The cost of the pavilion is controversial because it is being partly funded from monies generated by building on playing fields at Lowfield.
More modest changing facilities would have allowed the surplus to be used to provide an all-weather games area to replace both the facilities lost at Lowfields and also the Kingsway West children’s games area which the Council demolished earlier in the summer.
The Council has still not made any public announcement about the replacement games area which could be located on Thanet Road.
More details of the York Council’s controversial decision to sell land to the Yorspace community housing group are emerging. In response to a Freedom of Information request the Council has provided a copy of the independent valuation that it obtained for the land at Lowfields.
Yorspace Lowfield development
The valuation states that the site may be sold to a
community housing group for £300,000 which “represents a 20% discount on market
value”. However, the valuation report is based on the construction of 10 semi-detached
homes on the land.
The Yorspace proposal envisages a 19 unit, high density, development.
So the scale of the taxpayer subsidy remains obscure. The
only way to test the financial assumptions would be to market the site, comparing
offers for social housing with a commercial alternative.
While Section 123 of the
Local Government Act 1972 does allow Local Authorities to sell, in certain
circumstances, land at below market value and without seeking competitive bids,
that discretion is not unfettered.
The Council constitution requires a reason for such a sale
to be minuted. There is no such reason given in the record of the officer
decision taken on 18th January 2019
Construction of roads at Lowfields is almost complete.
The record of the meeting says, “The Mutual Home Ownership Society housing model they use
is designed as such that they will be economically accessible to lower income
families and the affordability of the homes is maintained in perpetuity”.
The council has not, so far,
chosen to include, in the terms of the proposed sale, a requirement that
occupiers MUST be lower income families and/or that they should currently be
registered on the home choice/housing waiting list..
As the development has NOT been
classified as “affordable housing” in the Local Plan, the Council must legally provide
a specific reason for giving preferential treatment to a particular group.
Valuation report published
The reason might be, for example,
to create local jobs, to provide accessible leisure facilities, to provide
homes for those on the waiting list or whatever.
However, an auditable rationale is
a legal requirement.
The sale to Yorspace has not been completed yet but is expected
next month. A further report to a council committee on the scheme is expected on
26th September.
Meanwhile it has emerged that no progress has been made in selling any “self-build“ plots at Lowfield
The Council says that marketing material for the plots is being prepared by the Community and Self-Build Officer, in conjunction withCustom Build Homes, who are the sale agent for the plots.
Self build homes are likely to be worth more than the construction cost.
“A promotional
event was held last year, and it is planned that another event will be held at
the start of the marketing launch”.
Plots will be
promoted through the council, the Custom Build Homes website and Rightmove.
Plots will go on sale this Autumn.
The buyers must have started construction work within 12
months of purchase and have completed all works within 2 years”.
The site of new football pitches off Sim Balk Lane has been cleared. The will be used by a team from Bishopthorpe.
The cost of constructing a new “pavilion” at the football pitches near London Bridge has been questioned. It is claimed that the cost of providing 13 pitches plus changing rooms near London Bridge will be £1.5 million.
This compares to the £600,000 cost of providing of a modern changing room & clubhouse recently for the Hamilton Panthers team on Little Knavesmire.
The York Council has been asked to contribute £850,000 to the Bishopthorpe scheme with the rest coming mainly from the Football Foundation and fundraising.
Most of the £850,000 is being abstracted from the Westfield Ward.
Officials claim it is a substitute for the pitches lost at Lowfield which are now being built on.
NB. There has still been no progress on replacing the children’s all weather sports area which was a valued amenity in the Kingsway West area. The Council took the games area over as a building compound over 3 months ago, promising that alternative facilities would be provided.
The promised replacement isn’t event mentioned in the Council’s 4 monthly forward programme of upcoming decisions
The Westfield Councillors are right to insist on more information being provided on building works in the area, when they meet tomorrow (Wednesday)
However, they will be meeting only a few metres away from the spoil heaps and site compound which has been constructed on the Council owned land to the rear of the Library.
Large spoil heap on Council land at the Acomb Library
Some explanation for the decision to allow the contractors to use this Council owned site will be expected. It is an issue that is not likely to go away.
