Search Results for: "Oakhaven" ...

Empty Council properties

The York Councils decision to spend over £2 million adding further properties to its investment portfolio has produced a backlash.

Critics have pointed to the ongoing delays in bring empty properties into use. Six months ago, a Freedom of information (FOI) request revealed a long list of under-used Council buildings. These included Oakhaven, Ashbank, Willow House, the Guildhall and, of course, 29 Castlegate.

The latter is one of the prime properties in the City centre and was valued at £575,000 in 2016. Since then there have been further increases in property prices in the City.

A further FOI tried to discover what progress has been made in selling the property following a decision by the York Civic Trust to pull out of a purchase deal 12 months ago. The FOI has been rejected (see right) on the grounds that there are ongoing commercial discussions taking place. It fails to reveal who is talking to whom about the empty property. No attempt has been made to let the property for temporary use in the busy Christmas period (it includes a frontage onto the Coppergate shopping centre).

Council response to FOI request

At last week’s Executive meeting, Councillors were challenged over their stewardship of the Council’s property estate.

They responded by claiming that the portfolio was “worth £335m and produced an income of £5.8m a year”.

This claim has prompted a further FOI request. A local resident now wants to see a list of all Council owned commercial properties, their value and the net income that each produces.

This is the kind of information that should be routinely provided for the Councils “scrutiny” committee. A six monthly review of investment returns is the least that taxpayers would expect to be published for public review.

Sadly, this no longer happens at the York Council.

Willow House

The delays in disposing of empty property is now a major issue for the authority. It some cases there may be good reasons for the delays but, if so, then there must be more transparency about the process*.

If the Council cannot effectively manage its estate, then there are companies in the City who would be delighted to help.   

*The Council has agreed to receive a staffing report on a 6-monthly basis. The reports will cover FTE numbers, Equality Data, Absence and Well Being, Starters and Leavers, reasons for leaving (i.e. retirement, redundancy, dismissal, settlement agreement) and Agency staff numbers.

More delays at Lowfield as “Yorspace” scheme struggles to find investors

Looks like there will be more delays on the Lowfield project as the communal housing section of the scheme has failed to attract sufficient investors.

It could mean the project will take even longer to complete.

It is not clear whether the Council and Yorspace have exchanged contracts for the sale (at a discount value) of the land in question.

The Councils track record on asset use is being increasingly criticised on social media with a deals for the sale of Willow House and 29 Castlegate (both empty for over 3 years) still not concluded

The Oakhaven building in Acomb is also still unused.

Given the claims made by Council leaders about addressing housing need urgently, the dithering on these projects is difficult to justify.

The Council is providing little useful update information on their Lowfields overall development timetable.

. Westfield Ward Councillors have been asked to “call in” the proposal which would see the perimeter railings removed. The local Lowfields Action Group say they have had no response to their enquiries about the plan.

No takers for Care Home contract at Lowfields

Care home site

According to a notice published earlier today, the York Council has received
no suitable tenders for the provision of a care home at its Lowfields site.

The Council has already invested heavily in providing infrastructure,
including roads, at the site. They promised a 30-month building timetable in  response to concerns expressed by residents in 2016 who feared that the nuisance caused by building works could drag on for a decade.

The failure to find a development partner for the care home, together with
delays on the communal housing section, means that there is no end in sight for the development work.

The delay  notice says, ” This item has been withdrawn because, following a tender process, officers have been unable to appoint a developer. Officers need to consult the market and consider the options before the Executive can make a decision”.

According to the Councils Elderly Care programme, which was last discussed in 2018, work on building the care home was due to start next month. Officials at that they said that they were confident on getting a good deal for the site following “soft market” testing. 

Now a delay on the start of building work on the home of over 12 months  seems inevitable.

There have been similar delays at Oakhaven on York Road where work is now over 3 years behind schedule.

Delays also dog the Haxby Hall redevelopment site on the other side of the
City.

Despite the delays in providing new care homes, existing facilities have
been closed. Some like Willow House next to the Bar walls remain empty.

Ironically, the original plan to provide a, mainly private sector funded,
care village on the site of the Lowfield’s school had been developed in 2010 to the point where work was scheduled to start. The scheme was shelved by the incoming Labour Council and 9 years later there is little to show but some “roads to nowhere” and large spoil heaps.

The site is now has little security. It is attracting children who want to play
on the dangerous spoil heaps.

The football pitches have long gone so alternative children’s play facilities
are non existent.

Even the Kingsway multi user games area has been turned into a building
compound for another development..

Lowfields plans in 2016

Work starts on Burnholme elderly persons accommodation

Work has stared on building a new 80 bed care home at the Burnholme site.

When completed, the Council will have the right to fill 25 of the beds

A lot of building work going on at Burnholme

Work is also proceeding on renovating sports facilities on the Burnholme site. A new library complex has already opened.

