The Council has revealed that it intends to opt out of changes to planning laws which would have allowed building owners to change use from commercial to residential without the expense involved in submitting a planning application.
The move is likely to be a blow to those hoping to bring empty commercial properties back into use.
The Council say that demand for city centre business premises is buoyant in York.
Labours already unpopular plan to expand the City’s size by 25% over the next 15 years is attracting more and more criticism
The Council has for many years targeted a growth in jobs of around 1000 per year. There are currently 3053 unemployed people in York. That is 2.3% of the population. There will always be some unemployed as people seek to change jobs or who find that they do not have the skills to match the vacancies available.
So there are relatively few in York who are seeking work compared to the rest of Yorkshire where 4.9% are unemployed.
The job growth figures are, however, not being achieved by the current Council.
According to the latest census data the City’s population grew, on average, by 1% pa during the last decade. That was a time of economic prosperity. The growth did include some students who do need one housing unit per person (new build) . However, that growth cannot go on for ever.
A growth of 1% pa implies a need to provide about 400 additional homes each year assuming an occupancy rate of 2 persons per property. (In York we have around 2.3 people per property on average).
There is some catching up to do to deal with overcrowding/aspirations etc so 600 pa was a reasonable target. That was the figure supported by the then Liberal Democrat led Council in February 2011 when York’s Local Plan was first unveiled.
The plan restricted development to sites which already had planning permission plus those on brownfield (previously developed) sites.
Although there is enough land with planning permission to build over 3000 new homes, last year only around 300 were actually delivered.
In June 2011, following a local election victory, Labour amended the draft Local Plan. They upped the land supply to 800 units per year although they didn’t identify where the additional homes would be built.
Developments planned for Westfield Ward
They voted in June 2011 to confirm the current (draft) green belt boundaries.
Now it seems that Labour plan to produce more additional homes than new jobs
With around 4000 York residents on the housing waiting list, it is unclear why Labour want to build 22,000?
Most would be on greenfield sites.
They are clearly assuming that many of the new jobs will be filled by inward migrants from other parts of the country.
Labour’s plans are reckless and won’t be delivered. But they will cast blight across parts of the City for a decade or more
To see how the Council’s plans have changed over the last 2 years click here: February 2011
NB In the Westfield Ward three sites for additional homes have been identified in Labour’s plan
• Lowfield School where 72 homes will be built on 2.24 hectares of land
• Land off Askham Lane (actually Foxwood Lane) where 42 homes would be built on 1.3 hectares (this site is one of those being taken out of the current draft green belt)
• Our Lady’s Primary School 29 homes on 0.68 Hectares
Apparently they plan to build on 640 hectares of land; much of this will be at green field sites.
They have quoted a (laughable) figure of 1090 new homes built each year with a total new build of 22,000.
That is twice the size of Huntington and Haxby combined or 20 times the size of Copmanthorpe!
Annual house building rates in York are currently below 300 a year.
This isn’t because of a limited supply of building land.
Thousands of potential homes could be built at previously developed sites like British Sugar, York Central, Nestle South and Terry’s not to mention other sites with planning permission such as Germany Beck and Derwenthorpe.
Low building completions have more to do with mortgage availability and onerous planning conditions.
The release of huge amounts of green belt land for building is likely to depress land values but it will also depress the value of existing homes leaving many ordinary people with “negative equity” problems.
And the effect on public services would be devastating. The City’s roads are already crumbling. Congestion is a major issue on many transport links near Labours “new villages”. Flooding and poor drainage cause chaos in the City. Many schools have limited spare space. The health service is under pressure.
Nor would it do much to help the affordable housing problem. The Council would be fortunate to get a 25% “affordable” contribution from these (privately owned) new sites .
There are over 4500 people on the housing waiting list although most are living in overcrowded accommodation (so they would free up a property for a smaller family when they move on).
A huge indiscriminate increase in the availability of empty houses would simply mean the City would – towards the end of the 15 year plan period – have to accommodate more inward migration.
It could become a dormitory town for Leeds.
But perhaps that is part of Labours real plan.
