Search Results for: "Guildhall project" ...

Castle/Piccadilly round 3

Economic impact assessment on City Centre economy missing

After a delay of 18 years, the Council are to make another attempt to get planning permission for a redevelopment of the Castle/Piccadilly area (Castle Gateway).

It is long overdue.

The City centre has changed a lot since the last planning application failed at a public Inquiry.

Two decades ago it seemed that the City centre economy would continue to depend on the retail sector to provide its main attraction. There were hopes that “anchor” large stores provided in the Piccadilly area would sustain the retail economy in the face of competition from out of town stores and the, then just emerging, trend to shop “on line”.

But that option has all but disappeared. Larger shops in the City centre are finding conditions difficult with the once premier destination – Coney Street – now containing several long term empty units.

The Council has therefore rightly published plans for the Castle area which do not relay principally on retail development.

Instead, yesterday, a much-leaked report majors on City centre living space, a possible Castle Museum extension and some independent shopping units.  There is no place for the hoped-for airspeed museum which could have occupied the ground floor of the 17/21 Piccadilly possibly as part of a restaurant use – a possible missed opportunity given the need to stimulate visits to the Elvington airfield museum.

The Castle car park will close with the design team saying that the resultant green space will provide an entertainment space for 365 days a year (revealing a touchingly optimistic view of climate change).

There may be a similar level of wishful thinking in proposing to build apartments and a £10 million multi story car park with 400 spaces on the flood plain on St Georges field, although the plans to allow public swimming in the Foss Basin may provide a prescient transport option for occupants when water levels are high.

The officers report says, “any funding gap in delivering the full ambition of the masterplan can be responded to through scaling back the proposals, identifying external funding sources, or the council providing capital funding through the budget setting process

The estimated total costs of the project – which are the costs of delivering the entire public realm, infrastructure, and the new MSCP – is £30m. The potential gross surplus income from the council owned residential and commercial development opportunities is £22.5m”.

So where next?

There are several good ideas in the Council’s published plan which deserve to be developed further. The first step should be to publish a candid impact statement indicating how other City centre businesses will be affected.

The number of public parking spaces available is crucial. The Castle car park is York’s best used despite the surface being badly rutted. It produces over £1.2 million in revenue for the Council. To this should be added an income stream from the Castle Mills car park (recently closed). The Piccadilly car park has been less well used since the advance space availability signs stopped working 4 years ago.

Adequate car parking capacity is vital for the retail economy and visitor attractions (which are open outside park and ride hours). People don’t expect to have to carry heavy luggage or shopping for long distances.  Walking distances are important. The proposed 4 story car park at St Georges field would be a 716 metre walk to the end of Parliament Street. By comparison the distance from Piccadilly is 95 metres, from the Castle car park is 275 metres and from Castle Mills 461 metres.

The is always a danger in publishing idealised artist impressions of new developments. They invariably portray a mature green environment on a sunny summers day. The reality on a wet, November evening may be markedly less attractive.

The Council must now do two things before it proceeds any further

  1. It must produce a realistic (best case/worst case) economic impact assessment &
  2. It must abandon any thought of being the developer for the commercial elements of the scheme. It has already been shown to be inept both at the Guildhall (project abandoned, £12 million of taxpayers money at risk) and the Monks Cross stadium development (public subsidy increased from zero in 2010 to at least £13 million today) Let the professionals get on with it.

Otherwise it is a worthy attempt to reconcile wildly differing opinions on a site which is crying out for redevelopment.

Layout plans

York Council to contribute £18,000 to new City Centre tourist signpost trial

In a behind closed doors decision, the York Council has agreed to spend £18,000 on new “Totem” signposting in the City centre.

A project, backed by the York BID and apparently with the approval of the York Civic Trust, will cost £36,000 for the trial in total The sum is mainly being spent on consultant’s fees but will result in some trial “Totems” being deployed.

The report goes on to say, “If the trial is successful and the programme is rolled out, this would need a significant contribution from both parties (for) which the BID has made provision and the authority would need to determine its position as a Council later in the Year”.

