Fossgate sign gets planning permission

Proposed metal banner

Councillors decided last night by 7 votes to 3 to approve plans to install a high level sign at the entrance to Fossgate.

The application had attracted no objections and in the end only three Labour Councillors opposed the plan.

Both Liberal Democrat representatives on the planning sub committee committee (Sue Hunter and Keith Orrell) spoke in support of the proposal

Conservation officers had opposed the sign saying it might create a precedent for other streets in the City. However the Civic Trust plan attracted support from local traders and the Merchant Adventurers Company as well as residents

The gateway sign is expected to be installed before the end of the year.

Sparks flying as shipping container village plans amended

Major noise concerns registered by Public Protection department while Civic Trust and “Make it York” support wobbles.

Architects have submitted revised plans for the shipping container development scheduled to be constructed on the former Reynard’s garage site on Piccadilly.

There will now be no outdoor music played according to the developers.

The changes come at a time when several organisations – which originally supported the concept of a “start-up” orientated small business hub –  are changing their line.

The York Civic Trust in its latest representation questions how quickly a permanent use can be established for the Reynard’s site and expresses concerns about the bar/restaurant domination of the development.

Even “Make it York”  now question the number of food and drink venues that the site will accommodate.

They say, “as things have developed, the emphasis seems to be more and more on ‘street food’ and entertainment. Indeed, the York Press now refer to it as the “street food hub.”

This is concerning to us. Make It York has just invested a significant amount of money in the Shambles market area, creating a street food hub. This has been an important move as we seek to bring some life back to the Market area, a space that CYC have leased to us to develop.

Ground floor plan April 2017 click

I cannot believe that the Council wants to regenerate one area of the city only for it to have a detrimental effect on another. That wouldn’t feel very ‘joined up’.

Figures I have seen suggest that nearly 80% of the space is going to be for food and retail and this seems at odds with it being a space for ‘start up’ businesses”.

We already have evidence that some of the street food traders in our space have been approached to go on to the Reynard’s site”.

The Council’s own Public Protection Unit has also objected to the plan on noise grounds.

Referring to noise originated by people standing and sitting in the outdoor areas during the  evening, they say,

First floor plan April 2017 click

“the changes in noise level are most likely to be noticeable, particularly as people noise is not constant in volume and will include regular peak events associated with shouting etc.

Because of this I do have significant concerns about the noise impact from people, particularly as there are not really any noise mitigation measures which could be used to reduce any impact and I would, therefore, have to recommend refusal due to the potential for adverse impact due to noise”.

The revisions to the plans mainly affect the east of the development but they are unlikely to address the concerns of residents living in that area.

The changes listed by the architects include:

  • The mix of uses on site has altered a little to rationalise the proposal and meet demand from local start-up businesses
  • An additional unit has been inserted onto the first floor (highlighted as unit 26) to provide an additional visual and sound buffer for residents to the east
  • Outdoor seating has been more evenly distributed throughout the site, with many seats removed from the eastern side of the site and replaced with planters

  • Roof layout April 2017 click

    A significant number of additional green roofs have been added to the site to enhance the site’s ecological value, to absorb rainfall and to soften the appearance of the development from neighbouring dwellings

Their full statement can be read by clicking here

So, there seems to be a belated realisation that the scheme is in the wrong place, would cause nuisance to neighbouring residents, is in breach of the Councils policy of controlling alcohol related activities in vulnerable streets and could damage existing street food businesses.

It is also still visually intrusive and could delay the permanent redevelopment of a key site in the City.

Residents have until 18th April to comment on the revised proposals.

Latest planning applications for the Westfield Ward

Below is the latest planning application received by the York Council for the Westfield ward.

Full details can be found by clicking the words highlighted in blue

——

26 Stuart Road York YO24 3AL

Erection of 1no. dwelling

Reference           17/00415/OUT

—-

99 Front Street York YO24 3BU

Prune Yew tree in a Conservation Area

Ref. No: 17/00514/TCA 

—–

36 Beaconsfield Street York YO24 4ND

Change of use from dwelling (Use Class C3) to House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4)

Ref. No: 17/00404/FUL 

——

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

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

York Council develops colour blindness

Promise to tell the truth?

The Council has published a report which contains a blatantly misleading statement. In an attempt to justify the development of former school playing fields at various sites in the City, it claims that these are “brownfield” land.

Playing fields are classified as greenfield sites, although they do not necessarily form part of the Green Belt. (The former built footprint of the school sites could be regarded as “brownfield”. In the case of Lowfields this is around 50% of the total site area).

