The shipping container village on Piccadilly may look a little different this winter. Spark has applied for planning permission to install plastic sheeting to close the gap between the canvass roof and the side of the development.
No sign yet of the cladding being installed. Nor has the council confirmed that they have received their share of the “profits” on the enterprise from last year.
The group of residents wanting to set up a “Neighbourhood Forum” and draw up a “Neighbourhood Plan” covering Acomb and Westfield have withdrawn their proposal.
The about turn came less than 48 hours before the proposal was due to be determined by the York Council.
Consultation on the proposal had taken over 3 months to conclude and had cost several thousands of pounds in advertising and staff costs. These costs will have to be borne by taxpayers.
In addition, resident’s groups and individuals spent a lot of abortive time responding to the proposal.
It became clear several weeks ago that the proposal – which was labelled as “too big” to meet government guidelines – had little local support from residents.
It is possible that alternative proposals, covering perhaps the historic Acomb Front Street area, may emerge. Another possibility is for a plan for an area including the Acomb Ward and adjacent open spaces within the A1237 boundary.
Either way, the Council may in future wish to ask for a deposit to cover the cost of any work, that it has undertaken on a proposal, if it is withdrawn before it reaches the decision stage!
Lendal Post Office
Earlier in the week, the Council considered a proposal from the Guildhall Labour Party that the, now redundant, Lendal Post Office building be registered as an asset of community value. This would have allowed residents to have first option to buy the building (before it went onto the open market).
Council officials explained that the building did not meet
the legal test for listing. Nevertheless, the proposal was pursued to a decision
None of the supporters of the listing turned up at the meeting and so the proposal then fell.
Another example of using scarce taxpayers’ resources unnecessarily.
The money would be better spent on improving street level public services.
Residents and businesses can have their say on plans which could guide future developments on the former Bootham Park hospital site.
The former hospital site, which includes a series of Grade 1 and 2 listed buildings, is back on the market after a sale fell through earlier this year.
While City of York Council and local health partners do not own the site, they have joined forces to influence the plans of future owners.
The council and the York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust have included their own land to the north and east of the former hospital to show how a larger site could respond to the healthcare, housing, transport and green space needs of this area and the wider city.
The site development report was produced after consultation late last year, and shows how a sensitive and appropriate development could provide:
52 key worker apartments
a new physiotherapy suite, medical training and research centre of excellence
a 70 bed care home
60 assisted living/supported living apartments
a new children’s nursery
Multi-storey car parking to maintain existing parking capacity and open up the site
extensive public open space
Councillor Nigel Ayre, City of York Council executive member for finance and performance, said:
“The consultation last year confirmed how important the Bootham Park Hospital site is to York and its residents.
“It has been a focal point for the community and played a huge role in the city’s healthcare since the hospital building first opened its doors in 1777.
“While we don’t own the site we are exploring how to make sure that future developments respect that heritage and play a part in meeting some of York’s 21st Century challenges.
“So please take a look at the plans, give us your feedback and we’ll use them to influence future owners of the site.”
You have until Friday 11 October to make your comments on all elements of this proposal.
You can see all the details and join the conversation in a number of ways.
Exhibitions (available from Tuesday 17 September)
City of York Council’s West Offices, Station Rise, YO1 6GA
The foyer of York Hospital, Wigginton Road, YO31 8HE
Meet the team and talk through the proposals at these events:
Tuesday 17 September 3pm to 6pm, Marriott Room, York Explore, Library Square, YO1 7DS
Saturday 21 September, 1pm to 4pm, York City Church, Citadel YO31 7EA
Wednesday 25 September, 4pm to 7pm, York City Church, Citadel YO31 7EA
Tuesday 1 October, 2pm to 5pm, York City Church, Citadel YO31 7EA
You can see all the details and find a link to an online survey (also available from 17 September) through the council website, or join the conversation on social media.
The Councils leadership is being recommended to reject a proposal which would have seen a joint neighbourhood plan prepared covering the Acomb and Westfield Wards. The proposal was widely criticised as being ”too big” to meet a key community of interest test.