Over the next few days we will publish an analysis of the Labours building proposals and impact that they could have on our City and on local communities.
The once endangered Great Crested Newt is threatening to overwhelm the City. The media are reporting that, what was thought to be a small colony of 30 newts living on the site of the new Community Football and Rugby Stadium at Monks Cross, had grown to over 300 in a matter of weeks.
The building project there has been put on hold while the newts are rehoused.
They have been placed on the housing waiting list with a “gold” banding.
Early indications, that the newts could be offered some of the vacant single bedroomed accommodation available in the City,have been jettisoned after experts revealed that colonies liked to “live together”.
New “Houses in Multiple Occupation” rules mean that a new communal home may have to be built. Housing Chief Tra Cee Lang said, “Well at least we’ll be able to build it on the flood plain”.
Cllr D’Green blamed climate change for the population explosion. “Basically we believe that the colony, discovered at another development site at German Beck, have been carried on flood water to Monks Cross. With the gene pool there reinvigorated, heaven knows where the population growth will end. I’m going to agree to rent my spare bedroom to two of them but I’m not sure how I am going to get them out of the bath each morning”.
Environment Chief Leftie Levene said, “Oh no, not bl**dy newts as well”.
Conservative Councillors are proposing a motion at Thursdays Council meeting which could help to raise the curtain of secrecy which descended when Labour took control 18 months ago. (http://tinyurl.com/York-Council-motions-13th-Dec) They are right to do so. Important decisions are being taken behind closed doors. Agendas are not published and officer reports remain confidential until decisions have been taken.
We doubt, however, if the paranoid Leadership of the Council will support the move.
In the meantime, the Council has to respect the legislation passed by the last government. One of the rights it gives is for Councillors to ask questions of those holding Cabinet/Executive responsibilities.
So on Thursday around 50 questions have been tabled. Although some are mundane in the extreme, others could provide information which could be of interest to residents. Some examples:
• EMPTY SHOPS “What proportion of retail and office space is currently empty in each of the City’s sub-urban wards and how does this compare to the City Centre? How much of the “Innovation & Delivery Fund” and the “Economic Infrastructure Fund” does the Cabinet Leader intend to allocate to regeneration initiatives in sub-urban employment centres such as Acomb Front Street?”
• COUNCIL HQ COSTS “Why is the Council purchasing 2405 new seats for the new Council offices when fewer than 1000 staff and visitors are likely to be in the building at any one time?” “What proportion of the furniture at the new HQ will be reused units from the existing offices?”
• CHARGES FOR SPORTS “Following the latest Cabinet decisions, the level of concessionary charges for pensioners playing bowls on public greens will have doubled since Labour took over the leadership of the Council 18 months ago. How many concessionary tickets for this activity have been sold in each of the last 2 years, how much income has this produced for the Council and what are the forecast sales for 2013?”
• CHARGES FOR SPORTS “In September the Cabinet promised to build on the legacy of the Olympics and improve sports participation in York. How does this fit with the plans to increase tennis court charges by 16.7% and 33% for concessions?”
• CARE VILLAGE DELAYS “The Cabinet agreed an April 2014 completion date for the new ‘Care Village’ which is to be built on the former Lowfields School site. When does the Cabinet Member now expect the new Lowfields Care Village will be completed and available for occupation? What are the reasons for any delay?”
• HOUSING WAITING LIST “How many people were registered on the housing waiting list in York when:
– The Cabinet Member took up post
– At the end of November 2012
How many additional social housing units have been occupied, and how many “new starts” on affordable housing units have been made, over the same period of time?”
• WONDERLAND “Following 2012’s ‘Illuminating York’ debacle, will the Cabinet Member assure the council that the 2013 event will revert to its previous successful format?”
Few raised an eyebrow a fortnight ago when the Local Ombudsman criticised the York Council for putting a family into what was too small a property to meet their needs. The local Labour MP had joined in the condemnation earlier in the year but the Council refused to rethink their action. Eventually the Council was forced to admit its error. No one was really surprised when, rather than the Cabinet member for Housing accepting any responsibility, a junior officer was rolled out to face the media backlash.
