment Whole Whole Planning Contributions This can be considered at higher Deanwood England Options area document Sport and recreation facility provision has a key role to play in the level policy development (Core creation of healthy and sustainable communities. As well as meeting Strategy and City Policies DPDs). sport/recreation needs of the community, facilities can contribute towards The Area Action Plan contains a improving health and education and reducing crime and anti-social generic policy which requires that behaviour. Sport England therefore considers that when considering Section 106 contributions obtained community infrastructure provision associated with new development, within the plan area be spent on the the approach taken to sport/recreation facility provision should be similar Area Action Plan proposals and to that taken to education and health facilities. Unless existing facilities projects. have the capacity in quantitative and qualitative terms to accommodate the additional demand generated by a development of this scale, financial contributions should be secured towards the provision or enhancement of sports facilities both on and off-site, in line with policy on planning obligations developed for the area. The financial contributions needed to meet the sport/recreation needs of a development of this scale should be incorporated into the financial appraisal of the Masterplan. Sport England has developed detailed guidance on these matters, available at: www.sportenaland.org get resources> planning for sport> planning Page 136 of 141

contributions

Rose Theatres Preferred Support Whole Whole doc We support the document generally but have no particular comments to Noted. Freeman Trust Options area make that might be useful to you. We are pleased that new and improved community facilities and services will be required as ‘hubs of activity’ along Hessle Road and Anlaby Road. The provision of a wide range of cultural activities offers something for everyone and the many free and inclusive opportunities go toward tackling issues of social exclusion. Arts and sport, cultural and recreational activity, can contribute to neighbourhood renewal and make a real difference to health, crime, employment and education in deprived communities.

Sam Environment Preferred Comment Whole Flood Risk The sequential test is referenced in Kipling Agency Options area We are pleased to see that flood risk has been considered in the the AAP. production of the document, and in the Sustainability Appraisal. It is good to see that you are making use of your Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

The SFRA mapping suggests that the majority of the NASA area lies in the lowest risk part of Flood Zone 3. There are small areas of medium risk, but it appears that any high risk areas lie outside the boundary of the NASA area. Because there is some spatial variation in flood risk across the NASA area, we would expect you to follow a Sequential Approach to site layout, when deciding upon the location of new dwellings. This approach, which is advocated in paragraph D6 of PPS25 would involve placing the most vulnerable aspects of development (i.e. housing) in the lowest risk parts of the NASA area. This approach should be incorporated into your Preferred Option and made explicit.

Sam Environment Preferred Comment Whole Drainage Agree –SUDs will be promoted Kipling Agency Options area The flooding experienced in June 2007 was largely as a result of where useful, feasible and viable. localised drainage issues. This should serve to motivate the use of Sustainable Drainage Techniques within the NASA area. These could include the use of green roofs, water butts, attenuation ponds, soakaways, swales, or the design of open space areas so they hold excess surface water during storm conditions.

The wholesale regeneration of this area, provides an excellent opportunity to incorporate an integrated sustainable drainage scheme. This should be included as part of any Master Planning of this site, as a means to tackle climate change and reduce the chances of future flooding.

Sam Environment Preferred Support Whole Ecology This is very much the Area Action Kipling Agency Options area We would support any option which facilitates the creation of joined-up Plan’s approach. greenspace or green corridors. Sam Environment Preferred Support Whole Sustainable Construction Noted.The Area Action contains a Kipling Agency Options area We would support the provision of a localised energy network, along with specific policy on energy/ higher standards of sustainable construction, such as Code for environmental sustainability. Sustainable Homes level 3 or higher. This is particularly important given that climate change is the government’s principle concern for sustainability

Page 137 of 141

Sarah CABE Preferred Comment Whole Whole 1. Design is now well established in planning policy at national and Noted. Burgess Options Area Document regional levels, and LDFs offer an opportunity to secure high-quality development, of the right type, in the right place, at the right time.

2. Robust design policies should be included within all LDF documents and the Community Strategy, embedding design as a priority from strategic frameworks to site-specific scales.

3. To take aspiration to implementation, local planning authorities' officers and members should champion good design.

4. Treat design as a cross-cutting issue -consider how other policy areas relate to urban design, open space management, architectural quality, roads and highways, social infrastructure and the public realm.

