More confusion over cycle path improvements

Part of the planning approva,l for the provision of sports pitches on land off Tadcaster Road/Sim Balk Lane, was that improvements had to be made to the cycle track link to the Park and Ride site. Users of the pitches would use parking spaces at the P & R site and then walk to the changing rooms. Details of the improvement works had to be agreed by the Council and published before building work started. This didn’t happen but, before the pitches can be used, improvements must be implemented.

A new application was published on the Councils “Planning on Line” web site a few weeks ago. It purported to give details of the way in which condition 14 of the original application would be fulfilled. However, no details of the proposals (understood to include some resurfacing work and better lighting) were included.

The application has some additional significance as a certificate of completion for the new pitches can’t be issued until the work is completed. Completion of the pitches is a planning condition attached to the Council’s housing development at Lowfield.

The condition said that homes there couldn’t be occupied until the replacement pitches were brought into use.

Not withstanding this, the Council announced in the media yesterday that the home s at Lowfields were being occupied. No attempt seems to have been made by the Councils housing arm (Shape Homes) to discharge the condition or have the planning permission amended.

The muddle is now subject to a formal complaint to the Councils planning enforcement team.

Meanwhile more bad news for cyclists. The cycle path which runs adjacent to the A64 slip road near the Pike Hills golf course remains blocked. Some mowing has taken place next to the dual carriageway but the slip road area has been ,missed.

We’re not sure whether this was just an oversight or whether a “demarcation dispute” is taking place between Highways Yorkshire and the York Council?

Either way, cyclists currently need PPE to negotiate the nettles, brambles and thistles which impede the path.

*Tadcaster Road cycle path still obstructed*

Football pitch provision hitch could hit Lowfields development

Delays in commisioning new football pitches near Sim Balk Lane could delay the occupation of houses at Lowfields. The pitches, part of a Bishopthorpe FC expansion project, were part funded by developer contributions from Lowfields.

The Council at the time argued that the pitches would replace those lost at Lowfields.

One of the conditions attached to the granting of the Lowfields development was that the homes there would not be occupied until the new pitches had been brought into use.

It has now emerged that completion of the Sim Balk Lane scheme is delayed.

Essential work to the adjacent cycle track, – which provides a link to a parking area – has not been started.

The work proposed includes widening and resurfacing of the path down to the underpass, resurfacing of damaged areas, installation of bulkhead lighting to the underside of the underpass and the repainting of the underpass walls. There will apparently also be a a proposal for a “community mural” provided by Sustrans.

The work will require approval by the Council and is unlikely to be completed until late in the year.

The developers say that they have already installed new bins as part of the project which has helped reduce the littering issue in that area.

The planning permission for Lowfields included the following condition.

34 No dwelling within the red line area highlighted on the attached plan (insert plan reference ) shall be occupied until three replacement football pitches of the same size as those on land subject to this planning application, have been created. The three pitches shall be on land ‘To The South East Of 235 Tadcaster Road’, subject planning permission Ref. No. 18/00251/FUL. The completed works shall include all levelling, drainage, ground preparation and grass seeding works
Reason:- To ensure that appropriate replacement playing pitch facilities are provided for those lost in association with the development and to secure compliance with paragraphs 73 and 74 of the NPPF.
Application ref 17/02429/OUTM

Separately the Council claimed earlier in the week that all available properties at Lowfields had been reserved by prospective purchasers.

Improvements to York – Selby cycle path

The new “White Rose” football pavilion and associated pitches have now been completed. They can’t be brought into use until agreed improvements on the adjacent cycle path – which is a York Council maintenance responsibility – are also completed.

The cycle path upgrade was a condition of the planning approval given on 16^th November 2018. (click)

Elsewhere we are waiting to hear whether SUSTRANs was successful in its grant application to the government for funding to resurface the track near Riccall and the A64.

Work on filling and levelling the Escrick sidings site appears to be proceeding more quickly now.

Lowfields – new homes not ready for occupation until next year

This Lowfields site will include 140 mixed tenure homes of which 56 will be affordable homes. The contractor has been on site since December 2019 and the Council says that it is “progressing well” with significant progress on “infrastructure work along with substructures”.

However the first 34 homes are now not due to be completed until early in 2021.

The Council decided to develop the site itself at a meeting held in July 2018

It later formed a company called Shape homes and said it would recruit staff to work with it. The latest financial report suggest that this had not progressed by the end of the financial year with over £1.2 million of the available budget slipping into the current year.

The Council also failed to invest £1.9 million of the budget that it set aside for the repair and modernisation of existing homes.

