The Councils leadership is being recommended to reject a proposal which would have seen a joint neighbourhood plan prepared covering the Acomb and Westfield Wards. The proposal was widely criticised as being ”too big” to meet a key community of interest test.
The majority of respondents to the Councils consultation opposed
Opponents included the local residents association, an
action group and the Westfield ward Councillors. (The Acomb Ward Councillors didn’t
respond to the consultation)
A report points out the proposed population of the planning area at 23,440 is 4 x the optimum size of 5500 suggested by central; government legislation.
A council official claims that a parallel proposal to create
a “Neighbourhood Forum” could be approved although the report fails to analyse
claims that the governance structure of the proposed body is bogus. The forum was criticised by consultees as introducing
unnecessary additional bureaucracy at least in the Westfield area where several
residents groups already operate.
The report author concludes that a Neighbourhood Plan,
including a revised “forum”, could be approved for the Acomb ward only.
We believe that the plan to exclude the Westfield area is correct.
However the proposal to jump to an “Acomb Ward only” model
is premature. Such a move would rule out drawing up a neighbourhood plan for
the Front Street area. Part of this district includes the Acomb Ward side of York
Road which would be subject to a different plan under the new proposals.
No consideration has been given to including the area of
land between the built-up area and the A1237 northern by pass) in any new arrangements,
thereby failing to recognise the importance given by many residents in the area
to the protection of open space.
The Council should simply reject the current ill-considered
neighbourhood forum and plan proposals which are before it.
New proposals may then emerge which could be subject to re-consultation.
They say “FRM believe the Environmental Statement is fundamentally flawed and must be comprehensively revised to give an honest and comprehensive account of the likely destruction of and damage to SSSI grassland”.
They go on to say, “There will be adverse impacts on the Cornfield Nature Reserve which are of regional or at least district-wide significance”.
The report says, “The application is for works to repair and extend the Clifton Ings barrier bank. This is one of the projects within the agencies flood alleviation scheme (FAS) to reduce flood risk throughout the city. £45 million has been allocated to the EA which will upgrade defences in 19 areas (referred to as flood cells).
The objective of the FAS is to protect against the 1 in 100 year flood (1% AEP) plus climate change and where this cannot be achieved then deliver the maximum level of protection in each cell within the context of existing flood risk and considering other environmental, social and cultural aspects.
The purpose of the barrier bank is to reduce flooding from
rivers (fluvial flooding) to the Clifton / Rawcliffe area.
However, during the floods in 2000, water from the river
outflanked the flood defences, spilled onto Shipton Road and flooded over 100
homes. The flood basin at Blue Beck also exceeded its capacity in 2000. In
these instances, the Environment Agency had to provide temporary pumps to
reduce flooding upstream on Blue Beck.
The barrier bank was constructed in 1980. It is of earth
fill construction and is up to 4.5m high. The embankments on both sides of the
River Ouse currently have issues with stability created by high pressure in the
banks when the reservoir empties. This has meant that the drawdown rate for the
reservoir has had to be reduced from 1,360mm/day to 300mm/day in order to
reduce the risk of failure. This reduction in the drawdown rate significantly
impacts on the operation and effectiveness of the reservoir as a flood defence,
particularly for any consecutive flood events.
Clifton Ings provides a flood storage reservoir on the eastern side of the River Ouse close to Rawcliffe Park and Ride and the sports clubs Clifton Alliance and York. When not flooded, the northern section of Clifton Ings is used for grazing and the southern section is used as open land by the public. A Sustrans cycle route runs through this area.
During high flow events it has a flood capacity of 2,300,000 m3. It is owned and maintained by the Environment Agency.
The Planning Committee is meeting on Thursday at 4:30pm. The
meeting will also consider a separate proposal to create a temporary access
route into the site.
A planning application, which would have seen the residential accommodation above the Premier shop on Gale Lane converted into 5 letting rooms, has been withdrawn.
The proposal was criticised by some residents who feared that 5 separate, unrelated, tenants would generate additional parking problems in the area. There are already issues with inadequate parking on St Stephens Road.
Other criticisms related to the lack of waste bin space and the absence of any cycle storage.
The owners may be permitted to use the first floor accommodation for single family use.
……..as Spark finally submit proposals for cladding their shipping container village
City of York Council has received notification from the Planning Inspectorate that the applicant for the Moor Lane planning application (18/02687/OUTM) has appealed the Council’s decision to refuse the outline permission for up to 516 residential units.