5. Design should reflect understanding of local context, character and aspirations.

6. You should include adequate wording or 'hooks' within your policies that enable you to develop and use other design tools and mechanisms, such as design guides, site briefs, and design codes.

CABE also encourages an approach that utilises plans, graphics and illustrations where appropriate to help understanding of the area, the surrounding context, and the spatial vision proposed.

We would also like to respond by drawing your attention the following CABE Guidance that you might find useful. • "Making design policy work: How to deliver good design through your local development framework" • "Protecting Design Quality in Planning" • "Design at a glance: A quick reference wall chart guide to national design policy" , • "Creating Successful Masterplans -a guide for clients" and "Design Reviewed Masterplans"

These, and other publications, are available from our website www.cabe.org.uk

Wilkinson Preferred Supporting Whole 8.1 This could and would improve the area. Should have been done long Noted. Options area Preferred ago. Option There are too many shabby and run down areas in Newington and St Andrew’s. How can we support trade and industry in this area when we are surrounded by slums and boarded up shops (i.e. Anlaby Road /Walton Street area). It is a total embarrassment when people from out of area visit Hull from home and abroad.

Yasin Raja Government Preferred Comment Whole General The submission plan will need to demonstrate that it will be able to The Area Action Plan contains a Office for Options area deliver what is intended by being able to measure the policies and delivery chapter which sets out the Yorkshire proposals. The submission document will need to have a section on delivery structure, phasing, and the Implementation, including evidence of commitment from other partners funding/costs;outputs and targets. Humber to deliver the programme, over what timescale and how with a method The monitoring will be carried out Page 138 of 141

for monitoring the delivery. annually as part of Hull Development Framework’s Annual Monitoring Derivation of targets will also need to be clearly explained. (Soundness Report. Test 8)

A section on risks and mitigation is As part of the submission it is important to build in flexibility and set out included in the Area Action Plan with how the plan will manage changing circumstances. (Soundness Test 9). the purpose of building into the AAP

sufficient flexibility to manage changing circumstances. The AAP's current strategy is to minimise the impact of possible risks with the property market, land ownership, funding availability, and the planning process. Yasin Raja Government Preferred Comment Whole General The LPA will need to consider the chain of conformity in preparing their Noted. Much of the supporting Office for Options area documents. Lower level DPD’s should be in conformity with the Core information behind the AAP's Yorkshire Strategy. Submitting a lower level DPD in advance of a Core Strategy proposals will be included in and the may be appropriate where there is a sound and up-to-date strategic supporting documents such as the Humber framework or where there are significant delivery issues that require Statement of Compliance. early consideration of, for example, an Area Action Plan and there is some higher level policy to which it relates. This, however, at present is

not made clear in the plan.

The AAP will also need to show how; • It will help in delivering the wider strategy in Hull; • It has considered and has had regard to the community strategy

and other local/regional strategies and initiatives; • The cross-boundary issues – for example, how any proposed housing additions for the area will impact on the district-wide housing figures, what the cross-boundary transport effects are, etc. (Soundness Test 4, 5 & 6)

Bearing in mind our previous comments at the Issues & Options stage it is difficult to determine how the preferred options that are being This will be clarified in the Statement consulted upon have been arrived at. For example what were the of Compliance. alternative strategies, issues, etc. that were being explored at the Issues & Options stage? If the process of option selection and extent of

consultation is not in accordance with the Regulations then the document would be found unsound. (Soundness Test 7)

Yasin Raja Government Preferred Comment Whole Section 3 Section 3 appears to be a concise summary of the evidence base. This will be clarified in the Evidence Office for Options area However, the extent of detail contained here does not show what studies Base report. Yorkshire have been completed or what previous consultation has been carried out and the to reach the conclusions set out in this document. Also, as a result of Humber the evidence base, what issues will be addressed through this AAP? Paragraph 3.9 – what are the strategies that will deliver the options for the area that are not included in this AAP (the ‘soft’ options)?