Football pitches

Meanwhile the football pitch project on Sim Balk Lane has stalled. The pitches were nominally supposed to replace those lost at Lowfields as a result of development, albeit they are 3 miles away. The land near London Bridge became waterlogged over the winter and is only now beginning to grass over. This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is New-football-pitches-Sim-Balk-Lane-4-4th-Aug-2019-858x1024.jpg

The biggest problem though is the expensive “pavilion” which incorporates changing rooms.

A report to a meeting being held today says, “The construction of the pavilion / changing rooms has been put on hold due to the Covid-19 restrictions and it is not known when the work will be able to restart. The final procurement for the access road has also been put on hold”.

We wish that project well, but would have preferred to see some of the £850,000 cost (to taxpayers) invested in outdoor sports/leisure facilities in the Westfield area.

Huge £1.8 million overspend by Council on James House project

The conversion of James House from offices to 57 self-contained apartments for temporary homeless accommodation was completed on 14th April 2020, fifteen months behind schedule.

The Council says, “For homeless households the self-contained apartments will offer safe, secure and comfortable accommodation before permanent housing can be found for them. James House was open to residents in June 2020”.

The Council now admits that, as well as being 15 months behind schedule, the final costs are currently £1.782m above the agreed budget of £12.4m.

The council says that they have appointed independent experts to review the programming, delay, and quantity surveying aspects of the project.

Latest planning applications for the Westfield Ward

Below are the latest planning applications received by the York Council for the Westfield ward.

Full details can be found by clicking the application reference

—-

Hop And Glory Ltd 43 Front Street York YO24 3BR

Conditions 3 (extraction), 4 (machinery and equipment) and 5 (noise insulation) – 19/02075/FUL

Ref. No: AOD/20/00124

—-

Former Lowfield School Dijon Avenue York

Conditions 14, 31 and 33 of 17/02428/FULM

Ref. No: AOD/20/00118

Relates to discharging the following conditions.

Condition 14 (Bus stop improvements) financial contribution £70,000

Condition 33 (Education places) financial contribution of £438,182

Condition 31 (Football pitches) financial contribution of £300,000

NB. This is the money that is part funding the provision of football pitches near Bishopthorpe. Another contribution is coming from the developers. The location of the new pitches is nearly 3 miles from Lowfields. Work there has been ongoing for 6 months.

The controversial decision not to spend the funding in the local community nearer Lowfield was made by the City of York Council.

No progress on providing improved active leisure provision in the Westfield ward has been made.

——

7 Stuart Road York YO24 3AX

Conservatory to rear

Ref. No: 20/00279/FUL

——

Representations can be made in favour of, or in objection to, any application via the Planning online web site. http://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/

The Council now no longer routinely consults neighbours by letter when an application is received

£1.5 million cost for 3 football pitches

£850,000 to come from Lowfields project

The York Council courted controversy 2 years ago when it announced that the “replacement” football pitches – for those lost to the Lowfields development – would be provided on a site lying between Tadcaster Road and Bishopthorpe.

Playing fields at Lowfields have been dug up

The site is nearly 3 miles from Lowfield and does not have a direct public transport link.

In December 2017, the Councils Executive approved a £400,000 contribution from the Lowfields budget towards the Bishopthorpe plan. The project will provide a new home for the Bishopthorpe White Rose Football Club.

The new pitches must be ready before the new homes, being built at Lowfields, are occupied. Work on building the homes is due to start in August with road and some other infrastructure already in place.

Now a report to a meeting taking place next week reveals that the Council is to make a substantially greater contribution to the pitch project than has hitherto been admitted.

The Council will now, additionally, contribute £110,000 from Section 106 developer payments intended to provide alternative open space.

A further £300,000 will come from a “Lowfields developer contribution”. (The Council is, of course, the developer at Lowfields).

In total, therefore, the Council plans to spend around £850,000 on the scheme which, although it includes a clubhouse, now looks to be a very expensive way of providing 3 football pitches.

The Bishopthorpe football club itself will contribute £80,000, with the balance of £1/2 million coming from the Football Foundation.

Residents are bound to be angry about this latest example of Council duplicity.

There is land available much nearer Lowfields which would benefit from open space investment. There is, for example, under-used land located between the built-up area and the ring road off Askham Lane.

…But this seems to have been overlooked as the local authority continues to snub the Westfield area.

NB. It also appears that Council officials have made no progress in finding an alternative location for the Kingsway games area. That facility is now being used as a building compound. The Council agreed 3 months ago to seek an alternative site on a nearby sports area and was to have opened negotiations with the current occupiers. Little progress seems to have been made

Future of local football team unclear

2.9 miles from Lowfields to “replacement” football pitch

In a planning committee report, officials are still claiming that the Woodthorpe Wanderers Football team will relocate from the Lowfields sports field to a new pitch being created on the Green Belt near London Bridge on Tadcaster Road.

