The results of a survey undertaken in the Lowfields part of he Westfield Ward have revealed the depth of opposition to the Councils current plans for the sports pitch
4 out of 5 respondents are asking the Council to scale down their plans.
Most also want restrictions on building activity hours on the site.
Site has been unused since 2007
The residents group opposing plans to build on the Lowfields sports pitches have warned Planning Committee Councillors that they should not take part in Thursday’s debate on the plans, if they have previously expressed a view on the development.
The Council is the landowner, developer and planning authority for the application. Any Councillor who had previously been present at any discussions about the future of the land, and the scale of any development, could be considered to have “pre-judged” the application.
Their impartiality would be in question, and could lead to any recommendation being invalidated.
The group say that any decision should be referred for consideration by an independent inspector.
Meanwhile, the residents group have lobbied Councillors setting out the reasons why they believe only the brownfield side of the site should be built on (see below).
The Planning Committee meeting takes place on Thursday 16th August starting at 4:30pm. It will be “web cast” (click to view)
Plans to replace the Fordland’s care home with a new building – to be run by Octopus Healthcare – have been thrown into confusion after a judge ruled that the planning permission is invalid.
As the existing care home (now empty) had operated on the site for many years, the case revolved around whether the planning committee was correctly advised on the level of unmet demand for care beds in the area.
Officials say there is an estimated shortfall of 663 residential and extra care places for over 75’s by 2020 and a 1,490 shortfall by 2030.
Residents who opposed the new building felt that it was overbearing.
In is rather novel in York for objections to elderly persons accommodation to cause a row. Usually it is specialist student accommodation plans that raise peoples wrath.
The £10 million investment in the site would have provided 64 beds and created 64 full and part time jobs,
It is possible that the applicant may now simply reapply for permission with the correct care bed demand figures being reported to the committee.
However the planning opening date of mid 2019 now seems optimistic.
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
—-
165 Askham Lane York YO24 3JA
Fell Horse Chestnut tree protected by Tree Preservation Order no. 60.
Ref. No: 18/01773/TPO
——-
40 Grange Lane York YO26 5DR
Single storey rear extension after demolition of conservatory.
Ref. No: 18/01510/FUL
——
Representations can be made in favour of, or in objection to, any application via the Planning on line web site. http://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/
Spark April 2018
Officials are proposing to turn a blind eye to the failure of the operators of the Spark container village to implement planning conditions.
Instead a report to a planning meeting next week recommends that retrospective planning permission be given to ignore previously imposed conditions.
Even the burgeoning academic city elite have managed only a handful of comments in favour of Sparks application.
The development currently majors on alcohol-based businesses, omits promised wooden screening, includes a “graphic” on its Piccadilly frontage which is intrusive (at least) and has no proper disabled access.
The operators say they can’t afford to implement the previously granted permission – but are operating the business anyway. They publicly describe the business as very successful
Should we care?
There are several reasons why this approach will create dangerous precedents.
The planning official’s analysis of the application is disappointing. It agonises about the impact that the buildings and the street art have on the Red Lion (Listed Grade II) and St Deny’s church (Listed Grade I). Officials make the subjective judgement that the development “causes less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area”. The impact of the development, acknowledged by officials as “a far more utilitarian development which expresses the structure and appears somewhat cluttered”, extends far beyond the Piccadilly area.
The report claims that “commercial units in Spark have been occupied in accordance with the approved scheme and the social space / business hub is used by various local groups and organisations”. In reality, several of the (non-alcohol related) units are empty.
Officials claim that the development meets one of the Councils own objectives. “To support strong, vibrant and healthy communities”.
How stimulating a drinking culture helps create a “healthy” community is not explained.
So, should Spark continue?
As its already in place and has a lease until May 2020, the assumption must be that it will stay. The mistake was made when the Council leased the land for such a use in the first place (November 2016).
This was compounded by a poorly thought through planning permission.
The Planning committee should insist that an enforcement notice is issued immediately requiring the disabled access lift to be installed within the next few days. A temporary closure notice should be issued if this isn’t done.
The committee should also insist that the “art” and lettering on the Piccadilly frontage is removed and that the visible container sides are painted in neutral colours.
Notwithstanding this, there are questions that the council as the landlord for the site needs to answer. It should be open about the current amount of public investment that is at risk.
By now the Councils should have received a significant amount in rent and rates. It should say how much?
Council officials are recommending that the whole of the Lowfields school and sports pitch site be redeveloped. The planning application will be determined next week, even though objections to the Local Plan have not yet been considered by the independent inspector.