Some residents still hope that Council will offer some sort of compensation for the problems that have been caused by the use of the compound
Elsewhere, the Lowfields development saga continues.
There has still not been any explanation about how the York Council came to mislead residents about the inclusion of a “police station” and health centre/GP surgery in the original consultation plans.
Both these promises turned out to be bogus. It is unclear what will happen to what, otherwise, will be unused plots on the east of the site.
The Kingsway West carriageway is already breaking up
On Ascot Way, access arrangements, for the heavy plant needed to complete the demolition of Windsor House, remain unclear. It seems that access for the plant will be via Kingsway West and Ascot Way It is clear that the roads are too narrow in the area to avoid major damage to adjacent verges and paths. A “one way” system has been suggested but not confirmed.
There are real concerns that the bus route will be obstructed by the likely congestion
The original hope had been that more parking lay-bys would have been provided by now.
…..and the problem of the promised replacement for the all weather games area seems to be no closer to resolution. The existing MUGA has already been converted into a building compound.
Games area is now a building compound. No alternative provision for children has been provided
There is no word about the proposed alternative site on the Thanet Road Sports Area although officials were asked to follow this up 3 months ago.
Residents will no doubt be hoping that some answers emerge from the meeting
Spoil heaps dominate neighbouring properties on Lowfields Drive
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
It is sad to see so many green spaces in the City being gradually eroded.
The reality of planning decisions, taken by the Council over the last few years, are rapidly becoming clearer. The trend is particularly evident in west York where former school playing field have proved to be vulnerable.
It started with the development of the playing field at the former Our Lady’s school site on Windsor Garth. The “Hob Stone” estate took up the whole of the site with no open space retained.
Next was the controversial decision to build on the Lowfields playing field. The decision was made worse when over £400,000, intended to fund alternative sports pitches, was earmarked for a site near Bishopthorpe, which is some 3 miles from Lowfields.
Concrete now dominates the Lowfields school playing field
The Hob Moor playing field has been torn up and is now part of a building siteThe Acomb Bowling club and adjacent Council owned land on Front Street is now also a building site
There are alternative brownfield (previously developed) sites in the City. Strangely the local MP over the weekend announced her opposition to building 2500 homes on the land to the rear of the station while planners have omitted the Strensall army camp from Local Development Plans.
There seems to be little reason why a development at the latter could not be restricted to the “built footprint” of the former army buildings. This would still leave large amounts of new public open space. That option is under consideration as part of the latest consultation on the Local Plan
But for west York the outlook remains bleak. The Council is still dilly dallying on proposals to replace the Multi User Games Area on Kingsway West. The existing one is no longer usable as it is no part of a buildng compound.
…and the newly elected Council, despite lofty talk of having a new “stray” in the City, has noticeably failed to put any flesh on the bones of the idea. Prompt action is needed to secure more public open space on the periphery of the City.
Currently there is little sign of any urgency, or even engagement, by the occupants of West Offices.
The Lowfield Action Group Facebook page makes it clear that residents have major concerns about the current development works in the area.
There are continuing complaints about noise, dust and working hours extending beyond those approved in the planning permission.
Communications from the Council have been minimal although another exhibition is promised prior to the main contractor starting on site. The current contractor is only undertaking clearance and layout works.
One piece of good news is that work on providing an additional 3 parking spaces on Tudor Road is due to start next week.
The Council latest planning application, which should have been determined by the end of April, it is still outstanding.
There is still no sign of a planning application for the Care Home much less the health centre and “police station”, not that they were ever likely to materialise anyway.
“Yorspace” are apparently still trying to raise funds for their “communal living” scheme while the Councils decision to sell them land at a discounted rate may yet prove to have been illegal.
Hopefully the new Council will be able to find someone competent and sensitive to local residents views when they decide who will lead on housing and planning matters for the next 4 years.
Certainly communication and supervisory systems need major improvements.
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
The applications include changes to the layout and mix of properties at the major development site at Lowfields school. It includes details of the “village green” layout and the features to be incorporated there. It also raises the height of the houses at ground to “avoid flooding”. Most of the buildings now incorporate Photovoltaic Cells on their roofs.