Similarly today we learn that the housing waiting list has increased by 50% since Labour took control of the local Council. Apparently it’s the fault of landlords. No blame can be attached to Labours decision not to seek funding for the construction of more Council houses then.
More difficult to wriggle on was the responsibility for the Gunpowder “Plod” debacle.
In August the Cabinet member for Leisure glowed in the local media as she launched the event. “We pledged last year that York would commemorate November 5, 2012, in style”. “We’ve been working hard with partners to ensure this happens” she trilled as she posed for photos with the Rat Race team.
So enthusiastic was she to be associated with the event that her photo appeared for 3 months on the Plod web site.
With friends like James Alexander around you are guaranteed a bit of mutual backslapping on social media sites like “Twitter”.
James Alexander click to enlarge
So on 3rd November he proudly announced that Cllr Crisp was responsible for bringing both “Plod” and an event called “Kaboom” which was held in Rawcliffe Country Park, to the City.
Early on 5th November, Cllr Crisp responded with enthusiasm. “fun, fireworks, frolics and festivities” she tweeted as she settled down to enjoy the Knavesmire “spectacle”.
Sonja Crisp click to enlarge
By 10:05 she was labelling Kaboom and Plod as both “fantastic”
At 11;22pm she tweeted to anyone still awake that “she hadn’t heard the booing”
On 6th November the story had changed. Bitter disappointment was surfacing in the media with hundreds complaining. Cllr Crisp responded by tweeting “It was not a Council organised event”.
Perhaps she should have been more discrete. She’d had some practice.
The previous week the Mayor of Blackpool (really) had launched the Blunderland light show in York’s Museum Gardens.
Cllr Crisp worked out that this might seem strange to many residents and tried to do a runner.
Unfortunately the photographer (see above) got there before she could exit stage right!
City of York Council, Yorkshire Housing and the Homes and Communities Agency have agreed a deal to buy two private housing developments that had stalled due to the poor market conditions.
The Rise at Pately Place, Acomb, was to provide 23 apartments for open market sale, but following the credit crunch several housebuilders were unable to complete the homes leaving an unfinished building development in the hands of the receivers.
The original planning permission for the scheme was granted under the pre-2005 affordable housing policy, where developments under 25 homes did not have to provide affordable housing. However, all 23 homes will now be available at affordable rents through Yorkshire Housing. Six of the homes are prioritised for council and housing association tenants who would like to ‘downsize’ from a family
house to an apartment releasing larger homes for families on the housing waiting list.
Yorkshire Housing has also bought 27 apartments at Birch Park, Huntington, 10 of which will also be prioritised for tenants wishing to downsize. Birch Park initially had 43 affordable homes secured under the council’s affordable housing policy but the development stalled in 2010 because of the lack of sales on the open market. By working with the housebuilder, work has progressed, and 102 of the homes are now for affordable rent or discount sale, increasing the scheme’s affordable housing from 22 per cent to 50 per cent.
”This is a great example of the council working with its partners to ensure that developers are able to keep building in difficult market conditions as well as providing high-quality new affordable homes. Creating affordable housing has provided developers with the certainty of sales and enabled them to continue the development against a backdrop of a challenging private housing market”
A report to a Council meeting next week offers a limited insight into the York Councils property dealings. It comes at an opportune time with various other Councils having been badly burnt recent by injudicious investments in land and property. Croydon and the Cambridgeshire County Council are both heading for the local government equivalent of bankruptcy.
Against that background taxpayers might would hope for York Councillors to now to adopt a more measured approach to investment. The commercial property market is likely – in the wake of the pandemic – to remain depressed for some time. It is not a good time to sell assets.
Instead we find a plan to borrow an additional £4 million on top of the £384 million already committed. That is a debt of nearly £2000 for every man, woman, and child in the City. 20% of tax payments will have to go towards paying interest charges.
