We have our first 2 metre high highways weed
Westfield Councillors to debate what to do about building works at public meeting tomorrow
Bowling club building site not on the agenda?
The Westfield Councillors are right to insist on more information being provided on building works in the area, when they meet tomorrow (Wednesday)
However, they will be meeting only a few metres away from the spoil heaps and site compound which has been constructed on the Council owned land to the rear of the Library.
Some explanation for the decision to allow the contractors to use this Council owned site will be expected. It is an issue that is not likely to go away.
Some residents still hope that Council will offer some sort of compensation for the problems that have been caused by the use of the compound
Elsewhere, the Lowfields development saga continues.
There has still not been any explanation about how the York Council came to mislead residents about the inclusion of a “police station” and health centre/GP surgery in the original consultation plans.
Both these promises turned out to be bogus. It is unclear what will happen to what, otherwise, will be unused plots on the east of the site.
On Ascot Way, access arrangements, for the heavy plant needed to complete the demolition of Windsor House, remain unclear. It seems that access for the plant will be via Kingsway West and Ascot Way It is clear that the roads are too narrow in the area to avoid major damage to adjacent verges and paths. A “one way” system has been suggested but not confirmed.
There are real concerns that the bus route will be obstructed by the likely congestion
The original hope had been that more parking lay-bys would have been provided by now.
…..and the problem of the promised replacement for the all weather games area seems to be no closer to resolution. The existing MUGA has already been converted into a building compound.
There is no word about the proposed alternative site on the Thanet Road Sports Area although officials were asked to follow this up 3 months ago.
Residents will no doubt be hoping that some answers emerge from the meeting
York annual weed growing contest off to a good start
We’ve asked residents to nominate the highest growing weeds on public highways in the City.
These are roads, footpaths , bridges etc which should by now have been treated for weed growth by the York Council.
If left untreated the weeds will gradually break up the surface of the highway causing additional expense when remedial work is undertaken.
The weed control programme is normally sub contracted by the Council. Residents may have seen (or not this year) quad bikers in some streets spraying weed killer
Another planning forum for Westfield – we think not
The York Council has started consultation on whether to recognise an “Acomb and Westfield Neighbourhood Forum”
A small group of residents, mainly living in the Front Street area, want to establish a “neighbourhood plan”. It would supplement the Councils own Local Plan which will be subject to a public hearing over the summer months.
Unfortunately, the area they hope to cover includes the whole of the Acomb and Westfield wards (approximately 10,000 homes). It would stretch from Foxwood to Boroughbridge Road, encompassing a disparate group of neighbourhoods with little obvious community of interest.
If agreed, it would be by far the largest such plan in the York area. In the main those plans that have been approved cover smaller villages. All have a shared commonality of interests.
Westfield is not short of groups which seek to influence Council policy.
There are several Residents Associations, a “planning panel” (which scrutinises planning applications), a “ward team” and a “ward committee” together with several “action groups” which tend to focus on stimulating, or preventing, specific developments.
Adding an additional tier of representation, although only a consultative body, would involve additional costs and could lead to confusion about roles and responsibilities.
When it comes down to it, Foxwood has little in common with Chapelfields or the Gladstone Street area.
It has even less shared interest with Ouse Acres and vice versa. Arguably Foxwood has more in common with the Woodthorpe area.
In our view, this proposal represents an unwelcome diversion and could take resources away from the key task of raising public service standards in the area. Residents Associations are bested suited – and of the right scale – to identify changes that need to be made in local neighbourhoods.
They deserve more Council support.
In most built up sub-urban areas, there is little scope for redevelopment anyway with the focus being to retain existing open spaces. There is an opportunity for more public open space on land lying between the existing development and the A1237 bypass. The proposed Neighbourhood Plan boundaries exclude this land from consideration.
Ward Councillors are already aware of the need to move the extra public open space issue forward.
There may be a case for a neighbourhood plan covering the Acomb village conservation area and its immediate environs.
The “forum” organisers would be wise to focus on a smaller area like this – where there may be a need for more clarity on its future – rather than try to “boil the, proverbial, ocean”.
In the meantime residents should email the Council to oppose this unnecessary proposal.
Hidden in open view?
We’ll get an idea of the calibre of the newly elected York Councillors this week when they begin to consider how to scrutinise the management performance of the local authority.
A series of updates are being presented.
A typical report is being tabled on housing and community safety issues on 24th June.
What is immediately clear is that no performance indicators have been tabulated (or referenced out). Councillors aren’t being told how long it takes to do things, what any backlogs are, what quality checks are in place or what the levels of public satisfaction are.
Some of the information is available on York Open Data but you have to search for it. Many of the figures are not up to date.
Some major issues are not mentioned at all.
The housing section fails to even mention empty Council garages, tenants don’t feel they can influence decisions (most tenants organisations have folded) and there are delays on the Housing Estate Improvement programmes.
Similarly on community safety (mainly policing matters) anti-social behaviour in sub-urban areas hardly gets a mention. Trends in drug and alcohol abuse are not quantified. Vandalism, criminal damage, graffiti, all of which disfigure residential areas, are ignored. The trend in the number of prosecutions for this type of offence and similar environmental crimes (litter, dog fouling) is not revealed.
The challenge for new Councillors will be not so much to question the information that has been provided by officials, but more to probe the areas where reports are silent.
Good for the gardens .. and the weeds
Seems the City is set too be overwhelmed by weeds this week. Ideal growing conditions mean that areas which have not been treated for weed growth are rapidly turning green.
If left untreated, weeds can break up footpath surfaces and paving leading to costly repair bills.
Call for compensation after Council confirms that it did not consult on building compound location
In response to a Freedom of Information request the York Council has now confirmed that it did not consult neighbours or local Councillors before issuing a license which allowed a building contractor to occupy the “old allotments” site at the rear of the library car park.