Sites like Lowfields – where the proposed development of the playing field has attracted a lot of opposition – have not yet even been subject to the public examination which will only start when a draft Local Plan is finally agreed for the City.

The Council is therefore being asked to spend thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on architects and professional fees on projects which may never get off the drawing board.

Council owned sites proposed for early development

Nor has there been any discussion with residents about the future of sites like the Askham Bar car park (former park and ride site) on Moor Lane.

Ironically the Council has, once again, chosen to ignore the vacant – and derelict – brownfield land behind Acomb Library. Sites like these could be developed quickly with one Front Street option being to provide more accommodation for the library and public services on the ground floor with flats being built above.

The site is ideally located to accommodate older people who the Council identifies will generate by far the largest growth in housing demand over the next 20 years.

Nor does it appear keen to exploit the opportunities available to purchase additional Council houses on the open market – the quickest way of supplementing social housing stocks in the City.

The report proposes a complex partnership arrangement with the central government Homes and Communities Agency. It seems that the Council leadership see themselves as developers with the aspiration to provide a mixture of house prices and tenures on individual sites.

Doing so, without an agreed strategic plan in place, represents a high risk option.

Residents views and safety risks ignored as planning Councillors back Arts Barge plan.

Sad to see the City’s planning committee rejected professional advice last night when they gave the go ahead to mooring an “Arts Barge” near Tower Gardens.

The plan was approved by 11 votes to 4.

It means that the Council has – subject to a license being granted – agreed to the provision of another alcohol based leisure facility on a river which has already claimed the lives of 7 people in recent years. All those that have died were to a lesser or greater extent intoxicated.

Residents had been concerned about the visual effect the barge would have on the appearance of the historic core. There were also fears about noise  generation at, and near, the venue.

However the main controversy remains the liability of taxpayers for the high risk venture.

It remains unclear how much the barge operators will pay in rent (license fee)  for  a mooring in what is a prime City centre location. In many cities moorings of this sort are auctioned with fees starting at £3000 pa. ..more for commercial sites. In theory Business Rates would also be payable but these could be reduced if the facility is operated by a Trust or under a  similar legal arrangement.

The crunch will now come when an application for a premises license is submitted. The Council has shown little backbone in resisting additional applications for drinking establishments even where they breech the City centre cumulative impact policy (see below).

Following the approval of an unsuitable design for a visitor centre at Clifford’s Tower – and the Council’s Executive committee seemingly intent on dropping ugly shipping containers onto a site in Piccadilly – City centre residents must be wondering who they can turn to for support.

York Council’s policy on licensing in the central area

Guildhall project set to get planning approval

Perhaps not surprisingly, the York Planning Committee is being recommended to approve major changes to the Guildhall complex in York.

The proposals involve alterations to, and the refurbishment of, the Guildhall complex to create conference rooms, meeting rooms and offices.

Revised Guildhall project layout plans

Guildhall project plans

The existing south range will be refurbished, and part rebuilt, to provide cafe and ancillary accommodation while an extension will be erected on the north side of complex to form a restaurant and office accommodation.

30 objections to the plans – including one from the York Conservation Trust – have been received. Only one letter of support has been lodged.

The proposal is controversial because of the risks to the public purse. The latest estimates suggest that Council taxpayers could be liable for around £12 million if the project flops. It is an investment – and risk – which could have been transferred to the private sector if a more flexible tendering system had been adopted.

York Guildhall

York Guildhall

Many of the proposed changes will be welcomed as they open up the river bank and will bring back into use an important historic building which has been largely empty for four years.

One issue to be resolved is the inclusion of units where alcohol will be served.

This – like several other recent proposals for the city centre – is directly in conflict with the cumulative impact policies of the Council and local Police. The policy seeks to limit the number of outlets in the City centre selling alcohol.

guildhall-costsb-july-2016

 

“Arts Barge” mooring plan set to be torpedoed

arts bargeThe long running saga of the York Arts barge looks like it will take another twist next week when the Council’s Planning committee is being recommended to reject a proposal to moor the vessel next to Tower Gardens.

Council officials rightly point out that the barge would impact on the Conservation area affecting views of several historic buildings.

The plan has attracted many objections from residents (and a similar number from supporters) who fear both the visual intrusion of the barge and the possible anti-social implications of providing yet another venue serving alcohol in what is already a problem area.

