But planning officers have said some amendments are needed before a final decision on the plans for the site of the New Rink on Eastgate North can be made.

They have recommended that the scheme should be deferred and delegated for either approval or refusal, depending on whether suitable alterations are received.

A separate application to demolish part of the existing property at 6 Eastgate North and the adjacent buildings has been recommended to be deferred and delegated for approval, subject to the housing development also being approved. Both schemes have been submitted by applicant Mr S Taylor.

A report to the council’s eastern area sub-committee, which meets on Monday, said officers felt the parking area of 6 Eastgate North should be integrated into the housing development.

Discussions were said to be ongoing with the applicant and amended plans were expected, which would be reported at the meeting.

The report concludes: “Subject to the submission of these amendments prior to the committee meeting it is considered that the application should be approved.

“If, however, this is not resolved prior to the expiry period for determination, the application will be refused.”

A design and access statement submitted on Mr Taylor’s behalf argued that converting the existing buildings was not viable because of their poor condition.

It added that the design reflected the existing townscape and that the impact on neighbouring residents would be improved by the development.

The plans have been recommended for approval by the Driffield Town Council, though two local residents have called for the existing buildings to be maintained, or the existing brickwork to be used where possible, and for parking restrictions on Laundry Lane.

Another resident of Laundry Lane has also written to object to the plans.

And further opposition has come from East Riding Conservation and Design Panel officers.

They said the plans would have a negative impact on the conservation area and that more is needed to be done to reflect the local context.

But planning officers said some of the existing buildings detracted from the area and they deemed the overall scheme to be ‘of sufficient quality’ to preserve or enhance the conservation area.

Highways officials, who did not object to the plans, added that the planned access, footpath widening and road changes were a response to their requirements. “They are not considered to be harmful to the historic character of Driffield”, they said.