The care home being built on the Fordlands Road site (by Octopus Health care) will be completed in the summer of 2020. A site for another home has been reserved in the new York Central development.

The progress being made on these sites contrasts with other projects aimed at addressing the needs of the City’s increasing elderly population on the west of the City.

Tenders are only now being sought for the long awaited elderly persons facility on the Lowfields site. Other specialist homes on the west of the City, such as Windsor House and Lincoln Court have already been cleared of their elderly occupants.

One embarrassment for the Council, is the elderly persons home at Oakhaven. Residents were controversially moved from this building 3 years ago.

Despite some temporary uses, the building has remained largely unused ever since.

The Council has not been able to say when work on a replacement will start.

The Council says that it will start building houses at Lowfield this summer. Many will be “shared ownership” although there seems to have been little research done on the size of the market – among those on the waiting list – for this type of tenure.

There is, however, a lot of demand from older people – currently occupying large council and housing association houses – who want to “downsize” to bungalows or flats.

Work has started on constructing the Tudor Road access onto the Lowfields site. A new lay-by has been provided nearby.

While we remain critical of the Councils plan to build on the playing field at Lowfield, it also now seems that they may have got the mix of home types wrong.

There should have been more bungalows.

The issue of the Yorspace” communal housing development – which is not classified as “affordable” – has also still not been resolved.

Council election manifestos compared

6. Planning and Social Care

A draft Local Plan agreed for submission in 2011 would have seen 575 homes per annum built in the City.

10 year housing completions trend in York

Labours “Big City” approach alternative was floated in 2013.  It would have seen the City grow by 25%. Many of the houses would have been built in the Green Belt, which would have been damaged irreparably. The plan never reached the public inquiry stage.

During the last three years an average of 1131 additional homes have been provided in the City each year.

This compares to an average, over the last 10 years, of 652.

The latest Local Plan – still not adopted – envisages 790 homes a year being provided. This is still much higher than ONS projects say is necessary and would require a sustained growth in jobs, the scale of which has not been not seen since the Industrial Revolution.

Labours manifesto still advocates building in the Green Belt.

The number of York residents supported at home through care package is around 1800. About 650 residents are admitted to nursing or residential care each year. The figures are stable

Over the last 18 months the numbers of delayed discharges from hospital resulting from unavailable “care in the community” facilities has fluctuated between 4 and 11 patients.

There have been delays in the Councils elderly persons new accommodation strategy. Although some homes have closed, there has been little progress “on site” in building new facilities at Oakhaven, Lowfield, Haxby etc.

Lincoln Court and the MUGA – Sport England acts

Kingsway MUGA

Sport England have issued a formal objection to the Council’s latest plans for the Lincoln Court area. As a statutory consultee they can veto any proposals which involve the loss of sports facilities. In this case, the Councils plan to demolish the adjacent Multi User Games Area (MUGA) – without providing a replacement – has triggered the objection.

Sport England had expressed concerns about Councils plans prior to the Planning Committee meeting which took place in December. Their comments at that time were ignored by Councillors.

If the Council continues to turn a blind eye to the objection, then the planning application will have to be referred to the Secretary of State for determination.

Sport England make it clear, in their representation, that they believe an alternative games facility can be provided nearby. Residents have suggested the new school playing fields or the Thanet Road sports area as possible locations.

Several of the flats at Lincoln Court are now empty.

There is a growing concern that the building, and the adjacent Windsor House, may be empty for an extended period.

Similar Council owned buildings have been left to rot in recent years (Guildhall, Ashbank, Oakhaven, Castlegate, etc.) suggesting that the Councils property management processes need to be overhauled.

In the meantime the planning application remains open for residents to record any objections that they may have.  Email planning.comments@york.gov.uk quoting ref 19/00083/FULM

Haxby Hall elderly persons home plan hits buffers

Haxby Hall

The Haxby Hall home currently has a total capacity of 49 care beds. Within those 49 beds there is provision for approximately 35 residential care beds, eight beds for people living with dementia and up to six step down/short stay beds which are used interchangeably.

Services at the home are delivered by 51 staff (31.58 full time equivalents). When last inspected by the Care Quality Commission it was given a “good” rating 

It’s a year since the Council decided to pull out of Haxby Hall. The expectation was that a third party would take over the running of an enlarged, modernised home.

A feasibility study conducted in 2016 showed that a care home of up to 70 beds could be delivered on the site. One key issue for development was access to the site, which is constricted by the adjacent ambulance station. The plan for Haxby Hall was agreed by the Council on 7th December 2016.

A well attended supplier engagement event was held on 6 September 2017 to promote the opportunity and receive feedback on the proposal. Residents and their families were also consulted.

12 months later the proposal has been withdrawn from the Councils forward decision making programme. Difficulties in negotiating the new access are blamed for the project being shelved.

