Council building on Piccadilly “could collapse”

Residents should read the Council report on the condition of the old tram depot (and aircraft works) on Piccadilly.

17/21 Piccadilly

17/21 Piccadilly

Officials say that it might collapse any day and barriers are being erected to protect passers-by.

Buildings don’t become dangerous overnight and the state of the building is just another testament to the neglect that the Labour Council showed for any project that didn’t offer them a quick buck.

Five years ago the building was scheduled for demolition with suggested interim uses being either as a coach drop off point or car parking. The latter at least could be enacted quickly providing some revenue for the Council.

However a planning application could take 12 weeks to determine.

In the meantime it seems the building will continue to represent a risk.

In the longer term, one option for the site is high quality apartments with developers challenged to reflect the sites varied history in any design proposals.

The whole of the Coppergate area has been blighted for two decades by indecision, failed planning applications, competing sectional interests and bankrupt ownership.

Hopefully we will see signs of renewed leadership on the future of the area when the Council’s new executive meets for the first time on Thursday,

NB The Executive will take place on Thursday 25 June at West Offices from 5.30pm and is open to members of the public or is available to watch live online from: www.york.gov.uk/webcasts

York Council spends £204,811 answering Freedom of Information requests in one year

Numbers up by 34% to a peak of 1864 cases last year

The rise in FOI requests to the York Council continued to increase last year.  A report  to a Council meeting suggests that 94% were responded to within target times.

However significant numbers were referred for “review” because respondents were dissatisfied with the response that they received.

FOI appeals click to access

FOI appeals click to access

 38 of the 85 review appeals were upheld.

Most of these concerned “no responses” although some responses were considered to be incomplete while in other cases the Council had incorrectly claimed that the information was exempt from the legislation.

The position was worse on cases referred to the Information Commissioners Office. There, 30 of the 39 cases referred resulted in a finding against the Council.

Although the Council claims that their new web site is now easier to trawl for FOI responses, most serious researchers would question that statement. The information is not updated quickly and is more difficult to search now that it is not assembled in date order.

The report makes no attempt to consider how the – frankly alarming – costs of this process can be reduced.

The most obvious reform would simply be for the Council to publish, on its web site and on a regular basis, the kind of information which generates repeat FOI requests. These would include items like “deaths with no next of kin”, new Business Rate accounts and monthly quality of service stats (at the moment the Council publishes its performance data – such as it is – 6 monthly, in arrears).

While there are no doubt some vexatious requests for  information made by disillusioned service users, most  simply reflect the fact that the last Council tried to throw a veil of secrecy over their activities.

 It seemed that they almost enjoyed playing a game of “catch me if you can” when repudiating requests for information.

The new Council needs to encourage a major culture change on “openness” and transparency.

The Council has asked the Information Commissioners Office to conduct a review of how personal data is used by the authority

Freedom of information angry mob score