Much of the British Sugar development site on Boroughbridge Road has now been levelled. It remains unclear when construction of the long delayed homes will start.
In the meantime one resident has commented that some of the trees on the site – scheduled for retention because they provide a wildlife habitat – seem to have disappeared. The Council has been asked to investigate.
The old Manor school site does not seem to have been affected,.
A planning application for the first 3 bed “self build” house has now been submitted to the Council. The unit is located to the rear of 76 Tudor Road. Details can be found by clicking the link below https://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QC4PUISJFV100
The Council have now also started to market the houses being built there although it is likely to be some time before they are available for occupation, Click
Despite a hostile response from local residents and Councillors to the informal soundings taken about their huge telecoms mast plan for a site near the Community Centre, Clarke Telecom have now submitted a formal planning application. Click here
Ironically, it comes on the day that the government announced that the mast user, the Chinese company Huawei, would be barred from involvement with the 5G roll out in the UK. Sources say this will put back the 5G timetable by between 2 and 3 years.
A 19 metre high mast in the middle of a residential area (twice the size of the existing mast) would tower over nearby trees, buildings and even lampposts. The ugly equipment antenna would not be shrouded.
The new equipment cabinets would further obstruct the footpath outside the community centre and would exacerbate problems with anti-social behaviour and trespass.
By far the best option would be for any mast to be located on the Thanet Road Sports area. A site off Foxwood Lane could be found which would have less impact on either peoples homes or leisure buildings. Existing masts on Thanet Road and Bellhouse Way could then be rationalised to one location which would avoid existing problems with sight lines being blocked for vehicle drivers.
Should this not be possible, then an alternative location, on the opposite side of the road from the Community Centre, would be preferable. This site takes the form of an inset which is currently occupied by cycle hoops (which could be moved into the park).
Clarke Telecom representatives have offered a series of largely bogus reasons why this site could not be used. An area equivalent to the requirement for the cabinets and pole base has been marked out by the Residents Association. This demonstrates that the proposal could be accommodated with minimal intrusion into the park. If necessary, the railings could be realigned. Any affected trees could be replaced elsewhere in the park.
It is even more important these days that public footpaths be kept clear of clutter as we need to allow plenty of space for “social distancing”. This would mean removing the grass verge if the Community Centre site were approved.
Problems have occurred over the years with youths and criminals climbing onto the cabinets to gain entry to the adjacent car park, centre, and private houses beyond.
Any new mast which may be deemed as essential should be placed next the park where the natural vegetation would help to screen the unsightly utility boxes.
Residents wishing to object to the proposal can do so either “on line” through the planning web site https://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/ or by Email to planning.comments@york.gov.uk quoting reference 20/01183/TCMAS
Below are the latest planning applications received by the York Council for the Westfield ward.
Full details can be found by clicking the application reference
—-
2 Grange Lane York YO26 5DR
Erection of detached garden building to rear
Ref. No: 20/01143/FUL
—-
124 Wetherby Road Acomb York YO26 5BY
Erection of single storey extension extending 4.40 metres beyond the rear wall of the original house, with a height to the eaves of 2.80 metres and a total height of 3.80 metres
Ref. No: 20/00943/LHE
——
Representations can be made in favour of, or in objection to, any application via the Planning online web site. http://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/
The Council now no longer routinely consults neighbours by letter when an application is received
There has been an angry response to the planning committees decision to extend the planning permission for the Spark container village on Piccadilly. They agreed to a 2 year extension although the government was only suggesting a 12 month, post COVID-19, relaxation.
A prominent local architect Matthew Laverack has now written to the media to criticise the decision (right).
It has been claimed that some members did not declare an interest in the application despite close contacts with the applicants. Several are believed to be customers of the establishment. Some had made representations in favour of an extension of the lease on the site while others were executive members covered by the code of collective responsibility.
This has prompted allegations of cronyism and a complaint has been lodged under the Councillors “code of conduct.” It is likely that the investigation into any such complaints would take months to resolve. Spark will be able to continue to trade in the interim, provided that they adhere to the terms of the planning consent and fulfil the requirements of the proposed lease extension.
