Areportwhich is being discussed on Thursday reveals that the Council has fallen behind with several major investment projects.
It means that funding is being slipped from 19/20 into future financial years.
The biggest embarrassment is the Community Stadium project which is between 8 and 1 year behind schedule depending on when you started counting.
A development for the homeless on James Street has also recently been revealed as lagging 12 months behind its target completion date (although it doesn’t rate a mention in the Council report).
Setting the scene for a major increase in investment (and consequent debt levels), the report makes some strange claims.
Centre of Excellence for Disabled children “opening in May?)
Foremost amongst them is a statement that the Centre of Excellence for the Disabled, currently being constructed on Ascot Way, will open for business in May of this year. Really?
Site for new football pavilion
Lowfields
We are assured that show homes at Lowfields will also be available in “late summer” while the waterlogged Ashfield football site – located off Tadcaster Road – will have a clubhouse open by September!
Perhaps more understandably, cautious officials now say that the Community Stadium will be opening to the public “during the year”. No more hostages to fortune then!
The Lowfields Playing Field Action Group Facebook page is reporting that the York Council is dithering over a decision on the elderly persons accommodation planned for Lowfields and for Oakhaven.
Lowfields plans in 2016
The group says,
“A new report has been published today. It concerns the use of the plot at Lowfields (and a similar site at Oakhaven) which was reserved for an elderly person home. The Council sought tenders from developers and operators for the sites but were unable to find anyone prepared to undertake the project.
The Council is now agonising about what to do next.
Lowfields care village 2011 plans
The obvious answer is to market the plot (which is brownfield land) with the only use restriction being that any development should be aimed at older people. There are a lot of elders living in large properties who are seeking to “downsize” and both sites are ideally located near amenities.
We might then get back to the Hartrigg Oaks type of development which was the preferred choice for the Lowfield site when first discussed in 2010.
If the Council continues to be indecisive, the residents can expect building works on the site to continue long after the three year target completion date”.
The Environment Agency has a Flood warning in place for York. The latest forecast is that river levels will peak late today. They are not expected to reach 2015 levels but some riverside areas may be affected.
There will be an increased risk of flooding in York over the next couple of days as Storm Ciara passes by.
The immediate threat may be surface water if drainage gulleys are unable to cope with the rainfall. A copy of a map showing the vulnerability of different neighbourhoods to surface water can be found byclicking here
Surface water vulnerability map
It will be some hours before the bulk water currently falling in the hills makes its way into the rivers Ouse and Foss in York. Residents can check the real time position on river gauge levels at this site https://www.gaugemap.co.uk/#!Map
The York Council has said that it doesn’t hold records of how its public service contracts are being let. A Freedom of information request was submitted asking for the publication of the register which indicates when a Council executive member had – as regulations require – authorised contracts valued between at £250,000 and £500,000.
Extract from City of York Financial regulations
The issue had arisen following the (correct) decision taken by Cllr Nigel Ayre to formally approve contract letting at a public decision session in November. There was no suggestion at that stage of any impropriety, but the decision was welcomed as a move towards greater transparency.
The report to the meeting made it clear that, what were termed, “routine” decisions had previously been agreed by circulating a copy of a register to executive members.
A copy of the register has now been produced (below)which shows only 10 entries during the last two years.
“Routine” contracts register (FOI response)
Officials can’t say when items were approved by Councillors. There appears to be no documentation which would confirm that Councillors had even seen the register.
The register is also difficult to reconcile with the “on line” contracts list (for all local authorities) which can be found here
Any contracts valued at over £500,000 require formal member approval and should appear in the Councils forward programme of decisions. Some, but not all, have been listed.
Of course, the main question is whether the Council is getting good value for money?
There is still a lack of communication on contract specifications with sometimes on line descriptions being impenetrable (e.g. £880,000 being spent on “hard facilities management services”). There is also a lack of information on a contractors subsequent performance against targets. Mostly monitoring is done behind closed doors, if it is done at all.
We have asked the responsible Councillors to review contract letting and management arrangements.
The York Council says that discussions have been held with “Choose 2 Youth” whom are a charitable organisation which provides educational and social care services to young people with learning and physical disabilities, with a view of them occupying part of the Moor Lane Centre.
Moor Lane youth club
Choose 2 Youth are currently a Council tenant at the 68 Centre Youth Centre and after a review of alternative provision, Moor Lane Youth Centre has been selected as the most appropriate building to maintain and improve the provision of services for the young people with disabilities.
The Moor Lane Youth Centre is also used by the Councils Youth Justice Service during the day and hired out on an evening to other youth and community providers. Choose 2 Youth will occupy 106m2 of the building for a period of 3 years and pay the Council an initial rent of £8,500 per annum rising to £12,750 in year 2 and £17,000 in year 3.
