Earlier in the week some parked cars on Albemarle Road were broken into. It seems that handbrakes were also released and vehicles allowed to crash into a wall.
Solid parking along the whole length of Almemarle Road. Yellow lines almost worn away.
Parking and traffic issues on the road are not new. Some at least arises out of he lack of parking controls (it is not yet a ResPark area). Today a delivery wagon had to reverse for nearly 1/4 mile to avoid on coming traffic. A dangerous manoeuvre. With some of the parking down to commuters, the introduction of ResPark – coupled to the provision of additional “passing places” – would seem to be in everyone’s interests.
The area is also blighted by graffiti Back lanes in the area are covered in weed and leaf fall with some also overgrown by hedges Another area where Council bus shelters are showing their age. This one on Queen Victoria Street has a loose electrical connection.
There has been some smug comments from some politicians fallowing the release of thelatest government figureson poverty levels. Known as the index of multiple deprivation, the figures give a clue to which are the most well off neighbourhoods and which the worst.
Government poverty figures
Overall York has fared well over the last couple of years. The York Outer constituency is now ranked 530 out of 533; the same as it was 4 years ago.
York Central has improved its relative position from 339 to
364. (High number is good). This largely reflects the “gentrification” of parts
of the City and relatively high employment rates..
However, the overall figures disguise the level of poverty
that is concentrated in some parts of the City.
The worst ranked neighbourhood (LSOA E01013443) is the Kingsway
West area which includes Windsor Garth.
Kingsway neighbourhood. Officially the most deprived in York
It is the only York
neighbourhood to rank in the bottom 20% in the country.
It fares particularly badly on health, employment and income
indicators.
This neighbourhood is in the Westfield ward which itself is rated as the most deprived in the City.
The revelation should come as no surprise to the York Council.
Campaigners have been pointing out for the last three or four years that the
area was not only being neglected but that key services were being run down.
Kingsway ranks poorly on 8 individual indices and is the worst overall. Scores are out of 10 with low being poor.
The local multi user games area (MUGA) was recently closed
down and a promised replacement has not materialised. Nearby the Lowfield’s playing
field is also being built on while a bowling green has also been lost. The residents
association folded a few years ago following complaints that its views were ignored
by Councillors.
The neighbourhood does have a disproportionately high number
of older people. This can drive down average income levels. It is also true to
say that residents are mostly philosophical about their neighbourhood which
still retains a good sense of community pride
However, it high time that the authorities – both local and national – made an commitment to regenerate public services for Kingsway residents.
The York Council are set to adopt a new “Council Plan” on Thursday. Although a significant document, it is likely to attract little comment. This is partly because much of its content is anodyne and partly because it is linked to impenetrable bureaucratic processes and documentation Only 353 residents responded to the initial consultation on the document.
Council Plans are rarely a “good read”
This plan though does have one major setback. It fails to react to the decline in street level public service standards that have been seen in recent months.
The KPIs suggested are essentially those that have been carried
over from previous plans. They have the merit of a good historic database
making trends easier to judge and they are generally easy to collect, but they offer
little for those seeking “smart” targets.
Nor has the Council addressed the issue of service level
agreements. This exercise presented an opportunity to update and reissue what
used to be known as “Customer Contracts” but it seems that taxpayers will
remain largely in ignorance of what their payments are buying.
There are a range of day to day services which residents depend
on. They therefore legitimately might expect to have access to stats which, for
example, tell them
How many potholes are reported and how quickly they
are fixed?
How much litter there is on our streets?
How many streets are 98% clear of weed growth?
How many reports there have been of obstructions
to public paths and how quickly those obstructions are removed?
How many bins are not emptied as scheduled each
week?
How reliable local bus services are?
How many streetlights are working?
Satisfaction with Council estates (communal
areas)?
Time taken to resolve issue reports by different
channels (on line, email, telephone, personal visit)?
All would give residents a clearer picture of Council performance
than some of those suggested.
It appears that a meeting held 2 days ago was given a table showing estimated carbon emission levels for various activities in York.
The table has only today been published to residents by the York Council.
As it turns out the latest figures available are from 2016. The world has changed a lot in the last 3 years.
The table reveals that the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the City is domestic heating. This will hearten those who have supported the adoption of “Passivhaus” high insulation standards in homes.
There is an opportunity for the Council to make a real difference here as improved home insulation also disproportionately benefits poorer residents by reducing energy bills. We look forward to seeing a project plan with identified milestones.
A Press article today highlighted diesel trains as an emissions threat. In reality, they account for less than 1% of all local emissions.
CO2 emissions, per capita, substantially reduced in York during the 11 years that were monitored.