Spark have yet to make any net rent or profit share payments. When last published, some business rates payments were also outstanding. The businesses modest contribution had not even covered the costs to the taxpayer of providing services to the site.
In 2016 Spark had forecast a surplus of £213,000 on operations over a 3 year period.
Cllr Nigel Ayre agreed at a meeting which took place on 14th February to renew the Spark lease for 2 years. However, in the light of the large number of complaints from residents and the failure of Spark to make payments to the Council, several conditions were imposed (see left) .
The current lease has ended so the business is operating on a “tenancy at will”.
Taxpayers will be looking very closely over the next few weeks to see whether all the lease conditions have been fulfilled.
If not then the site will need to be cleared.
Even if only used for car parking, it would at least bring in an income for the Council. It could provide, in what are difficult times, accessible spaces which could benefit other City centre small traders not least those operating in the Shambles market. .
Sadly the impending recession means that the opportunity to permanently redevelop the Piccadilly site for the benefit of the City may have passed the Council by for now at least.
The York Council has confirmed that the Yorspace communal housing project has failed to purchase the development plot allocated for them nearly 3 years ago.
Although the 19 home site wasn’t as controversial as some other parts of the development, neighbours had been assured that a prompt start would be made on site. This was considered to be essential if a maximum 3 year site build was to be achieved as promised by the Council It is understood that the area which is allocated as a play area, will first be used as a building compound for the Yorspace development.
The Yorspace development became controversial when it was revealed in January 2019 that no conditions had been attached to the sale which required occupiers to be in housing need, have low incomes or, indeed, even be York residents. There was some scepticism about the sale price of £300,000 as a similar nearby plot had been sold for 50% more than that figure.
A Council official, at a private meeting held in August 2017, had agreed an “exclusivity agreement” to sell the land to what was then styled as a “Mutual Home Ownership Society”
Planning permission was granted in March 2019 despite concerns about lack of parking provision and the absence of “affordable housing”. Yorspace was forced last year to extend its funding appeal deadline for investors, although it later announced that it had reached its income target. This should have allowed funds to be transferred to the Council but a Freedom of Information response has today confirmed that this did not happen.
With other elements of the development also now in delay – there is no sign of the “self build” homes, elderly persons sheltered housing or community buildings being started – the development timetable is likely to stetch to 5 years or more.
This is bad news for some neighbours who have complained bitterly on the Save Lowfields Playing Field Facebook page about noise, dust and the disruption and damage being caused by plant & supplies accessing the site. Residents claim to have complained to the Council and the local MP without a response.
The adjacent “self build” plots are also stalled. A year ago the Council agreed to market the plots through “Custom Build Homes”. Buyers were supposed to start construction “within 12 months” and have completed all works “within 2 years”.
The Council needs to get a grip on what is happening at Lowfields. Work is continuing on constructing the speculative housing development although whether the Chancellor’s recent decision on reduced stamp duty will prompt a queue of buyers remains to be seen.
The Council must put a clear deadline by which work on the other sections of the site must be completed. Residents don’t want o spend half their lives living on, or adjacent to, a building site.
If Yorspace or others can’t complete then the parcels of land should be sold to those who are able to get on and provide additional housing quickly.
Below are the latest planning applications received by the York Council for the Westfield ward.
Full details can be found by clicking the application reference
—-
11 Barkston Avenue York YO26 5DH
Two storey side and single storey rear extension following demolition of side projection
Ref. No: 20/01039/FUL
—-
H2o Bathrooms And Kitchens Ltd 51 York Road Acomb York YO24 4LN
Conversion of upper floors (use class A1) to form 3no. one bedroom flats with rooflights, dormer extension and alterations to fenestration
Ref. No: 20/01038/FUL
—–
49 Ridgeway York YO26 5DA
Single storey front, side and rear extension
Ref. No: 20/00938/FUL
——
Representations can be made in favour of, or in objection to, any application via the Planning online web site. http://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/
The Council now no longer routinely consults neighbours by letter when an application is received
Containers arrived in Sept 2017
The controversial Sparks container village development on Piccadilly looks set to benefit from a government planning decision.