Residents had understood that this had been ruled out as too remote and lacking in perimeter security. The Club does have access to the nearby college pitch.

The London Bridge field may, however, meet the needs of the Bishopthorpe football club.

The fate of the Lowfields football pitch is central to plan to build houses at Lowfields.

The Sports Council have objected to the loss of the facility.

The Council has now said that they will consider the planning application at their August meeting, well ahead of the start of the Public Inquiry into the York Local Plan.

There have been a lot of objections to the Local Plan relating to the development of the playing field.

Not surprisingly local amenity bodies are crying “foul” over the timing of the planning applications. The Lowfields Action Group have updated their Facebook page.

A few months ago the Action Group published an alternative layout for the Lowfields site which would have ensured that the pitch was retained while also providing space for 200 homes.

Alternative proposal for Lowfields tabled by residents

There are some serious implications for existing Council tenants within the “housing development programme” published by the Council today. We’ll comment on these later in the week.

Footpath pitches, gardens and broadband works

We understand that the damaged goal posts on the Foxwood Park will be realigned by the Council. The damaged is understood to have been caused by plant.

Nearby we’ve asked for the goal posts on the Grange Lane Westfield park to also be realigned. There is a long outstanding request for the to be repainted. Kick about sessions at Energise and on Chesney’s Field are due to start at the end of June. They are being organised by the York City FC Foundation

A new safety surface has been provided on the area used for children’s activities at the Foxwood Community Centre

Foxwood residents are asking for volunteers to help on Saturday morning to put the final finishing touches to the, increasingly impressive, community garden on Bellhouse Way

Finally Talk Talk have given an undertaken to make good the damage caused to verges and paths during their recent excavation works (see below for programme)

Chesney Field Council decision on 19th October UPDATED

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE COUNCIL WILL NOT NOW DISCUSS THE CHESNEY FIELD ISSUES ON 19TH OCTOBER. INSTEAD THE QUESTION OF PROVIDING FENCING AND A STORAGE CONTAINER ON THE SITE WILL BE CONSIDERED AT A LATER MEETING WHEN THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR LEISURE WILL REVIEW THE PROPOSALS. THE MEETING WILL, OF COURSE, BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND RESIDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS.

EARLIER: Despite overwhelming opposition to the proposal to fence off most of the Chesney Field public open space, the York Council is set to discuss the plan at a meeting of its Executive taking place on 19th October.

The same meeting will also consider selling off land at Burnholme and plans to provide sports pitches on land at the “Askham estate” on Tadcaster Road.

However it is the proposal to erect 1 metre high railings, on the public open space on Foxwood Lane, that is likely to attract the most controversy.

Chesney’s Field Interpretation board unveiled last year

Council fencing plan

Public meeting

The Foxwood Residents Association is organising a public meeting to discuss the issue. It will take place on Wednesday 20th September starting at 7:00pm. The meeting will take place at the Foxwood Community Centre and will be attended by those Council officials who favour the railings plan.

Local Ward Councillors have now completed delivering a door to door survey to households in the Foxwood area seeking views on the Council’s plans.

Of those who have responded so far

124 (72%) do not want to see the amenity area fenced off
48 (28%) support putting railings round up to 60% of the area

These was no support for securing the whole of the site.

Most respondents said they had no objection to the current arrangements where football and rugby pitches are marked out on the area and rented on a seasonal basis by local clubs.

There was no opposition to plans to level the 2 pitches.

There was strong opposition to siting a shipping storage container on the open space, although some said they had no objection to one being located in the Thanet Road sports area (Acorn Field) behind the landscaping mounds.

Additional trees were planted on Chesney’s Field

Views about the provision of a trim track or outdoor gym were mixed. Some favoured provision of such a facility (which is not dependant on the area being fenced off) on Chesneys field although others felt the provision would be more appropriate on the Acorn field, where there is already a significant amount of sports infrastructure (and which is already secured with 2 metre high railings).

Residents were asked where provision for the local football club, which faces eviction from the Council owned pitches at Lowfields, should be made. The majority of respondents said that the Lowfields plans should be redesigned to allow the existing pitches to remain.

Others pointed to the Councils promise to provide an alternative on Tadcaster Road, while some asked if the joint use of pitches on the Acorn Rugby field was possible (given the projected cost of the project which is put at £40,000)

Foxwood residents, who have so far not completed the survey, can do so “on line” at http://tinyurl.com/Chesneyaug