The Planning Inspectorate has notified the Council
that the Inquiry will start on 12th November 2019 and it is anticipated that
the Inquiry will sit for 12 days.
The Council will send notification of the appeal to
any person who was notified or consulted about the application and any other
interested persons who made representations.
If however the representation was part of a
petition, each individual on the petition will not be notified by the Council.
Separately the Spark container village people have finallysubmitted details of their plans to provide cladding on the development frontage.
They say, “We propose to attach to this frame a secondary timber structural frame which will be over clad with treated softwood or Siberian Larch battens of 50mm width running vertically with a 50mm gap forming a continuous wrap and palisade along the external boundary. The timber cladding will be overplanted with Clematis growing from planters situated at first floor level”.
The development reaches the end of its 3 year lease next
June. We doubt very much whether even fast growing clematis will make much difference
to its appearance during the intervening months.
NB. The Council has so far failed to say how much “profit
share” they enjoyed from the Spark lease last year.
Local Government Association (LGA) report says the house-building rate in York is comparable to rest of the country.
The net new supply in York increased the existing housing stock by 1.5% during 2017/18.
This is much higher than the England average of 0.9%, suggesting the level of local supply is unlikely to be an issue. The Government’s national target of 300,000 homes per year is equivalent to 1.3%.
Population growth in York is set to average 686 people per
year from 2020 to 2041, with projected average annual household growth of 430
households over the same period. This is significantly lower that the Council
is forecasting in its draft Local Plan
According to the report, which was published this week, the average house price in York in 2018 was £254,000. The median ratio of house prices to local earnings is 8.8. This is higher than the England average of 8.0, suggesting high house prices are likely to be an issue for some
Private rents in York in the 12 months to September 2018 ranged from £565 per month for a lower quartile one bed to £2,058 for an upper quartile four (or more) bed property. The overall median private rent was £745, which is approximately the same as the England average of £690, suggesting that high private rents may also be an issue.
House prices in York in December 2018 are higher than their 2007/08 peak by 25.4%, compared with England at +27.3%.
Employment in York improved from 75.3% in 2014/15 to 78.7% in 2017/18; unemployment changed from 3.6% to 3.1%; and economic inactivity changed from 21.7% to 19.4%.
Gross domestic household income in York was £18,070 per
person per year in 2016, compared with £14,133 in 2006. By comparison the
figure for England changed from £15,349 to £19,878 over the same period.
The overall population in York changed by +0.6% due to migration in the 12 months to June 2017: +0.2% from domestic sources and +0.4% from international.
By age, the largest single contribution to growth was from 19-year olds.
The average life expectancy for people born in 2015-17 in York is 80.2 years for men and 83.5 years for women.
The equivalent national figures are 79.6 and 83.1 respectively.
The report confirms that second home ownership, empty homes
and inward migration numbers are not significant issues for the City compared to
the rest of the country.
Following the recent decision by the Secretary of State not to call in the planning decision for York Central , City of York Council says it will “now continue to maintain momentum across the York Central site with the decision to release the next tranche of funding for the project”.
“The Council will now engage with its construction partner in finalising the design work for the enabling infrastructure; this includes the access road bridge and spine road through the site, a pedestrian bridge on Water End and a rail link to the NRM”.
There is no mention of addressing the “elephant in the room”. That is the major outstanding issue. – cycle/pedestrian movement from Leeman Road to the riverside and the City centre
The early plan showed a shared cycle track still using the (appalling) Marble Arch tunnel (which still has no waterproof membrane). Vehicle movements would be traffic light controlled, with public transport one of the main victims
This simply won’t do.
The Council needs to find an alternative route possibly via a new tunnel built to modern standards which provides access to the green spaces next to the river while also providing a traffic free cycle link to the City centre and beyond.
Te Council must address this issue in its imminent submission of a Reserved Matters planning application to open up the site.
The planning application will be funded partly by Homes England and partly from the York Central Capital budget agreed by Council in November 2018.
A report to the Councils Executive next week also sets out what opportunities can be taken, moving forward, to maximise the benefits of the York Central site; including a greater proportion of affordable homes, higher sustainable build standards, inclusion of York Central in the Clean Air Zone and an option to build a new bus lane ahead of schedule.