It is unclear how much this project may end up costing taxpayers and whether the funding would come from the “Make it York” organisation which now handles the city’s tourism budget.

The decision – taken by a Council official – is likely to widen the gap between the expectations of residents living in sub-urban areas and City centre focussed institutions.

Existing signs

Recently a commitment was made to fund a replacement for the Parliament Street fountain while additional expenditure may also result from the decision to make the revised Fossgate one-way system permanent.

There is a big question mark over the costs of maintaining the Guildhall now that the Council’s “business centre” project has collapsed. There are similar financial question marks about the Castle/Piccadilly redevelopment and York Central.

In residential areas, people are increasingly concerned about the quality of local highways. Many street nameplates are also  in need of repair. Public service standards are under unprecedented pressure.

Residents may feel that – unless paid for by business – the existing city centre direction signs will be adequate to meet needs.

After all, increasing number of people use “on line” maps and smart phones to find their way around.

Additional street furniture may actually represent a backwards step.

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. 

Muddle, confusion and fabrication – York Council approach to Lowfields planning application

Many residents living in the Lowfields area were surprised to get a letter last week from the Councils Housing Directorate. The letter told them that two planning applications had been submitted which would lead to the development of the whole of the Lowfields site.

The letter quoted reference numbers. 17/02428/FUL, covering roads and housing, and 17/02429/OUTM covering “the whole site including self-build, community housing, care home and health facilities”

It turns out that someone jumped the gun as these applications still do not appear on the “planning on line” web site  https://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications//

The letter claims that there have been changes made following the last consultation with residents in the summer. The Council fails to highlight what these changes are.

The housing department also claims 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.

The usable green space, on the plans that have been published so far, show an area of useable amenity land which is similar in size to the small area which lies at the junction of Dijon Avenue and Lowfield Drive.

The Council has blundered if it is canvassing for support – at taxpayers’ expense – for a scheme which is subject to a planning application. There is a long-standing protocol that, where a local authority is both the landowner and the planning authority, then it must behave in an impartial way. That principle has been breached already. It is likely to increase the pressure for the proposal to be called in by central government for determination.

Perhaps even more extraordinary, was a claim made by the Tory Councillor responsible for housing on Friday who said that the houses would be built by the Council. It would be the “biggest housing development by the Council since 1988”

It emerged today that no such decision has been taken.

The media release which led to the story in the media – and apparently issued by the Council – was not published on their web site 

Indeed, with only 20% of the properties likely to be affordable, there would be little incentive for the Council to take on the burden of appointing professional staff to project manage what would only be a 3-year project.

Private house builders have been subject to the 20% rule for over a decade and could produce homes more quickly and economically.

You only have to look at the delays dogging Council building projects (Mansion House, Guildhall, York Central, Community Stadium) to see why any entry into the speculative housing building market would be viewed with alarm by taxpayers.

Mansion House renovation behind schedule?

Mansion House 1729

Further delays in reopening the Mansion House in York, following restoration works, are forecast.

In December last year the media reported that local building company William Birch had taken over from Ainlays when the latter entered administration. The expectation was that the new arrangements would mean a delay of around 12 months on the original reopening date.

The Council said that the Mansion House would reopen in “mid-summer”.  It later confirmed 25th June as the completion date for building work

As we enter October, scaffolding still surrounds the building with no immediate prospect of reopening apparently in sight.

The Mansion House closed in September 2015 when the then Lord Mayor, for a while, appeared to refuse to leave the building pending the provision of an alternative residence.

Subsequent Lord Mayors have also not had access to the building.

Now the £9 million, 2-year, refurbishment project at the adjacent Guildhall is due to get underway, further limiting access to the House.

The last edition of the Mansion House newsletter (Opening Doors) was published in March.

Their website talks of a “reopening in late 2017”.

The restoration work is costing £1.6 million.

The shipping containers are coming – shock as “Containergate” shopping plan gets Council leadership backing

New proposal for Castle car park development

Sea containers to be parked on Piccadilly?