——-
Former Lowfield School
Dijon Avenue York
Non-material amendment to planning permission
Ref: 17/02428/FULM – Changes to bedrooms, house types, elevations, PV,
masterplan, FFL’s, Village Green and boundary treatments.
A response to a Freedom of Information request has revealed that the Council DID NOT require, that the land it sold at Lowfields to the “Yorspace” commune, must be used to provide affordable housing.
The land was sold for £300,000 – approximately 50% below its
open market value.
A smaller plot of land at the other end of the Lowfields
school site is currently being marketed for offers over £400,000.
The discounted sale decision
was taken in private by a Council official.
The Council claims that they had an independent valuation
made on the site. They don’t say on what basis they discounted the value.
They did, however, depend on Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to dispose
of the land at below market value. It was assumed – but not transparently recorded
in the decision notice – that this was to facilitate the provision of more
affordable housing.
This assumption was brought into question when a Council Housing Officer said, in response to Yorspace’s planning application to build 19 units on the 0.785 acre site, that the new homes could not be counted as “affordable”
The FOI response goes on to say, “This valuation was for a
plot of land for community build housing with utility connections and a road to
the edge of the site. Therefore, the price to be paid by Yorspace includes an
allowance for infrastructure works. Yorspace will be paying for the
construction of the car parking bays which are within their proposed red line
ownership boundary”.
“Any areas of road and parking will belong to Yorspace
and it will be their responsibility to maintain this. However, the
public footpath in this area is likely to become adopted highway and therefore
maintained by the council”.
Clearly there are “smoke and mirrors” aspects to this transaction which will
require the attention of the Auditors.
Another option for the Council would have been to develop the site itself to provide 19 more Council homes. The homes could then have been let direct to those on the housing waiting list. The Council has more freedom now to borrow to fund new Council homes.
NB. Despite some new builds, “Right to Buy” applications have seen the Council housing stock in York reduce from 7728 in 2016 to 7617 two years later.
The largest proposal concerns the land to the rear of the railway station. Known as “York Central” redevelopment of the area has been on the cards for nearly two decades. It has finally reached the planning application stage. The report recommends that the plans be forwarded to the Secretary of State for endorsement. The plans have attracted some opposition, but the economic and social welfare of the City depends on making some progress on the site now. Hopefully some of the ill judged ideas such as having only one-way traffic through the Marble Arch tunnel can be changed at a later stage.
Lowfields
‘dozer wrecks playing field
There is already a lot of local disquiet about the way that the Council are implementing their plans for this area. Many of the comments on the “Save Lowfields Playing Field” Facebook pageare from disgruntled local residents who, even at this early stage, point to conflicts between lorries and parked cars, muddy roads and the ripping out of trees and hedges.
They are asking that the new parking spacespromised for Tudor Road be constructed before the existing parking lay-by is lost as an access road is constructed.
Yorspace proposed development plan, Lowfields
Further along the road, the “Yorspace” applicationhas been heavily criticised by local residents. The main concerns related to the lack of affordable units proposed on the site, the impact on the natural environment including inappropriate boundary treatments, security concerns relating to the adjacent public snicket access to little Tudor Road, the proposal to remove the railings which protect adjacent properties, inadequate car parking provision and the impact that overspill parking by residents, families and visitors could have on neighbouring streets and the height of the buildings.
Council officials have revealed that they have approved 5 outstanding conditions, for activities on the building site, despite several objections.
Lincoln Court
Lincoln Court.
The Council has made an embarrassing series of mistakes on the proposal to extend this independent living building. Even now they have published papers which imply (wrongly) that the new apartments will be classified as “Extra Care” units. It has had plenty of time to clarify that issue.
There is some hope now that the future of the adjacent games area will be secured. Local Councillors are understood to have taken the initiative to discuss moving the facility to the local rugby club ground. If so, that would be a good solution to a problem which has also raised concerns from Sport England, and the resident’s association.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/GettyImages-656676733-5bb512b6cff47e0026d2007b.jpg)
