Multi storey car park gets planning approval

The proposal to build a multi storey car park on the St Georges Field site received planning permission yesterday. The car park is intended as a replacement for the Castle Car park which would be grassed over.

We have said before that we believe this site is too far from the City centre shops to help to sustain the retail economy.

The Castle car park is the most heavily used in the City. One key reason is that it is within comfortable walking distance for those carrying heavy items of shopping.

The drift to out of city retail centers would continue with the City centre left as a visitor attraction hub sustaining only, what is left of, the pubs and restaurants that may survive the pandemic

The pandemic has changed all the numbers.

It now simply makes no sense to spend £55 million on a scheme which could lose the City much needed jobs

The Council should shelve the plans. They should not be bought off by government financial bribes. The country needs to invest wisely to maximise economic recovery.

The City can tolerate the Castle car park for another decade.

In the interim, the Council can make plans which recognise that personal transport will remain a popular method of moving people from the suburbs and region into the City centre. It is a matter of individual choice.

In future the vehicles used may, however, be battery powered.

The idea of having the area, within the inner road road, designated as an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) may well be one that has now found its time.

The move to home working – and with it greatly reduced congestion and emission levels in the central area – provides the Council with some thinking time.

A quieter City centre would be bad news for many service based shops, hair dressers etc., They will be hoping that visitors would expand to fill the gap in trade left by office workers.

The Councils draft budget for 2021/22 anticipates a £375,000 saving on office costs – a clear indication that the authority itself believes that many staff will never return to West Offices. The same will be true of other City Centre companies

The Councils budget also contains a commitment to borrow £2.5 million to spend on the Castle Piccadilly scheme. In addition the £28.2 million proposals to construct flats at Castle Mills are budgeted separately

That would simply add to the additional interest and redemption costs of £1.6 million which will account for much of the 1.9% increase in Council Tax levels from 1st April. (The remaining 3% hike is earmarked for social care).

So time now for some prudent revisions to the Councils investment plans.

York Councils children’s services facing £5 million overspend

Image result for vulnerable children images

It looks like the budget for children’s specialist services at the York Council will be overspent by 25% during the current financial year.

Much of the deficit arises from increased fostering and adoptions although an extra £1.1 million has been spent on placing vulnerable children in accommodation outside the City.

The Looked After Children population had been stable, in the range 190-210 at any one time, for several years.

However, a report being considered next week reveals a big increase in numbers over the last 2 years.

“In October 2018 there were only 4 individual children in care proceedings. As at the end of September 2020 there were 55 sets of proceedings on 93 individual children in place”.

The report goes on to say, “Safeguarding Interventions are predicted to overspend by approximately £1,139k, mainly due to increases in the Court and Child Protection Teams who are dealing with the increase in cases. Legal fees are predicted to overspend by approximately £220k. Children protection numbers, following a recalibration spike, have now returned to national average levels”.

The projected costs of the local Community Hubs, which were set up at the beginning of lockdown (and have transitioned into a new method of working), is £131,000. This will be funded from the Covid 19 emergency budget provided by the government.

It also looks like the home to school transport budget will also overspend by around £2 million.

“The main increase in numbers have been at post 16/19 where because of the city now being able to provide more specialist education provision for this group of students more locally, subsequently we have had to provide more transport to the likes of York College, Askham Bryan, Choose 2 and Blueberry Academy. The changes in legislation to allow Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) to ages 19-25, resulting in significantly more students accessing this option, has significantly increased our transport spend accordingly”.

The overall net overspend is expected to be £2.5 million after cost savings and a £1.1 million investment from COVID support funding are factored in.

Have your say on City of York Council’s budget

Council Leader on “meet the people” Tour. Budget consultation starts

City of York Council is asking residents and businesses to share their views on the council’s next budget, following the launch of the budget consultation this month.

Early in the New Year, councillors will have to set a budget for the next financial year (2021/22). The impact of the pandemic has been unprecedented and despite the Government’s promise to give councils everything they need, York faces a significant budget gap of over £15 million, an issue that has been compounded by successive years of Government funding cuts.