Yasin Raja Government Preferred Comment Whole Section 4 The submission document will need to show some certainty of Deliverability is paramount. The Office for Options area Para deliverability of all aspects of the chosen option and, by that stage, preferred option has been tested for Yorkshire 4.4.2. should not be referring to ‘aspirations’. viability. This is reflected in the and the language used and delivery strategy Humber proposed in the publication draft. Page 139 of 141

Yasin Raja Government Preferred Comment Whole General Whilst we are aware that national planning policy should not be repeated The preferred options have been Office for Options area in Development Plan Documents we would still expect relevant prepared in accordance with PPSs. Yorkshire PPSs/PPGs to be referenced as the starting point for the decisions This may not be set out in detail as and the made/options chosen throughout the document. There is a reference to there is an aspiration to ensure that Humber PPG1 (should be PPS1) in 6.2.3 but what of PPS 3, 4, 6, 12 etc. which the document is not too long. The should also have some influence on this AAP? Statement of Compliance will clearly set out this policy context. Yasin Raja Government Preferred Comment Whole Section 7 Section 7 of the document has considered alternative options however This will be clarified in the Statement Office for Options area the conclusions drawn are somewhat generic and do not necessarily of Compliance. Yorkshire outline the reasons behind the choices for the preferred option. and the (Soundness Test 7) Humber Yasin Raja Government Preferred Comment Whole Section 8 There is scope here to underline the importance of ambitious but There is now an energy policy with Office for Options area deliverable Merton-style targets. such a target. Yorkshire and the Humber Mr W. I. Preferred Objecting Whole Whole I am attaching John Wood’s letter, sent to the Hull Daily Mail, with which Most streets will have slower, Wright Options area and area and I’m in broad agreement (I would like to see slower ‘evolutionary changes’ evolutionary changes, but the scale Area 2 – Civic on a street by street consultation basis). Specifically I agree with: of the problem means that more is West Park Square off 1) Front of property improvement/ refurbishment where requested by required in some areas. Anlaby owners. The AAP does propose Road 2) Public area improvement e.g. the flyover on Anlaby road. The ‘under improvements to the underpass. area’ could possibly be used as a play area / commercial or community Care has been taken to write the storage, art or charity projects or simply bricked up to remove the eye AAP in plain English. sore of rubbish/litter. 3) Demolition and planned housing where dereliction has forced redevelopment. I do not like: 4) The civic space at the corner of West Park 5) Planning speak e.g. civic space (paved recreation area?), intervention (change?), green lung (planted walkway?), bus stops rationalised (fewer? moved?)

Mr Govind Preferred Objecting Whole Whole Figure 8.3 I am objecting to the creation of a civic square at the junction of Anlaby The square remains an important Manocha Options area and area and Page 71 Road and Granville Street. I fully support the regeneration but do not feel proposal to provide a propoer Area 2 – Civic that this most important landmark development has been communicated gateway to both the AAP area and West Park Square off to me well enough to make an informed decision. I would much prefer to West Park, and one that unites the and Anlaby see a programme of frontage improvements and landscaping as where two. Road this has been done it does look fantastic and some pride in the area is apparent. As a city we are extremely lucky to have such attractive period houses that if they were in any other city would be treasured. What the area needs is more job opportunities not mass demolition and civic squares. Sorry if this sounds negative.

John Hull Civic Preferred Comment Whole Whole Public Realm Netherwoo Society Options area and document We believe that public realm investment is vital for the area, particularly Noted for the delivery of the frontage d Area 3 – with respect to paving renewal and the boundary walls to those houses improvement scheme. Anlaby which have them. Road Page 140 of 141

Tatty, non-uniform, boundary walls are the major contributor to the rundown appearance of many streets in Hull and it is only by public intervention that this can be solved. The regeneration of Plane Street is a very good example of what can and is, being achieved, where the whole look of the street has been transformed. However, we have serious concerns about the apparent policy to allow owners to choose not to have their boundary walls rebuilt. The ones which are left stand out like sore thumbs and seriously damage the overall effectiveness of the schemes. We are not generally in favour of compulsion in the regeneration process, but we think that the boundary wall issue is probably where compulsory action is the correct way forward

We think that public realm investment will 'liberate' the private sector to feel it is worth investing in its own property, secure in the knowledge that the area is generally improving and 'on the way up'.

Equally, the boundary walls of the gardens on Anlaby Road really detract Agree. This is part of the strategy from the visual effectiveness of the excellent paving scheme.

Page 141 of 141