A licence to document their occupation will be entered into which can be terminated by the council upon 6 month’s notice.
The Co-op shop, on Beagle Ridge Drive, in Foxwood, will close on February 14th and reopen on February 20th following the refurbishment.
Foxwood Co-op
The new-look store, which runs on 100 per cent renewable electricity, will boast self-service tills, an improved in-store bakery, Costa Coffee point, National Lottery and PayPoint services, alongside a focus on fresh, healthy foods, meal ideas, food-to-go, wines, essentials and Co-op’s new exclusive plant-based range, GRO.
It will also bring a funding boost for local good causes through the Co-op’s membership scheme. Members receive a five per cent reward when they swipe their card when buying own-branded products, and the Co-op donates a further one per cent to local good causes.
Te Foxwood Residents Association has benefited in the past from a grant from the store.
Work is well underway in re-roofing Acomb Explore Library.
The Library is due to get a further makeover and extension in 2021 as part of the Councils modernisation programme.
Nearby the first of the new houses on the Acomb Bowling Green site on Front Street are nearing completion.
Hopefully completion of the development will allow for a more comprehensive plan for the use of the remaining land to be considered.
The land was purchased by the Council to facilitate an extension to the library in 2009. However successive Council leaders have chosen to allow the area to become increasingly derelict during the intervening period.
It was the start of “Containergate” with an outfit called Spark York persuading naive Councillors to give them the use of a prime site at 17/21 Piccadilly for a minimal rent.
As well as £13,333 a year in rent the Council was promised a 30% share of the profits which were forecast to total £213,085 over 3 years.
Business plan considered by York Council Executive Nov 2016
On that assurance, the Council spent £40,000 on installing new utility services to the site
The developers made a series of claims about what their (visually hideous) development would bring to the City. The small business growth figures strained everyone’s credulity but Councillors bought the line.
It subsequently transpired that the firm were unable to raise the £220,000 set up costs and had to resort to the commercial loans market. Although they had beneficial use of the site from September 2017, it was to be the following summer before Spark opened for business.
Further controversy followed the granting of planning
permission. Quite simply the owners chose to ignore a series of conditions –
including the need for a disabled access – and even now have failed to cover with
cladding the garish street art which dominates the Piccadilly frontage.
The original business model failed, and the scheme
concentrated on alcohol sales as its main form of income. It enjoyed a good
summer in 2018 but the high noise levels proved to be a major irritant for the
occupiers of nearby flats.
Thankfully the nightmare lease was due to come to an end in
June. We would be rid of the containers
and a start could be made on building something that would be a credit to the
city.
But now York Councillor Nigel Ayre is apparently considering extending the Spark lease (The original decision was taken by the Councils Executive). He is being promised footfall and “economic vibrance” on Piccadilly, although the rest of the street is likely to be a building site for much of the next two years.
Spark are good at some things. PR is one. They held a party
when they opened which was attended by the media and several Councillors and
officials. It appears to have been an insurance policy judging by the report
being considered next week.
Party time at Spark in 2018
The report fails to examine the performance of the company
against the claims that they made in 2016.
Where is the list of small businesses Spark claim to have “incubated” at the premises?
The operators claim to have had a turnover of £3 million across the whole site yet the Council has had a zero share of any “profit”. (The original plan was for an annual turnover of £272,000 a year yielding a profit of £64,620). Where is the updated business plan?
Who at the Council agreed that the repayment of loans should take precedence over the Council being recompensed for its investment?
Where can a full set of accounts be viewed? (there is little information at Company House)
Why are no other options considered? Parking revenue alone could be worth around £100,000 a year even if a start on the permanent redevelopment of the site is delayed for 2 years
Is the Council still the preferred creditor if the business goes bust? It was told in 2016 that it could sell the containers to fund any outstanding infrastructure costs.
Why is no independent up to date valuation of the site assets provided?
How much have the Directors received in remuneration from Spark (and any subsidiaries) since September 2017
How much has been paid in Business Rates and how much is outstanding?
Who at the Council has received hospitality from Spark? Has it all been properly registered?
Where can financial details of the container occupants’ businesses be found?
Are any of the Spark Directors potential beneficiaries of any of these businesses?
Until these, and other, questions are answered it would be irresponsible
for the Council to consider any extension of the lease.
In the meantime, the planning department should take enforcement action on outstanding breaches of the planning permission.
Other businesses in York deserve to be competing on a level playing field. They, and taxpayers, seem to be the losers in the current arrangement.
