I hope that the Council won’t rush into selling the Kent Street coach park to the Fire Service at a cut price rate.
The new Labour Council will quickly find that it needs to maximise the receipts that it can get from asset sales. These are necessary to underpin the modernisation of the City’s housing, leisure and transport services.
I know that the last Council expected to get £1.5 million for the site. We don’t know what the offer figure from the Fire service is.?
Prudence suggests that the site should be placed on the open market and at a time which optimises the benefit for local residents.
There is a lesson in the sales strategy for the Bonding Warehouse which the Council successfully sold at the height of the property market for £1.1 million. It is now on the market again for only £800,000.
Council taxpayers will expect their representatives to continue to optimise the value of our assets.
The results of the consultation by the Fire Service on their need for new premises can be found here. http://www.northyorksfire.gov.uk/news/public_consultation/provision_of_fire_cover_across_york

The Council in 2004 invested in the route of the number 4 ftr bus service. It provided off street parking space with the intention of allowing public transport a “clear run” and therefore reducing journey times. This was similar in concept to what has to be done when a tram system is introduced. The carriageways on the route were also resurfaced to ensure a level ride and to avoid road works delays in future years.
Of the £1.5 million cost, only a small proportion was spent on changing the radius of some corners, an investment which was the advantage of all articulated vehicles.
The council spent nothing at all on the ftr vehicles themselves which were fully funded by First York.
The comfort and speed of the ftr service has been praised by users. The conductors are a popular and unique feature of the number 4 route, albeit they offer a facility which raises the costs of the service.
Non ftr users do criticise the bulk of the vehicle and its clumsiness in the narrower streets of the City.
While the last Liberal Democrat administration had plans to introduce low emission buses into the City, Labour talk only of scrapping the ftr. No one knows what could replace it or how such a change would be paid for? They would be wise to change their approach as the City needs more not less investment in public transport – and in the current climate funding is unlikely to come from the government.
Similarly their plan to effectively “franchise” all bus services in the City using a “contract” system would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to set up and perhaps millions to implement. It woudl be high risk, and potentially ruinous, strategy against a background of bus use in the City still growing at 1% year on year.
The Councils time and resources would be better directed towards the promotion of low emission transport and easier payment options similar to the Oyster card system currently in use in London.