Whilst the council has continued to provide support for those who need it since the start of the pandemic, the full economic effects of coronavirus on our communities have not yet been fully felt. Therefore, the council’s initial focus for the 2021/22 budget is to stabilise the authority’s financial position, allowing the council to continue to deliver the services which have been so relied upon during this difficult year.

The council will also continue its £600m capital investment programme to accelerate economic recovery, whilst continuing to support local residents, businesses and communities.

This year, there are a number of different ways to get involved and have your say on the council’s next budget:

Complete the paper survey in Your Local Link, which is being distributed to all York households from 15 December. Please send this back to the FREEPOST address provided by Sunday 31 January.
Complete the online survey which closes on Sunday 31 January on our website
Join us for a live Facebook Q&A on 6 January at 5pm on Facebook
Attend our virtual decision making sessions: 12 January 2021 – 10am, 2pm and 5.30pm 13 January 2021 – 10am and 2pm

Council confirm £2 million price tag for Knapton Forest land

Still no environmental or economic impact assessment

The Council has published a report on its plans to establish a new 50,000 tree forest on land near Knapton.

The scheme had been criticised as “impulsive” with taxpayers believing that economic and environmental assessments of the effects of losing such a large area of good quality farming land – located near to potential consumers – should have been completed first.

No such evaluations, or a cost benefit analysis, have been published in the latest papers.

The project – which does have some merits – will disappoint many Liberal Democrat voters who were promised that accessible public open space would be provided to offset the loss of green fields, to new developments, in the Westfield area.

Other open spaces and footpaths have recently also been sealed off by landowners, making informal leisure options even less accessible for many thousands of residents.

The report reveals that “£1.65 million was used in the land purchase in West York and a further £400,000 was approved for the purchase of adjacent land subject to negotiations with the current landowner (ongoing). Council also allocated £25,000 revenue funding (2020- 2021) rising to £50,000 in 2021/22 and 2022/23 to support woodland creation and this budget sits within the CSCP budget”

The Council says that it is still trying to access “external funding” to offset the costs of the project.

We will see.

No update is provided on the promise to purchase more potential woodland in “an area near to the inner ring road”.

There are many other sites in the City – already in public ownership – where more trees could be planted.

Existing tree stocks have been neglected in recent years with many “highway trees” now needing either crown reduction or crown lifting work. The Councils budget allocation for tree maintenance work has been inadequate for many years.

NB. The report lets slip that the completion of the land purchase was announced in a “LibDem media release in October”. At that time, the restrictions on revealing the site location – imposed by the Councils Executive at a formal session – had not been formally lifted. It is without precedent for a major Council decision to be formally announced by a political party in advance of the Council itself issuing a progress statement. Those concerned will no doubt be hoping that no one reports this indiscretion to the Standards Committee!

“Make it York” tourist organisation heading for £1 million loss.

Faces closure within weeks unless bail out agree by York Council

A report to a York Council meetings shows its “Make it York” subsidiary could post a £1.2 million loss during the present financial year.

It means that the Directors of the, wholly Council owned, tourist business could be forced to wind up the organisation within the next few weeks.

The Council is being asked to step in and provide a substantial financial subsidy. The proposals include plans to;

Waive the requirement for MIY to make a revenue return to the council in 20/21 in respect of trading activity across the city centre
Defer the first two quarters rent due from MIY in 20/21 for use of premises on Museum Street and Silver Street offices
A loan facility from the council of £300k to be accessed by MIY only if necessary
provide a letter of guarantee to MIY with access to a maximum of £1m over the next 2 years should it be required.

MIY normally produces a net income to the Council of around £35,000. The company is responsible for tourist information services in the City, runs the Shambles market, organises special events like the Christmas Fair (cancelled this year) and promotes the City as a business destination.

Private sector membership of the organisation has collapsed in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic with the hospitality industry being one of the hardest hit. Redundancies at MIY are expected.

The immediate hit on the Councils budget will be the loss of income from the Shambles market. This will be in the order of £474,000. That figure may grow substantially if the organisations recovery plan is not successful during the next few years.

MIY is the second tourist organisation to seek taxpayers help. The Council agreed to provide a further £55,000 subsidy for Welcome to Yorkshire at its last meeting.