The long awaited report, into the collapse of weed control activities in the City this summer, has now been published.
Key routes into the City were disfigured
The report lists several actions which might be undertaken to prevent a repetition of the problems.
It was clear as long ago as June that something was seriously
amiss with the Council contract.
A contract has been let which had omitted several key roads
like the A59, as well as many back lanes and paths. Gutters and paths rapidly become
overgrown. In some cases, because of restricted sight lines or trip hazards, there
was an unnecessary risk to public safety.
Amongst the worst affected were major entry points into the
City which gave visitors an early impression of neglect (It became clear later,
that former trunk roads were amongst these omitted from the contract)
The Councils reaction to the problems was highly complacent.
It was two months before they admitted that the list of streets to be treated
by the contractor was out of date. They blamed the weather (too much rain) and turned
a blind eye to the fact that the “quad bike” contractors were missing out large
areas altogether. Treatment, where undertaken, proved to be ineffective.
It was Septembers before the failings were finally acknowledged.
Contractors were asked to add a blue dye to the chemical so it would be clear
which areas they had treated.
To this day, residents continue to search for the illusive
blue dye trail.
Another problem was the choice of weed killer. Glyphosate,
which is a contact weed killer, has no residual effect, so it only kills weeds
present at the time of application. It is an industry standard product, but it
failed to act on deep rooted weeds. Alternatives were available but not used.
The Council claims to have “deployed additional resource to
focus on removing detritus which collects in kerb lines, particularly on the
offside of traffic islands where sweeping is more difficult and less effective.
The detritus build up is greater when weeds are present”.
The report doesn’t analyse how the Council came to issue an incorrect
contract specification, doesn’t reveal the results of supervisory checks on the
contractor, offers no update on the September recovery programme and fails to
review “difficult to reach” locations such as bridge parapets, snickets, back
lanes and garage forecourts.
The contract required certain outputs to be achieved. These included a 98% weed free appearance on treated areas.
No KPIs are quoted.
The Council has however listed 10 initiatives (see right) that
it could take to improve the appearance and safety of the City.
All, and more, will be required next year if the reputation of the City is not to be further damaged.
Recycling was not collected in part of Dringhouses today (“vehicle capacity issue”) and garden waste wasn’t collected from Muncaster (“vehicle breakdown”).
The Council also hasn’t caught up with delayed bin emptying from earlier in the week in Osbaldwick and Woodthorpe
It appears that the Council hasn’t yet placed an order for new vehicles to replace its chronically unreliable existing fleet.
According to a notice published today, a decision on a new “waste collection methodology” won’t be taken until 24th October. Even then it is likely to be several months before the Council actually joins the year long queue for new vehicles.
While refinements to waste management arrangements are needed if we are to recycle more, a greater sense of urgency from the Council leadership, in addressing current unreliability issues, is an essential first step.
The Council’s PR department is saying that mechanical means may be used in future to remove weeds from footpaths and gullies in the City.
That can’t happen soon enough for most residents following the collapse of his years – chemical – treatment programme.
More of the cycle network is now subject to obstruction from overgrowing vegetation. It is a problem on Bishopthorpe Road near the Racecourse while the Naburn Lane path is impeded by nettles.
Initially we thought this was a joke but apparently not.
Warden of the North. Local defence force next?
The York Council is now seeking volunteer “Leaf Wardens”. Their job will be to sweep up fallen leaves from (Council owned) public places including highways.
Now we know that many residents do try to keep the area outside their homes clean and tidy. Many will pick up litter, remove weeds and even mow verges.
Some may sweep up fallen leaves while others may clear snow.
The motivation for most volunteers is to improve the appearance of their neighbourhood over and above what is possible using the resources available to the local authority.
But it is what the label suggests – a voluntary action prompted by community pride.
In our view, the Council is now trying too hard to institutionalise and exploit that goodwill
So we now have “snow wardens”, “flood wardens” and “litter pickers” all kitted out by the Council.
The collapse of the weed killing programme this summer, footpaths blocked by overgrown trees/ hedges and, most recently, a sharp decline in the reliability of the bin emptying service should have acted as a “wake up” call to the Councils leadership.
What residents first want to see – before they are asked to do a second job as well as their day job – is the Council delivering good quality public services at street level on a consistent basis.
No one expects leaves to be swept up immediately the first bad weather of autumn arrives. But they do expect to be told what the Council will do, when and to what standard.
The council should publish revised “customer contracts” or “Service Level Agreements” and report back regularly on improvement plans.
They should then consult Parish Councils, Councillors and residents associations before they offer any patronising training on how to sweep up leaves.