This site has been owned by the Council for over 15 years. The developers of the adjacent bowling Club land (which does have planning permission) had previously said that they did not want to combine the two sites to provide a abetter overall layout.
Work on the site disturbed residents living in South View Terrace and part of Lowfields Drive.
The first that residents knew of the arrangement, was when heavy plant moved onto the site and started to clear it. This prompted complaints about noise, dust and vibrations.
Spoil heap heights reached over 4 metres at one point.
Local fauna and flora on the site were badly affected.
The Council now says that it granted a license to occupy its land on 8th April. There was no consultation undertaken with neighbours.
Residents complained to the Council on 16th May about the problems being caused.
It wasn’t until 28th May that the Council wrote to affected neighbours telling them about the license.
The Council says that working hours on the compound are restricted to 8:00am – 6:00pm, Mon – Fri plus 9:00am – 1:00pm on Saturdays.
The Council says that “The compound licence requires the developer to leave the property in a clean and tidy condition at the end of the licence, including the removal of hardcore”.
It goes on to say that it expects the compound to be in use for 12 months.
An investigation into whether the developers have the necessary planning permission to use the building compound is still underway.
In our view affected residents have suffered unexpected and unreasonable disruption and should be entitled to compensation.
It is possible that the matter may be referred to the Local Government Ombudsman
Cost of Ascot Way disabled centre soars by 37%
Council blames the “complexity” of the selected design for the increase.
A Council report published today reveals that the cost of the Centre of Excellence for Disabled Children will increase from the originally budgeted figure of £4.3 million (January 2018) to an estimated £5.9 million.
This comes after the Council, In April 2018, had agreed to increase the proportion of the costs which would be funded by borrowing
£1.1 million of the increased costs will come from a Health service grant with the rest being transferred from the education budget.
It appears that some features of the building are being “value engineered” out of the design.
The centre is being built on the site of the Windsor House elderly persons home. The neighbouring Lincoln Court independent living building is also being modernised and extended at the same time.
While both projects have been welcomed, concerns have been expressed about traffic congestion and parking issues in the area.
The impact of the developments on open space and sports facilities in the neighbourhood have also been criticised.
Details of the new budget allocations are being kept secret by the Council. It is unclear what promised features in the building may now be omitted.
The meeting to consider the budget increase is taking place on 18th June.
York’s green spaces; going, going…
It is sad to see so many green spaces in the City being gradually eroded.
The reality of planning decisions, taken by the Council over the last few years, are rapidly becoming clearer. The trend is particularly evident in west York where former school playing field have proved to be vulnerable.
It started with the development of the playing field at the former Our Lady’s school site on Windsor Garth. The “Hob Stone” estate took up the whole of the site with no open space retained.
Next was the controversial decision to build on the Lowfields playing field. The decision was made worse when over £400,000, intended to fund alternative sports pitches, was earmarked for a site near Bishopthorpe, which is some 3 miles from Lowfields.
Concrete now dominates the Lowfields school playing field
There are alternative brownfield (previously developed) sites in the City. Strangely the local MP over the weekend announced her opposition to building 2500 homes on the land to the rear of the station while planners have omitted the Strensall army camp from Local Development Plans.
There seems to be little reason why a development at the latter could not be restricted to the “built footprint” of the former army buildings. This would still leave large amounts of new public open space. That option is under consideration as part of the latest consultation on the Local Plan
But for west York the outlook remains bleak. The Council is still dilly dallying on proposals to replace the Multi User Games Area on Kingsway West. The existing one is no longer usable as it is no part of a buildng compound.
…and the newly elected Council, despite lofty talk of having a new “stray” in the City, has noticeably failed to put any flesh on the bones of the idea. Prompt action is needed to secure more public open space on the periphery of the City.
Currently there is little sign of any urgency, or even engagement, by the occupants of West Offices.
A meeting with limited purpose?
The York Council Joint Standards Committee – which is charged with ensuring there is probity in public life – meets for the first time in the new Council session on 17th June.
The, decidedly thin, agenda can be viewed by clicking here. It involves only the appointment of a chair, a vice chair and agreeing future meeting dates.
As well as regulating the activities of City of York Councillors, the 10 strong committee also considers complaints about Parish Councillor conduct. The parishes appoint 3 members to the committee. Two of the three nominations are former City of York Councillors. Both were rejected by the electorate at the recent May 3rd poll. (Stuart Rawlings and Sian Wiseman)
Only one of the Council appointed members has (recent) previous experience of York Council work. Ironically that is former Leader David Carr. Cllr Carr was himself the subject of a complaint over his handling of, what turned out to be, bogus allegations against Cllrs Aspden and Ayre in 2017.
It has taken 2 years and expenditure of over £100,000 to resolve those claims.
Steps were taken to start an independent inquiry into the process used by York Council officials to resolve the Aspden/Ayre case. There has been no recent update on the progress of this investigation. The Councillors themselves suffered a significant financial penalty as they lost earnings and had to pay for their own legal representation (costs thought to be in excess of £10,000).
The expectation had been that the outstanding case would have been resolved by now with the conclusion being reported to this standards committee meeting on 17th June.
The minutes from the committees last meeting, held on 13th February, included the following comment
” Since the committee’s last meeting in November 2018, two long running cases had been concluded and two cases remained ongoing. Details were set out in the table at paragraph 2 of the report. Members noted that one of the ongoing cases was likely to be concluded in February and stressed the importance of concluding the other case, which dated from 2017, before the start of the pre-election purdah period on 26 March 2019“.
The case started in September 2017 but investigated allegations going back as far as 2014.
It now seems that there will be no final closure on the Nigel Ayre case for a few more weeks at least.
The actual investigation into the case is understood to have concluded last year.