The temporary planning permission for the site – granted 3 years ago- included the following condition
“This (approved) use (of the site) shall cease and all associated structures shall be removed from the site by 1 July 2020; unless prior to that date the consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained to extend the period of the permission”
The containers should, therefore, by today have been off the site.
Officials at the Council have – not for the first time – failed to enforce the conditions attached to the planning permission.
They say that on 22nd June, the government issued a press release that stated
“Sites with consent that have an expiry date between the start of lockdown and the end of this year will now see their consent extended to 1 April 2021”.
Officials go on to say, “At the time of writing (the planning report) the associated legislation regarding this is not yet in force (and consequently we do not know the details of this change). It is assumed this legislation will extend the lifetime of the existing permission into next year”.
Council planning officials go on to say,
“However should this legislation not be in force by the time of committee, the recommendation will be approval subject to the legislation coming into force to automatically extend permissions that have expired during lockdown”
The meeting is taking place (remotely) on 9th July. Background papers can be viewed by clicking this link
There are continuing concerns from neighbours about noise at the site while objections about the appearance of the development also continue to be lodged.
Whether the managers of the site will be able to satisfy the conditions placed on an extended lease – which include financial sureties – remains to be seen.
Much of Sparks incomes derives from alcohol sales. The hospitality sector in York, and elsewhere, is facing a difficult 12 months.
Some sources speculate that as many as 40% of city centre cafes and bars may close unless there is an sustained (and unlikely) increase in visitor numbers.
We may, therefore, yet see the site become available for early redevelopment although major investments are going to be difficult to broker in the wake of the coronavirus crisis and the expected economic recession.
NB. The meeting is also being recommended to approve plans for a 168 bedroomed hotel on the other side of Piccadilly. Click
Below are the latest planning application received by the York Council for the Westfield ward.
Full details can be found by clicking the application reference
—-
11 Croftway York YO26 5LU
First floor side extension and single storey rear extension
Reference 20/00956/FUL
——
Representations can be made in favour of, or in objection to, any application via the Planning online web site. http://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/
The Council now no longer routinely consults neighbours by letter when an application is received
Government inspectors have written to the York Council highlighting issues with the methodology used to establish the detail of the York Green Belt boundary.
They have however confirmed the general boundaries to be those defined in long standing regional strategies
The main issue – the number of additional homes required in the area – still remains open to criticism. Population growth estimates have gradually reduced in recent years although the Councils plan still seeks to allocate sites for 20,000 additional homes. The impact of the coronavirus scare is expected to further reduce house building demands in the City.
The examination itself has been held up during lock-down and it remains very unclear when, or even if, it will recommence.
The letter, which has been published by City of York Council today, follows examination hearings on several key aspects of the plan, including the duty to co-operate, housing numbers and the spatial strategy and Green Belt issues. The letter invites a response from the Council on aspects of the approach it has taken to define York’s Green Belt boundaries.
The Council says “it has already begun this work and has formally responded to the planning inspectors to thank them for their work so far. To progress the Local Plan, City of York will continue to work with the planning inspectors to justify the approach taken to define York’s greenbelt boundaries”.
“The proposed plan looks to deliver over 20,000 homes over the next 20 years, including up to 4000 more affordable homes, and prioritises development on brownfield sites. The plan will also create around 650 new jobs per year, whilst crucially defining the greenbelt boundaries in planning law for the first time since the 1950s”.
The draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on 25 May 2018. Since submission, there has been ongoing correspondence between the Council and the Inspectors.
Phased hearing sessions started in December 2019. This phase focused on legal compliance and in-principle matters relating to York’s housing requirement, spatial distribution and approach to Green Belt.
The full letter can be viewed at www.york.gov.uk/localplan