There are two proposals.
The first is an outline planning application for the whole site (click) This still includes the highly unlikely Police station (the Police have no plans to move from their current York Road base) and a “health centre” although none of the NHS/GP budget holders have allocated funding for such a project. The application outlines where the Council hopes 96 houses, 26 bungalows, 18 apartments and an 80 bedroomed care home will be located. 6 self-build and 19 “community build” dwellings are also included near the southern boundary of the site.
The second application is the detailed (i.e. final) planning application for the 142 “open market” dwellings (click). Strangely this detailed application is scheduled to be considered before the outline application!. The Council says that 20% of these will be “affordable”. It is these housing plans which are likely to be most controversial as they are the ones being being built on the sports pitch.
A brief history
The area to be built on has increased – and open space provision reduced – every time a new pan has been drawn up by officials
When the Lowfields school closed some 10 years ago, the Council gave an assurance that only the “built footprint” of the former school buildings would be redeveloped. The green space would be protected. The site was slated to be retirement village – the west York equivalent of Hartrigg Oaks. Plans were produced, and the scheme would have proceeded had there not been change in control of the Council in 2011.
The incoming Labour administration wanted the village to be predominantly public (rather than private ) sector. They raised the possibility of building on the football pitch in 2012 but nothing came of the idea. Four years wrangling later and it was accepted that the development would need private investment.
York went to the local election polls in May 2015. No party said it intended to build on the playing field
The suggestion that the green space would be lost came in December 2016 when the then new Tory housing executive member persuaded his colleagues that selling off the land for private development would provide the money (approximately £4.5 Million) for other projects including facilities in Burnholme.
They later rowed back from setting up a “development company” and instead plan to manage the development themselves
The Council claimed that “landscaped green space will be open to the public for the first time” In practice the playing fields were open to the public until about 5 years ago when the Council tried to secure the boundaries. At the time, they said this could only be a for a few months.
Alternative proposal for Lowfields tabled by residents
A Lowfields Action Group was formed to oppose the emerging proposals. They established a Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/LowfieldsActionGroup/
Consultation
Its over 9 months since the deadline for comments on the planning application passed.
None of the comments made by residents in response to the many earlier iterations are being reported to the Planning Committee next week.
These is a growing suspicion that the Council – as the owner of the site and with a major vested financial liability – is not being even handed with all interested parties.
Unless they adopt a different approach, pressure to have the application “called in” will grow
Councillors will today be asked to approve design plans for the York Central site. The area behind the station has been ripe for redevelopment for nearly 2 decades now as the demands of the rail industry have reduced.
York central is a large and hugely expensive site to develop but has the advantage of being close to intercity transport links and a City centre which boasts a full range of amenities.
The design guide springs from a comprehensive public consultation process which managed in the end to avoid the obvious dangers of raising unaffordable expectations.
The design guide rightly concentrates on the impact that a dense, and relatively tall, development will have on the rest of the City. It passes that test and goes on to tell a convincing story about street and layout potential. It may be a little short on iconic USPs although the idea of an old steam train running through the site will appeal to many.
But perhaps the approach does tend to be “all things to all men”.
It talks of a large increase in office space at a time when the City has full employment and some empty office units. A report implies that the York Council might underwrite some of the new floorspace space. But the Council is already doing so at the Community Stadium site while the £12 million white elephant business centre at the Guildhall had still to find tenants.
The main issue may prove to be access and transport.
Even footpath links between the Carlton St area and the City centre look – for most of the evening – to be longer than currently is possible. The one-way system to benefit cyclists through the Leeman Road tunnel has also (rightly) been vilified.
The development partners will have to find funding for a discrete pedestrian/cycle bridge over the railway line – a solution which might also address other permeability issues and might even provide an alternative route for the Railway Museums “Disney” train which currently obstructs general traffic routes in the City centre.
The design guide refers to parking space provision at “up to 1 space” per house (0.45 spaces per flat). This suggest that many cars will be parked “off-site”. The Council will need to be clear whether this would be at a peripheral on-site location or at a sub-urban park and ride site (with its security implications).
The design guide fails to address other transport needs such as recharging/refuelling points for electric/hydrogen buses. Indeed, the guide is weak on public transport infrastructure requirements generally.
In the main though, the guide does address the main planning issues and is a welcome step forward for the project.
Whether the actual planning applications can be faithful to the concept, and remain affordable, may become clearer later in the year.
Below is the latest planning applications received by the York Council for the Westfield ward.
Full details can be found by clicking the application reference
There are two linked applications, which could have a major impact on the Green Lane/Kingsway West/Ascot Way part of the Westfield ward, published this week.