Shipping containers to be parked on Piccadilly

The York Council’s Executive has tonight approved plans to site shipping containers on Piccadilly.  They will form a shopping and business centre on the former Reynard’s garage site and could be there for 3 years.

Guildhall ward Labour and Green Councillors supported the proposal!

The project is subject to planning approval.

Normally residents would expect the Planning committee to throw out such an insensitive plan. They did insist that landscaping be improved around the  same site when permission was granted to demolish the garage building a year or so ago.

However, the committee’s recent decision to approve a poor quality visitor centre building, at a nearby Clifford’s Tower site, means that they cannot be relied on to protect this part of the City.

The Executive’s decision means that the short term plans to use the Piccadilly site as a car park for blue badge (disabled) drivers is unlikely to be progressed.

santa-in-container-in-york

New Castle car park development plan

New plans for the development of the Castle car park have been announced. They have been inspired by the emerging shipping container architectural movement as well as the English Heritage public convenience school of design

cliffords-tpwer-and-new-building

Prominent York residents and organisations have had their say on the plans.

  • English Heritage – The vertical columns ideally complement the similar design feature on our visitor centre. The Maersk elevations offer a complex counterpoint to the Norman buttresses on the Castle. All in all, something we would be proud of.
  • R Cooke (Author, Changing the Face of the City) – An impressive example of neo-Immingham brutalism.  Helicopter pads should remove need for direction signs. May require some refinement and relocation to Rotterdam
  • York Georgian Society – The containers are only acceptable if they have previously been used to transport molasses or slaves.
  • Walter Brierley (architect, deceased) – Just a minute I need to rotate a few times
  • Rachel Rascal (MP) – Hang on I’ll have to check. How big is the bandwagon of the opponents of the plan? How many wheels does the supporters bandwagon have? ……..  Oh dear this is a bit difficult.
  • C Steward (Con) – Ruddy liberals. mention mutual social enterprise and they’ll all over it.
  • N Ayre (Lib) – It is wonderfully intrusive. A little higher and it would block out that ghastly Cathedral building.

New energy efficiency grants available in York

A new two-year project to help improve the energy efficiency of the private homes of lower-income households in York is being launched this week by City of York Council.

cavity-wall-insulation-illustration-244136Grants and loans will be available to less well off households towards the cost of cavity wall and loft insulation. A small number of grants are also available to insulate loft extensions and solid walls.

Households with annual incomes below £20,000 per year could receive 100 per cent funding whilst those with annual incomes between £20,000 and £35,000 could receive 75 per cent towards the cost of the improvements.

Qualifying households will be in the five priority wards:

  • Micklegate,
  • Guildhall,
  • Holgate,
  • Clifton and
  • Fishergate.

These have been identified as having higher numbers of poorly-insulated privately rented or owned homes and where households suffer higher rates of fuel poverty.

City of York Council will be working with Willmott Dixon to deliver these energy efficiency measures through the Better Homes Yorkshire framework set up to support the ten local authorities in the Leeds City Region to work together to secure funding and improve properties.

This funding follows the council’s Northern Health and Housing Summit ‘Better Homes, Better Health’ held in York in June this year, when the impact of cold and how to tackle it was a central theme.

Research commissioned by the council from the Building Research Establishment identified that cold homes are associated with a range of poor health outcomes such as respiratory andcirculatory problems, and can exacerbate certain conditions including asthma, diabetes. Recovery following hospital discharge can also take longer and sometimes increases the risk of conditions such as depression and anxiety.

Eligible residents living in the priority wards who need cavity wall or loft insulation should contact the council’s Housing Standards and Adaptations team on 01904 552300 or email housing.standards@york.gov.uk. Residents not living in these wards but who have low incomes with high heating costs may also be eligible for help and should also call 01904 552300.

For help with energy debts or other advice contact Citizens Advice York on 03444 111 444, visit www.yorkcab.org.uk; or contact Age UK York on 01904 627995.
(more…)

£200,000 for consultant’s report on a York Council housing stock transfer is “premature”

With the York Council showing little inclination or ability to bring several major change projects to a conclusion (Guildhall, York Central, Community Stadium, ring road improvements etc.), you would think that the last thing they would want to do is add another project to a growing list.Facts 4

It seems not, as the “Executive” is set on reopening the debate about whether to hive off its Council Housing activities. It is little more than a decade since tenants rejected the idea of having their tenancies transferred to either a Housing Association or quasi-independent “arm’s length company”.