In January 2018 the then Director Martin Farren outlined the position

“The future of Haxby Hall is a key part of our Older Persons’ Accommodation Programme which looks to address the needs of York’s fast-growing older population by expanding and modernising care provision across the city.

“This report looks at options to safeguard the future of Haxby Hall older persons’ home and procure a provider who will deliver and operate improved, modern care facilities”.

The bids for the takeover were due to be received in September 2018. It was likely that residents would be decanted to other homes while work took place, with the new home scheduled to open in 2020.

No update has been given to any public meeting since then.

The latest delays follow problems at Oakhaven Elderly Persons home which has been empty for two years.

A facility scheduled to be provided at Burnholme is also understood to be delayed.

No detailed planning application has been submitted by the Council for the development of elderly persons facilities at the Lowfields site (although a, much more controversial, commercial housing development did get planning permission there a few months ago)

The Council is also pressing ahead with closing Windsor House which has specialised in providing support for those with dementia

All in all, we think that there is a need for some public reassurances about the timescales which now apply to the Councils Elderly Persons Strategy!

Empty elderly persons accommodation an increasing problem in York

Oakhaven

The enthusiasm shown by the York Council in moving elderly people out of their homes is being questioned.

Some empty Elderly Persons Homes have yet to be reused

We highlighted the neglected state of Willow House last month. It has been empty for over a year.

..but this pales to insignificance when you consider what has happened at Oakhaven on York Road.

Residents moved out of the building 3 years ago.

In 2015 the Council announced that a new facility would be built there as part of a plan to provide 525 new elderly persons places “before the end of 2018”. Work at Oakhaven was timetabled to be complete with the new facility ready for occupation by May 2018.  We said at the time “Given the Council’s shambolic record on project management, we doubt if we will see any improvements much before the end of the decade”.

More than a year ago the Council said that a new facility would not open until “2019 at the earliest”.

There is still no sign of work starting.

Oakhaven site plans published earlier in the year

In February the Councils preferred operator for a new facility Ashley House – who had been appointed in March 2017 – consulted on a proposed design but nothing more was heard about the plans.

No redevelopment timetable has been published by the Council and an update report doesn’t even figure in the Councils forward plan which cover the period up to the end of March. There will be an item on the November Executive agenda but this refers only to Lincoln Court and Glen Lodge

There has been  some short term use of the buildings to house potentially homeless people but these are now well catered for by a  new building at James Street

In the meantime, the delays will mean more pressure on hospital beds as managers struggle during the winter period to find suitable accommodation into which recovering older people can be transferred.

That was the year that was: Jan 2017 – Mar 2017

The year began with mixed news about the city centre economy. Visitor numbers were beginning to increase and would be sustained for most of the rest of the year. However, empty shops continued to blight key roads like Coney Street. 12 months later that problem remains.

The NHS continued to be a major concern during 2017. There were early problems when the number of delayed discharges remained stubbornly high. A & E waiting times were also a problem

The community Stadium would also be a recurring issue during the year. After several false dawns, a nominal start was made “on site” in December.

The cost to taxpayers remains high and there are continuing concerns about the viability of parts of the £44 million project.

It will be summer 2019 before it becomes clearer what the final costs will be and, critically, whether any ongoing taxpayers subsidy will be required.

The stadium itself,though, should now have a stable future with most of its cost being paid for through Section 106 monies which were  first brokered in 2010.

  As part of the stadium deal, the long term future of the Yearsley swimming pool was confirmed


Next up was a decision by the York Council to increase tax rates by 3.7%

Part of this was ring fenced to help deal with the  increased demands of an ageing population.

The Council also increased the rate at which roads and footpaths were being resurfaced – a policy which found favour with most York residents.

Rather less impressive was the Council’s performance in managing its stock of garages. An FOI in February revealed that large numbers were empty at a time when hundreds were on the waiting list for garages. 10  months later, and the list of blocks where there are vacancies has not changed. Yet there has still been little publicity aimed at securing a regular rental income.

House prices started to rise in the City. Even in the suburbs purchase of a starter home required someone to be earning over £30,000 a year

Some good news in February as work started on the Layerthorpe links road. It would open later in the year bringing relief to the Foss Islands Road and Heworth parts of the City

There was trouble on the west of the City. The Councils plans to develop the Lowfields playing field attracted major objections. As part of the project an alternative elderly persons home had been planned for the Oakhaven site on York Road. and the Council announced a contractor for the project.

The plan remains on the back burner with controversy extending to plans to relocate the Acomb Police station and demolish the adjacent Carlton Tavern.  Doubts about the future of the Tavern continue into 2018

The first in a series of revelations, about the way in which the Council appointed contractors to deliver policies, became public. It appeared that a consultant was appointed on a “results” basis contract. The result required was the delivery of the Lowfields redevelopment…. irrespective of the views of local residents.