This has remained empty since occupants were moved out – prematurely as it turned out – in 2016. The sale for a new care home to Ashley House fell through in early 2017. No attempt was made to find even a temporary use for the site which occupies a prime location near to local amenities and good transport links. Maintenance expenditure on the empty building continued to fall on taxpayers. Now the council is proposing an “off-market” sale to regional care home operator, Burlington Care Limited. The size of the offer has not been revealed. Ironically, the officer report admits “An open market exercise may be impacted by COVID 19 suppressing property values. The council budget has been significantly impacted by COVID and there is a need to realise value from vacant assets in the near future”
Another former care home, which has been empty for nearly 5 years, is Willow House. It is on a prime site located next to the city walls. The site was nearly sold for student housing in 2017 but ran into planning difficulties. Other offers were ignored by the Council and an offer from a company which utilises empty residential accommodation to accommodate the homeless in return for caretaking and security duties, was spurned. Now it seems that the Council intends to build 40 apartments on the site and will probably use its own “Shape” development company to manage the investment. The site is worth more than £2.3 million.
Willow House – empty for 5 years
Morrell House
An elderly person’s home empty since early 2018. No use has been found for the site. It is to be considered for use by “self-builders” but if that is not successful it will be sold on the open market.
Moor Lane car park
This is the site currently in use as a flu vaccination centre. It has mostly been empty for the last 4 years. There has been a lot of developer interest in building on the site. The Council has decided not to include it in the Council house building programme and may therefore sell it on. On the open market – even in these depressed times – it is likely to be worth less per acre than the Willow House site.
The sale of this home to private care home operator “Yorkare” has stalled. COVID is blamed
& the strange ones
Generally, taxpayers have benefited in the long run when the Council has bought land and buildings in the City. There have been exceptions. For example, when the authority impulsively sold the site now occupied by the Hiscox insurance company on Peasholme Green. Had it included a betterment clause in the sale then taxpayers rather than shareholders would have benefited from the subsequent increase in land values.
Knapton Forest
It looks increasingly likely that the purchase of good quality agricultural land near Knapton, with the intention of planting trees on it, may go into the same ill-considered category. When wooded, the area will not have a resale option but will involve an ongoing maintenance liability. 180 acres will support 50,000 broadleaf trees making a, carbon sequestration, contribution to the £1.2 trillion additional trees which would be required on the planet to reverse climate change! The £1 million project is also hailed as a major new passive leisure option for residents although, in truth, it is poorly positioned to make up for the open space lost in recent years to building operations in the City’s poorer areas.
Knapton Forest site
The major issue remains the lack of an environmental impact assessment. The land currently contributes to the local food supply chain. If the land is lost to food production, imports may increase resulting in longer transport chains and – critically – higher carbon emission levels. Storing carbon – like burying nuclear waste – simply pushes a problem onto the next generation.
The key to improving the environment is to reduce carbon emissions. Even the government seemed to recognise this, with its initiative yesterday aimed at replacing gas boilers with heat pumps and other benign energy sources.
Eco centre
The Eco centre is the small business facility at Clifton Moor which was promoted by the Council some 15 years ago. It was provided via a “design and build” contract on Council owned land.
Occupation levels have been encouraging although usually reflecting the general state of the economy. There are 63 individual units there. The Council currently leases back the centre and has managed the facility since 2015. The rent paid by tenant contributions is claimed to offset the current running costs.
Now officials are recommending that the Council spends £3.9 million buying out the interests of the owner of the building. The Council is not revealing how its business case figures stack up, but it claims that it may generate additional income by fitting PV (solar) panels on the roof.
Judged against the current economic volatility this looks like a high-risk strategy.
The plans for the non-listed section of the Guildhall have been an economic “basket case” for several years. The opportunity to sell part of the building for residential, retail or hotel use represented the least risk option and should have been pursued in 2012 when the building first became empty.
Guildhall
Instead, against a background of neglect and rapidly increasing repair costs, the Council opted for a risky plan to establish a hi tech small business start-up centre. The overall viability of the plan depended on letting part of the space as a high-end restaurant. The Council said it would run the unit itself.
£20 million of taxpayers money is at risk.
Now York University, via its Science City offshoot, has apparently offered to lease the business centre space at the Guildhall. Some civic and community use would continue. Science City has a generally good reputation and the offer to get the Council off its, self-inflicted, hook would seem to be an attractive one.