In effect part of the existing Hob Moor School playing field will be built on because of a plan to provide a centre for disabled children on the site currently occupied by Windsor House.
A compensatory school sports field will be provided on an area of land, adjacent to Hob Moor, which is currently left in a natural state. Improvements to the remaining nature reserve are promised.
The most controversial aspects of the children’s centre plan relate to traffic, parking and the development timetable.
Contrary to expectations, all traffic will access the children’s centre site via Ascot Way.
An (unconvincing) traffic assessment report says this can be accommodated on the existing highway network. The reports appear not to consider the fact that Kingsway West is a “no through road” and that existing bends in Ascot Way already make it difficult for wide vehicles to pass each other. Despite this, officials talk of several mini buses accessing the new development each day. Mini buses already access the adjacent parking areas at the school. They are adequate to meet the needs of the new centre.
The Council’s transport consultants also appear to have a romantic view of the ability of the number 24 bus service to accommodate additional demand. No attempt has been made to provide a more suitable (off street) bus stop on Ascot Way.
Only 15 parking spaces will be provided at the Children’s Centre, which will employ 42 staff.
The applications are silent on the timetable for development.
Residents have already said that it would be wrong for building works to be taking place at both this site and the nearby Newbury Avenue garage site development at the same time. Plant and lorries from two sites would further damage an environment that has yet to recover from the extended development at Hob Stones and recent “broadband” excavations.
The establishment of the centre of excellence for disabled children is a worthy idea, but the implications ion the surrounding community need to be understood and resolved before any planning permission is granted.
A separate planning application for changes to Lincoln Court is expected shortly. Both should be considered together by the planning committee as they are interdependent.
—-
Hob Moor Community Primary School Green Lane Acomb York YO24 4PS
Creation of new area of playing fields, wetland areas and timber walkways, erection of fabric shelter over outdoor class space
Ref. No: 18/01475/GRG3
Nature area and new football pitch
—–
Windsor House 22 Ascot Way York YO24 4QZ
Erection of part single storey part two storey centre for disabled children and their families following the demolition of existing care home with associated parking, access and landscaping works (includes part of Hob Moor School site)
Ref. No: 18/01467/GRG3
Disabled children’s centre site plan 2
Disabled children’s centre site plan 1
——
Representations can be made in favour of, or in objection to, any application via the Planning on line web site. http://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/
NB. The Council now no longer routinely consults neighbours by letter when an application is received
Developers have submitted revised plans for the development of the Acomb Bowling Green site on Front Street. The plot is located behind the Acomb Explore Library.
The revised plans can be viewed by clicking here
The main differences in the revised plan are:
There is no evidence that the Council, as the owner of the library site and the former allotments next to Chancery Court, is engaging on the future of their parcels of land.
The new plans do appear to provide for a potential access to these areas but fall far short of the hoped for comprehensive regeneration plan.
Council officials were instructed to buy the bowling club land some 10 years ago but failed to negotiate a deal. (The purchase would have allowed the club car park to be used by the Library, although bowling activities could have continued)
Residents of Vyner House have already petitioned against the proposals which would remove not only York’s oldest bowling green, but would also see another area of green space lost from within the Acomb neighbourhood.
Any development should ideally embrace accommodation aimed at older people (amenities are on the doorstep) as well as providing much needed office space for the Library, Police and neighbourhood workers.
There were hopes that a “pocket park”could be incorporated which might include some allotment beds.
Residents can object to the current plans via the Councils planning on line web site click here The planning reference is 18/00586/FULM
It appears that the Sports Council (Sport England) has been duped into withdrawing their objection to building on the Lowfields football pitches. They have told the planning department that the recent decision to provide pitches 3 miles way on Tadcaster Road meets their objection.
They had apparently been told by Council. officials that the Woodthorpe Wanderers team – who play at Lowfields- had agreed to play on the new pitches.
However it was revealed at a planning committee meeting two weeks ago that the pitches will be solely used by a team from Bishopthorpe.
The Lowfield Action Group have written to the Sports Council pointing out this anomaly https://www.facebook.com/LowfieldsActionGroup/
It now seems likely that the Council Leadership will try to bounce the planning application through the committee before the Local Plan Inquiry starts – robbing objectors of their right to make their case to an independent inspector.
The application may go to a meeting scheduled to take place on 16th August.
In the meantime.the Police have indicated that they will not be building a replacement station on the site while the NHS have also indicated that funding is not available for the new GP surgery shown on the Councils plans.