Another long running saga started when auditors questioned the way in which the last Labour led Council had appointed consultants. Some Councillors insisted on the report being made public. This was done, but in a redacted format. Later in the year a copy was leaked to the media with the names of the people concerned included. This was to lead to a major row which even today looks like it could end the coalition agreement which has run the Council since 2015.

 

The Authorities neglected problems with vehicle speeds. The 20-mph speed limit project had failed with average speeds, on some roads with the new lower limit, having increased. Many flashing speed warning signs were found to be faulty. The North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner decided to double the number of speed vans on the streets of the county. It later transpired that they were deployed mainly on trunk roads where they were pretty much guaranteed to catch large numbers of speeders. In turn drivers were charged to attend “awareness” courses, the income from which was used to pay for the vans. The Police, in response to an FOI request, said that they didn’t monitor whether average speed levels at camera sites were reducing. Neither could they say whether the number of accidents on the same stretches of road had reduced. Meanwhile, in sub-urban areas the promised “reassurance” visits from the vans, never materialised. 

The Council was having a difficult time keeping its signs in working order. After 3 years, City centre “Variable Message Signs” were repaired but the car parking space availability signs are still not working despite faults being discovered in 2014. 

The Council got planning permission for its £12 million scheme to redevelop the Guildhall complex. Unfortunately it couldn’t find a commercial partner for the plan so the considerable risk for the project will fall on taxpayers. Work on the project has just started.

The Planning committee had a mixed year. It had earlier approved an ugly visitor centre at Cliffords Tower. This decision led to a judicial review with the fate of the centre still in doubt.

Nearby they gave planning permission for an Art Barge which was to be moored on the Ouse. Warnings about the wisdom of mixing alcohol and river safety were ignored. The barge was last seen moored in the Foss basin.

But perhaps the biggest planning controversy of the year concerned the shipping container village on Piccadilly.  As we will see in the next part of our review of the year, the containers arrived but the customers did not. 

In the west of the City, York High school got a poor OFSTED report. Later the head teacher was to resign and plans to turn the school into an “academy” were revealed. 

One change that did go through, with relatively few problems, were revisions to recycling collection days.

On 1st April areas which did not have wheeled bins were also added the system for the first time. 

Carlton Tavern to be demolished

..as Council prepares to oppose development plans for former Sugar Works on Boroughbridge Road

Planning committee Councillors voted last night to approve a proposal to demolish the Carlton Tavern and replace it with an elderly care facility.  Ironically the decision was taken on the casting vote of a Chairman who would not have been in that position had he not been arbitrarily removed from his Executive post in September by the Council Leader.  With a different Chair, the decision might have gone the other way, although the applicants would no doubt feel that they would have had a good chance of winning the inevitable subsequent appeal.

Next up, in an important series of planning decisions pending on the Acomb side of the City, is consideration of plans for the Sugar Works and former Manor school site on Boroughbridge Road.

The Council has dithered for over 3 years in getting this, apparently ideal, brown field housing site off the drawing board. The owners finally lost patience and have appealed to the Secretary of State to intervene on grounds of “non-determination” by the York Council. The planning application was first submitted in 2014.

Consultation had started in 2013

Bizarrely the Planning committee must now formally say whether they would have approved the application had it been presented to them.

They are being asked to consider “the development of the site comprising up to 1,100 residential units, community uses (D1/D2) and new public open space with details of access (to include new access points at Millfield Lane and Boroughbridge Road and a new link road, crossing the Former Manor School Site) and demolition of the Former Manor School buildings”

Officials are recommending that the proposal be opposed.

They list many deficiencies in the plan while acknowledging that the site was slated for housing development in the Draft Local Plan tabled in 2011 (by the then LibDem led Council), by the Labour Council in their 2014 Draft Local Plan and again by the new Coalition administration last year.

The main reasons for refusing the application are listed as:

  • Inadequate financial contributions toward pre-school, primary school, secondary school funding and off-site sports provision
  • The absence of any affordable housing

There has been a lot of talk recently about allocating the former Manor School playing field as a public park. In 2012 the then Labour controlled Council identified the need for a more central area of public open space as part of a “community hub” on the site.

Over 9 ha is identified in the current proposals for this purpose (In addition an “off site” new cricket pitch will be provided).

In 2013 the Council sold the former Manor School site, including the playing fields, to ABF – the current planning applicants. The sale was not conditional.

At the very least, the planning meeting should determine whether centralised or peripheral open space is the desired way forward for this development.

NB Proposals to develop the Lowfields playing fields will go before the Planning committee in January.

Applications are also expected soon for the former Oakhaven elderly persons home site on Acomb Road, the adjacent police buildings and for the redevelopment of Windsor House in Ascot Way