Another restaurant deal flops leaving York taxpayers £1.375 million out of pocket

The York Council is set to admit that a deal to underwrite the construction of 3 restaurant units at the York Community Stadium, branded in 2017 as “highly risky”, has flopped.

A meeting next week will be told that the Authority must either lease the empty units itself or face an increase of £1.375 million in its contribution to the Community Stadium budget

The news comes one week after the authority was forced to admit that another restaurant, which it constructed as part of the Guildhall renovation project, will also remain empty. That restaurant was supposed to provide £150,000 a year in rental income which would have been used to offset the costs of the Council’s new Guildhall “business centre”.

The Council agreed in October 2017 to accept liability if the developers were unable to lease the Community Stadium restaurant units.

Now with “practical completion” only apparently a few weeks away, and the units still not leased, the Council must decide whether to reduce the sale price for the commercial block or to lease the units itself for 25 years.

Another option, offered by land investment company L&G, would be for the Council to, effectively, buy out their interest in the units.

A Council report says, “Accepting a lease of these 3 units would also enable the Council to facilitate subletting’s for the units to a wider market as the Council could review offers from local and smaller businesses that would not be considered under L&G’s corporate benchmark although subletting’s are subject to L&G’s approval”.

Maybe so.

But the hospitality industry has changed beyond recognition recently. Even before COVID struck, two of the adjacent existing restaurant units (not owned by the Council) had become empty.

*Existing Monks Cross restaurants are struggling*

It is likely to be some years before Monks Cross becomes a destination location with a high footfall.

The Council could also find itself competing against itself to let restaurant units at both Monks Cross and the Guildhall

The Council has not published a business plan which would guide its next set of decisions.

There should be no more ill considered adventures using taxpayers money.

The City already faces cuts to basic public service standards as a result of COVID. Taxpayers should not be expected to subsidise empty floorspace.

Lessons must be learned for the future.

Council taxpayers told £1 in every £5 will go on repaying debt

Busting Myths on Debts and Bankruptcy | CHAI

Every November the York Councils Executive Councillors are asked to review its investment and borrowing strategy. A series of, what are termed, “prudential indicators” are published. They offer a guide for taxpayers on how their money is being managed.

Usually the item attracts little interest or comment.

This year may be different with todays national spending review likely to offer a guide on how the billions, currently being borrowed by the government to counter the pandemic, will be repaid.

The York figures do not include provision for the local impact of COVID.

The revenue budget does look set to take a £10 million hit next year with widespread cuts in services inevitable unless the government authorises an above average tax rise. Another option might be to allow Councils to borrow money to prop up day to day spending for a couple of years. This (unlikely) option would have an impact the Councils investment (capital) budget

But without that – and isolating the housing revenue account (which is funded from rents) – what is the current liability of York taxpayers?

The figures reveal that, from a starting position in 2016 when the authority needed to service £238,7 million of borrowing, by 2023 that liability will have increased to £338.7 million.

That is a 40% increase.

Should we worry?

The short answer is yes. The Council is required to make what is known as a Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) in its revenue budget to cover principal repayments and interest charges on its borrowing. The proportion has varied over the years but usually around 12% of current account expenditure has gone on servicing debt.

That is set to escalate to 21% by 2024.

That could mean less money being available for core services such as road repairs, caring for the elderly and disabled and keeping the City clean. Many non statutory services such as leisure could be hit hardest.

You can read what the Council says by clicking here

£55,378 York grant to “Welcome to Yorkshire”

Never any worries about Tour funding, tourism chief insists | Yorkshire Post

It looks like the York Council will pay the beleaguered “Welcome to Yorkshire” (WTY) tourism body over £55,000.

The controversy wracked regional body has lost a lot of subscriber income recently as a result of the impact of the pandemic.

Following a scandal about profligate spending, the organisation reformed last year and took on a Wakefield Labour politician as its chairman.

Ironically the Wakefield Council, along with Hull, is now refusing to pick up its share of the rescue package.

The reason for some scepticism is clear.

York businesses benefit from marketing campaigns aimed at getting more tourists to visit the region. The City is an obvious first port of call for foreign visitors in normal times.