It’s not as though the Council’s decision to outsource activities like econ
omic Facts 2development/tourism/markets has been an outstanding success. The bodies are largely self-serving and unaccountable (while still sucking in large amounts of public money).

It seems that Tories in the city want to rid themselves of Council housing responsibilities in the wake of the central government decision to reduce rent levels by 1% a year until 2019 (an attempt to reduce the cost of rent rebates). This could eat into the £3 million+ a year surplus that the York housing account currently makes.

Facts 1Confusion also surrounds the government’s plan to force Council’s to sell vacant “higher value” Council houses on the open market, to help to subsidise the sale of housing association properties to their tenants.

The effects of both these policies are far from clear. It is at least possible that social housing sales to sitting tenants will be very low even with the substantial discounts.

Council house management in York is far from perfect. We have often criticised the maintenance regime on communal areas and garage blocks. But that requires a change in management attitudes. It does not suggest a change in ownership and with it a loss of democratic accountability.Facts 3

 Spending £200,000 on employing consultants to engineer change is both profligate and premature.  It won’t produce a single extra affordable rent property in the City.

The effects of government policy will be clearer in a couple of years’ time.  The Council should concentrate its limited resources on other more pressing issues in the meantime.

Report extarct

York Council meeting to debate EU referendum fall out

Three of the four motions up for debate at the York Council meeting on 21st July spring directly or indirectly form the result of the referendum.

Big City smallStrangest is one from an Independent Councillor who spectacularly mixes up cause and effect when asking the government to reduce housing targets because international (in the case meaning the EU) migration will fall in the future. 

The growth in housing numbers in York is mainly driven by economic expansion targets. Many would say that the numbers included in the Local Plan are over ambitious but would the Council have the courage to scale down its job creation forecasts?

We think not.

If 13,000 (net) new jobs are created over the next 20 years, then those who will fill them are already alive somewhere. Only a very small number – because of York’s low unemployment rate – already live in the City. That means that many more will be inward migrants either from elsewhere in this country or from overseas.

The real issue is not immigration – it is getting a balance in economic growth targets which preserves the character of the built and natural environment of the City.

Residents have an opportunity over the next few weeks to have their say on how that issue can be reconciled.

Elsewhere Labour Councillors are seeking action against racist intimidation, the Tories want more on bus information systems while the LibDem Councillors will be seeking to ensure that Yorkshire keeps its current level of government funding (at risk because of EU exit).

Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to guarantee that York will still receive millions in EU funding and that the positive contribution EU citizens living in the city make is recognised.

The Lib Dems will move a motion at next week’s Full Council saying the Government should ensure that York and Yorkshire receives investment at least equal to that planned to be provided by EU programmes. Between now and 2020, the region will directly receive £661m from European programmes to support small businesses, help residents find work, and support farmers and rural communities.

The motion says that in future negotiations, the UK’s vital trading relationship with the EU should be protected and the Government should put in place a support package to help local businesses deal with the short-term economic shock and the transition to the UK’s new relationship with the EU. The Lib Dems are also calling for the rights of the 5,000 plus EU citizens currently working and living in the city to be protected. (more…)

York Council debts creeping up

The latest figures published this week show that the total Council debt stands at £319 million.

Borrowing May 2016

 

It is forecast to peak at £350 million in 2017 with new commitments like the Community Stadium, the York Central development and Guildhall office project all set to add to the overall debt.

Other projects like the so called community hub being constructed at Burnholme and the rest of the elderly person’s accommodation building programme could also add to the debt burden.

The figures mean that, in 2017, every Council taxpayer will pay £36 in interest charges on the borrowing.

The Council has been criticised for failing to get expenditure – and borrowing – under control with a string of recent decisions adding to the burden being placed on taxpayers.