Huddersfield Blueprint: The Civic Society's response to proposals

Huddersfield Civic Society welcomes the launch of the Huddersfield Blueprint as the first stage in the process of re-invigorating, regenerating and repurposing the town centre.

The following is a precis of comments made by the committee of HCS. Further detailed comments will be submitted following consultation with all members of the society and its partners.

General Comments:

• Generally supportive but devil will be in the detail. 
• Understandably, there is insufficient detail to make detailed comments but need to clarify that Blueprint should not at this stage be taken too literally.
• Greater clarity on how Council plans to drive the strategy, over the next 9-10 years (eg partnerships, priorities, review process, nature of consultations)
• Improved prioritisation of zones and idea of phasing.  Queensgate and Station Gateway both essential and key drivers for other ambitions.
• Over-emphasis on public capital and loan funding. More commitment to private finance/partnerships and recognition of revenue implication on cultural and public realm initiatives.
• Light on links to access into town, environmental considerations.
• Outside identified zones, need to identify sites for mixed tenure housing eg. Yards derelict back land off New Street and introduce potential development partners.
• Need to align vision with ambitions of Business Improvement District over next five years, particularly in relation to cleaner and well-maintained streets, a safer environment, car parking and public transport and promoting the town.
• Parallel need for active engagement by regeneration officers to attract investors and developers and co-ordinate negotiations with regard to assembly of development sites and statutory issues
• Need for a promotional plan to outline/publicise key stages, milestones and successes as well as complementary work achieved by other stakeholders who should be involved/informed a strong PR plan produced by the Council at fixed regular intervals highlighting success’s and targets.
• Partnership support and engagement regarding funding applications is vital. HCS will create a sub-group to work with Council officers as a critical friend, maintaining confidentiality as and when required

Initial Comments on Zone Proposals.

Queensgate: The Cultural Heart:

• Support for removal of Piazza retail units adjacent library, removal of ‘Berlin Wall’ on Queen Street and creation of graded open space.
• Support for upgrading art gallery and library with potential for new access building. Need to consider provision of adequate Tourist Information facility and outline Council’s considerations regarding Tolson Museum and whether it will be modernised or moved.
• Need to ensure initial proposals do not imply fait accompli with regards Piazza demolitions, eg important to retain retail units on King Street frontage.
• Major concern regarding suitability, viability and sustainability of Music Venue in Queensgate Market. Suggest more ‘organic’ solution, comprising food, culture (including informal performance areas) and possibly starter units at mezzanine level.
• Further consultation regarding future of market traders and the re-siting of a reduced market within the core retail area considered, potentially mixing existing elements with new uses.
• Need to replace Alfred Street MS car park with a secure, high capacity car park with electric charging and payment system that encourages people to ‘linger’. An essential facility to service the demand created by the development of cultural facilities as well as additional parking for the University during open-days, graduation and events.
• Inadequate detail on how better to link town and university. The Queensgate WY Combined Authority proposals do not go far enough in this respect. Greater effort should be made to remove traffic between Shorehead and Chapel Hill and pedestrian crossings should be better synchronised to help both pedestrians and traffic flow. A critical issue that needs addressing in early phasing with a look at similar schemes elsewhere in the country
• The proposal also has limitations regarding cycling improvements which require a holistic plan for both within the town centre and transition in/out of the town centre.

Station Gateway:

• The Blueprint lacks emphasis on the critical need to connect station/St George’s Square with the railway warehouse and adjoining land. The link is key to future commercial viability of the business quarter. Grants /loans to support commercial refurbishment of George Hotel and Estate Buildings will be of little benefit if longer term commercial sustainability is not improved.
• A link is additionally vital in order remove the existing traffic conflict in front of the station, provide a multi-storey car park that serves those using the station for daily commuting, encourages and supports office use and leisure facilities and, above all, residential development in this quarter.
• The above will help ensure the square is further enhanced by the removal of traffic and improve potential for staging events.
• There is lack of detail regarding the need to improve linkages (especially pedestrian) between the rail and bus stations.
• Further encouragement should be given in order to improve the appearance of shop fronts along John William Street and in the immediate vicinity of the station. 

St. Peter’s Area:

• Support conversion and development of Post Office/Sorting Office site for residential and work spaces, upgrading of Open Market and enhancement of St Peter’s Gardens (reference should be made to agreed proposals for improvement to gardens shelved as a result of abolition of RDA Yorkshire Forward. 
• Support enhancement of Northumberland Street but greater clarity regarding bus access.
• Consider complementary developments to the Media Centre, including possible development of former YMCA site (currently car parking) subject to suitable alternative parking provision within above development proposals.
• Blueprint fails to recognise value of link with popular drink & food area along Viaduct Street/St John’s Road and problems and opportunities relating to Tesco and associated car parking. 

Kingsgate & King Street:

• Support vision and current retail and leisure proposals but essential to recognise need to retain retail frontage to Piazza section of King Street.
• West Yorkshire Combined Authority improvement proposals along Cloth Hall Street are supported, but this work should be matched by a major shop front improvement initiative.

New Street:

• Doubt concerning the reality of establishing New Street South as ‘a comfortable evening space with cafes and communal areas …’.
• Proposals for New Street South lack vision and breadth. Too heavy an emphasis on public realm. Need to look at wider area between High Street/Market Street/ New Street/Cloth Hall Street encompassing arcades, yards, vacant property and land, for quality residential and café/communal use, included this section of New Street in preference to New Street South.

The Civic Quarter:

• No comment regarding Civic Centre buildings.
• As emphasised in ‘Station Gateway’ section above, proposals should encompass ideas for improving pedestrian links between rail and bus station in line with major investment programmes.
• Consideration/need for children’s play facility, possibly focussed on McCauley Street (or other focal point in town centre eg New Street North).

---