Ironically the York Civic Trust, which should be advancing the case for conservation of the built environment, says it supports the plan! The same organisation recently came out in favour of the bizarre plan to use storage containers as the basis of a new development on Piccadilly. Its opposition to the visitor centre planned for Clifford’s Tower was also luke warm.

Proposed arts barge location

Proposed arts barge location

In the final analysis planning experts ask the very reasonable question why a new arts venue could not be accommodated in an existing building. There are several venues in the City which are under-used.

The controversy about the Arts Barge project started in the last decade when the, then Labour controlled, Council agreed to use taxpayer’s money to underwrite the project.

Fortunately, the current coalition run Council have been much more circumspect about risking taxpayer’s money.

The report on the proposal can be read by clicking here

Bat concern set to stop Mayfield Grove development

5-mayfield-groveA plan to build 3 additional homes on Mayfield Grove will be considered by the Council’s planning committee when it meets on 5th January 2017.

The application is recommended for refusal

The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of three dwellings on a 0.06ha plot at the eastern end of Mayfield Grove.

The proposed houses would replace an existing bungalow located towards the front of the site at 5 Mayfield Grove with its main garden to the rear. There would be a semi-detached pair of 3 bedroom dwellings at the front of the site on the footprint of the existing bungalow and a single detached 2 bedroom bungalow to the rear.

Vehicle access would be from Mayfield Grove, via newly created parking areas and private driveway to the rear property.

Several objections to the development were received because of concerns about over-development but the key concern is the absence of a bat scoping survey of the existing buildings on the site.

The Committee will also consider several other planning applications

Erection of dwelling following demolition of existing bungalow

Erection of a terrace of 3no. dwellings on land previously used as car park to the south of the existing building

Erection of 1no. dwelling to land to side of 4 Whitby Avenue

Extension to existing building to create additional office accommodation on first and second floors above rear ground floor parking area, including demolition of existing garage

Change of use of dwelling (use class C3) to House in Multiple Occupation (use class C4)

Single storey rear extension

Two storey rear extension, single storey side and rear extensions, hip to gable roof extension and dormer to rear

Terrys clock tower set to get permission for flats conversion

The York Council is set to approve plan to turn the former Terry’s clock tower into 22 apartments.

terrys-clock-towerThe plan – to be considered on 5th January – also involves providing space for a museum and associated car parking.

It is proposed to convert the building for residential use incorporating 19 one, two and three bedroom apartments within the existing building and a further three within the northern roof top extension (to the boiler house) which would be executed in structural glazing.

The upper clock chamber has been made over by the applicant to provide a museum and viewing space to provide interpretive material in respect of the development of chocolate manufacture at the site. The clock would also be reinstated.

The Clock Tower comprises a substantial brick and art stone detailed, Grade II Listed, structure with an attached two storey boiler house.

It occupies a prominent location within the Terry’s/Racecourse Conservation Area. It formerly acted as a chimney and boiler house to support the manufacture of chocolate and confectionery at the Terry’s site from construction in the 1920s until manufacture ceased in 2006.

Officials say, “The building is on the “Heritage at Risk” register. Unfortunately no commercial or leisure occupier has been found to “save” the building in spite of a long and extensive marketing exercise. The height and configuration of the accommodation, its location within the body of the site, and the cost of essential repair-work have been cited by potential occupiers as reasons for lack of viability for a commercial or mixed use scheme. The over-riding consideration is finding a new use that would sustain the heritage significance of the building”.

“The scheme would rescue this building at risk which is a much valued and prominent York landmark”

Only eight objections to the proposal have been received by the Council although one is from the Civic Trust.

So they’re really going to do this to Cliffords Tower!

cliffords-tower-york-plans-front

Council officials are recommending that the controversial new visitor centre at Clifford’s Tower should get the “go ahead”

Clifford Tower Georgian Society quoteIn a report to next weeks planning  committee, they propose to overrule the views of just about every major conservation group in the City.

Those objecting to the English Heritage plan include:

  • YORK CIVIC TRUST
  •  THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS
  • YORK GEORGIAN SOCIETY
  • GUILDHALL PLANNING PANEL
  • RIVER FOSS SOCIETY

Guildhall planning panelIn the main the objections refer to the loss of a unique view of the City although some criticise the architectural approach. Several say any visitor centre should form part of an holistic approach incorporating improvements to the adjacent car park.

The repairs and improvements planned for the Tower itself have generally been welcomed.

cliffords-tower-york-stairs

The proposed visitor centre has been criticised as intrusive and out of scale