The majority of respondents to the Councils consultation opposed
Opponents included the local residents association, an
action group and the Westfield ward Councillors. (The Acomb Ward Councillors didn’t
respond to the consultation)
A report points out the proposed population of the planning area at 23,440 is 4 x the optimum size of 5500 suggested by central; government legislation.
A council official claims that a parallel proposal to create
a “Neighbourhood Forum” could be approved although the report fails to analyse
claims that the governance structure of the proposed body is bogus. The forum was criticised by consultees as introducing
unnecessary additional bureaucracy at least in the Westfield area where several
residents groups already operate.
The report author concludes that a Neighbourhood Plan,
including a revised “forum”, could be approved for the Acomb ward only.
We believe that the plan to exclude the Westfield area is correct.
However the proposal to jump to an “Acomb Ward only” model
is premature. Such a move would rule out drawing up a neighbourhood plan for
the Front Street area. Part of this district includes the Acomb Ward side of York
Road which would be subject to a different plan under the new proposals.
No consideration has been given to including the area of
land between the built-up area and the A1237 northern by pass) in any new arrangements,
thereby failing to recognise the importance given by many residents in the area
to the protection of open space.
The Council should simply reject the current ill-considered
neighbourhood forum and plan proposals which are before it.
New proposals may then emerge which could be subject to re-consultation.
They say “FRM believe the Environmental Statement is fundamentally flawed and must be comprehensively revised to give an honest and comprehensive account of the likely destruction of and damage to SSSI grassland”.
They go on to say, “There will be adverse impacts on the Cornfield Nature Reserve which are of regional or at least district-wide significance”.
The report says, “The application is for works to repair and extend the Clifton Ings barrier bank. This is one of the projects within the agencies flood alleviation scheme (FAS) to reduce flood risk throughout the city. £45 million has been allocated to the EA which will upgrade defences in 19 areas (referred to as flood cells).
The objective of the FAS is to protect against the 1 in 100 year flood (1% AEP) plus climate change and where this cannot be achieved then deliver the maximum level of protection in each cell within the context of existing flood risk and considering other environmental, social and cultural aspects.
The purpose of the barrier bank is to reduce flooding from
rivers (fluvial flooding) to the Clifton / Rawcliffe area.
However, during the floods in 2000, water from the river
outflanked the flood defences, spilled onto Shipton Road and flooded over 100
homes. The flood basin at Blue Beck also exceeded its capacity in 2000. In
these instances, the Environment Agency had to provide temporary pumps to
reduce flooding upstream on Blue Beck.
The barrier bank was constructed in 1980. It is of earth
fill construction and is up to 4.5m high. The embankments on both sides of the
River Ouse currently have issues with stability created by high pressure in the
banks when the reservoir empties. This has meant that the drawdown rate for the
reservoir has had to be reduced from 1,360mm/day to 300mm/day in order to
reduce the risk of failure. This reduction in the drawdown rate significantly
impacts on the operation and effectiveness of the reservoir as a flood defence,
particularly for any consecutive flood events.
Clifton Ings provides a flood storage reservoir on the eastern side of the River Ouse close to Rawcliffe Park and Ride and the sports clubs Clifton Alliance and York. When not flooded, the northern section of Clifton Ings is used for grazing and the southern section is used as open land by the public. A Sustrans cycle route runs through this area.
During high flow events it has a flood capacity of 2,300,000 m3. It is owned and maintained by the Environment Agency.
The Planning Committee is meeting on Thursday at 4:30pm. The
meeting will also consider a separate proposal to create a temporary access
route into the site.
A planning application, which would have seen the residential accommodation above the Premier shop on Gale Lane converted into 5 letting rooms, has been withdrawn.
The proposal was criticised by some residents who feared that 5 separate, unrelated, tenants would generate additional parking problems in the area. There are already issues with inadequate parking on St Stephens Road.
Other criticisms related to the lack of waste bin space and the absence of any cycle storage.
The owners may be permitted to use the first floor accommodation for single family use.