It is unclear how the success of the new enterprise would be judged. It is even less clear how the demand for City centre “incubator” space will mature in the wake of the pandemic.
The restaurant shell building will remain empty awaiting a resurgence of the local visitor economy.
The Council currently has a 9.2% minority stake in York Science Park Ltd. which it would sell.
The lease deal would be “off market” raising once again accusations of a “family and friends” approach to commercial dealings.
“Town and Gown” relations are already stressed in the wake of the pandemic and a perceived lack of accessibility for residents and visitors to the historic Kings Manor buildings in the City centre, which are currently occupied by the University.
The Council has pointedly not published updated business case figures which reflect the new offer being made as well as ongoing concerns about the cost of the renovation project..
Risk Management
On what must be one of the most risky approaches to the financial management of Council owned property, the Risk Management assessment included in the report amounts to only 7 lines of text and concentrates entirely on the planned bid for the Eco centre.
Council report on empty property avoids any comment on its own poor performance
The planning committee yesterday approved plans which would see the former Council offices at Ashbank on Shipton Road converted into apartments.
Ashbank has been empty since 2013.
The news comes a few days before a report on empty property in the City is due to be discussed by the Council’s Executive.
It follows claims in 2018 that the City had a relatively large number of empty properties. At the time that seemed – given local land and property prices – unlikely but the Council agreed to review the issue. The review wasn’t aimed at bringing unused space (e.g. floors above shops) into use but rather focused on those properties where empty property tax relief was being claimed.
Last September the Council increased the Council Tax liability on long term empty homes to 300%.
National statistics confirm that York has the second lowest level of empty homes in the country (after Oxford).
The Council claims that it has helped to bring back in to use 45 long term empty properties, through advice and assistance, since April 2017.
An audit of properties shown as empty on the Council tax database found that 43% of those visited so far are either occupied or about to be occupied.
Only 150 (27%) of properties visited were found to be empty. Nearly half of these empty homes were undergoing refurbishment, currently up for sale or let or awaiting site redevelopment.
In only 10% of the cases (15 properties) the owner appeared to have no immediate plans to bring the property back in to use.
One unintended consequence of the audit may be that some owners, who have been claiming empty property tax relief, may find that they now receive a substantial bill.
The report pointedly fails to mention the Councils own housing stock. Leaving aside delays in re-letting Council houses, the list of empty properties owned by the Council – which includes some residential homes – clearly merits further investigation.
Whether the Council’s Executive will order a probe into their own performance will become clear at next Thursday’s meeting
Council officials are recommending to a Planning committee meeting next week, that a flat in the Gale Farm Court sheltered accommodation building – which is provided for the use of elderly residents – be converted into a housing office.
Officials claim that it is the only “rent free” option available
them in Acomb. Currently they rent a room at the Gateway Centre (and the Foxwood
Community Centre).
Gale Farm Court. Plan to convert flat into office
Acomb lost its housing office about 8 years ago. That was a bad move, which prompted a divide between housing managers and the largest concentration of social tenants in the City.
It had been intended to
provide a replacement as part of a “one stop shop” extension to the Acomb library
but that project stalled. Land to the rear of the library had been purchased by
the Council but has remained derelict for over 10 years.
Officials have promised to revive the Acomb Library plan as part of a £2 million refurbishment project. However senior managers ion the housing department say they can’t wait for that work to be competed
At a time when the largest number of people on the housing waiting
list are those requiring one bedroomed accommodation, it seems illogical to
take an existing home out of use.
The office could be in use 12 hours a day and it could prove
to be a difficult neighbour for the several dozen elderly people who live on the
site.
There is also a concern about car parking. Official calm
that users will walk to the office but experience elsewhere suggests that this may
not be the case.
Cllr Andrew Waller is the local Councillor leading the call for
a rethink. He is right to do so.
There is empty property In the Front Street pedestrian area which
could be rented until a permanent new location for a Council office can be
found. Any increase in footfall in the main shopping area would be welcomed by
both traders and residents.
Appropriating scarce residential accommodation is not the
right solution for the Councils office problem.