The visitor economy will need help to get back on its feet over the next year or two. Visit York (part of Make it York) leads for the City on tourist promotion. Relations in the past with WTY have been strained with little evidence of coordination.

Improvements are planned and a Service Level Agreement has been published (click).

What the SLA lacks are measurable outcomes at street, shop, bar, attraction and bed occupancy level. This deficiency is shared in the rather woolly documentation which guides the Council’s, similarly uneasy, relationship with Make it York.

Make it York are expected to make a bid for additional funding at a Council executive meeting in December

WTY should cut back on its sponsorship activities. Tagging horse race meetings, cycle races, garden exhibitions, award dinners etc may be OK in good economic times, but not today.

It should focus on its core advertising programme and let local tourist bodies take the lead in attraction planning.

The most successful organisations are locally rooted and driven by committed, experienced leaders.

In York organisations like the BID have proved what can be done with relatively modest resources and good communications.

WTY could learn from them.

“Act in haste, repent at leisure” time for York Council transport changes

Cycling numbers decline in York

It looks like more of the road restrictions introduced in the summer, as part of the Councils reaction to the COVID crisis, will be dropped.

The most criticised restriction – closure of Bishopthorpe Road – was scrapped a couple of months ago, although officials are now threatening to revive the idea as part of “a review of the Local Transport Plan”.

A report to a meeting taking place next week provides an insight into how travel habits have changed in the City since COVID struck.

The most recent monitoring data, for September, shows that AM peak traffic volumes are around 80% of pre-lockdown, with the PM peak around 85% of pre-lockdown levels. Between the peaks, and at weekends, vehicle trips are down by around 5-10%. Bus use is 50-60% of pre-lockdown levels.

There is some bad news for the cycling lobby.

“Cycling levels appear to have fallen by around 30% in the peaks, whilst interpeak levels are not changed in comparison to the same period last year. It is likely that fewer people are commuting to and from work by bike or cycling to the railway station for onward travel by train, offset by higher levels of exercise/ leisure cycling”.

The report pointedly fails to comment on pollution and air quality levels in the City. These continue to be at record low levels (so probably don’t suit a doom and gloom narrative).

Several of the “emergency” schemes involved little more than putting out more traffic cones. Those in the Marygate and Monk Bar car park were largely unnecessary. The £10,000 a month taxi shuttle service for disabled people from the latter continues to run although it is little used. Most of the 40 parking spaces lost at Marygate are set to be restored as part of a new scheme to install a permanent cycle path link to Bootham.

Of the others, the report recommends

The temporary one way restriction on Coppergate is extended
The temporary cycle lane at Castle Mills Bridge on Tower Street is removed (only 3% of users are cyclists and there is an alternative, off road, route along the riverside)
The proposed scheme for improvements to York’s North – South cycle route is taken forward to implementation, with a proposed restriction on Navigation Road
The proposed scheme for improvements to cycle lanes on Bootham is taken forward to implementation, with a consultation commenced on the rest of the Shipton Road cycle lane scheme, including the element which would require changes to residents’ parking on parts of Bootham.

The Council has not heard whether its plea for funding a further tranche of works will be approved. These include the very expensive, but desirable, cycle bridge over the river and railway on the A1237 as well as some more eccentric ideas (a cycle path for Dunnington to the City centre).

Despite the lack of obvious government enthusiasm for the Councils plans, the authority intends to spend £40,000 on further development of the ideas.

As we have said many times, one of the main criticisms of the Councils transport polices over the last 12 months has been its total insensitivity to the state of repair of the existing infrastructure.

That is particularly true of cycle paths many of which are obstructed by potholes, weeds, and hedges. White lines have worn away, signage has faded and, in some cases, disappeared altogether.

It is that neglect that is limiting the expansion of walking and cycling numbers in the City.

Capital expenditure (funded by borrowing) is limited to providing or improving assets with an extended lifespan. Resurfacing existing paths could fall within that definition.

The suspicion is that the executive Councillors favour high profile vanity projects simply because they provide an opportunity for a good “Photo Op”.

The reduction in the numbers cycling is one symptom of poor prioritisation

« Previous
1
2
3
4
…
15
Next »