A report, published today, sets out the key benefits already secured, including:
· extensive pedestrian and cycle route provision into and through the site
· 20% of homes available at affordable rates,
· the highest sustainable design standards , and
· around £15m developer contributions to improve transport infrastructure to encourage more bus passengers, cyclists and pedestrians.
The report outlines that the council, while waiting for government decisions on planning and funding, will work with the York Central partnership to explore other measures to amplify these benefits.
For housing, this could mean a greater proportion of affordable homes, higher sustainable build standards and community self-build in early phases of the development.
To improve the environmental impact, the council could require sustainable energy generation on site, include York Central in the bus Clean Air Zone, increase the number of electric charging points and build a new bus lane ahead of schedule to increase more journeys by sustainable transport.
The report highlights the delays to the programme due to the referral of the planning decision to the Secretary of State, and the decision over an application for £77.1m to the government’s Housing Infrastructure Fund. The report asks the council to allocate £750,000 to fund early contractor involvement to finalise a planning application for the bridge and spine road which will allow access to the site from Water End.
The York Central Partnership (YCP) members, Homes England, Network Rail, The Railway Museum and City of York Council, have been working collaboratively for the past four years to develop proposals and assemble a £155m funding package for infrastructure works to unlock the brownfield land. City of York’s Council has played a key role in providing significant funding streams to help deliver the project and fund the enabling access and infrastructure works.
The approved outline planning application includes proposals to build 2,500 homes, 20 per cent of which will be affordable, and a commercial quarter creating up to 6,500 jobs adding a £1.16 billion boost to the economy.
The Executive meeting takes place on 18th July. The York Central report can be found byclicking here.
A Planning Inspector hasrejected an appeal regarding the Spark container village on Piccadilly.
The owners of the units were hoping to avoid installing wooden cladding on the outside of the shipping containers as was required by the original planning consent granted in May 2017.
In August 2018 the Councils planning committee refused to remove the requirement for the containers to be clad in timber panelling. They concluded that the industrial style containers had an adverse impact on the appearance of the Central Conservation Area.
Spark appealed against this decision.
The appellants claimed that “that the financial implications
of the approved installation would be prohibitive and would put the entire
project at risk”.
However, the Inspector said that the costs of the cladding
would have been known from the start.
The Inspector concluded “I find that no public benefits have been demonstrated that would outweigh the harm and there is no clear and convincing justification for the variation of the condition”.
Despite much prevarication, the controversial Spark project
now seems to have reached the end of the road. Their lease expires next July
anyway, and the Council will be eager to market the site for a more sustainable
The site is likely to be worth over a million pounds – money that the Council desperately needs to sustain the rest of its capital investment programme. The most viable use would be for a visitor attraction on the ground floor with either flats, offices or a hotel above.
The Council will also be expected to reveal how much their share of the “profits” on the development have actually been received.
The profit share arrangement was a key consideration when
the Councils Executive agreed to release the site at their meeting in November 2016.
The taxpayers investment of over £40,000 in infrastructure was to have been
repaid from these “profits”.
The shipping containers arrived on site in September 2017.
They were widely regarded as “ugly” with street art graffiti on the Piccadilly
frontage making the appearance even worse. The containers blight the Piccadilly
area which is otherwise seeing signs of regeneration. Three new developments
are currently underway on the opposite side of the road and a “Castle Gateway”
masterplan is in the process of being approved.
We think that Spark have been playing the Council along for many months.
The issue will be a major test of the effectiveness of the newly elected York Council. They must seek to quickly enforce the planning conditions on the site, while also recovering any outstanding debts.
They would also be wise to start marketing the site for future development.
The York Council has started consultation on whether to recognise
an “Acomb and Westfield Neighbourhood Forum”
A small group of residents, mainly living in the Front Street
area, want to establish a “neighbourhood plan”. It would supplement the
Councils own Local Plan which will be subject to a public hearing over the
Unfortunately, the area they hope to cover includes the whole
of the Acomb and Westfield wards (approximately 10,000 homes). It would stretch
from Foxwood to Boroughbridge Road, encompassing a disparate group of neighbourhoods
with little obvious community of interest.
If agreed, it would be by far the largest such plan in the York
area. In the main those plans that have been approved cover smaller villages. All
have a shared commonality of interests.
Westfield is not short of groups which seek to influence
There are several Residents Associations, a “planning panel”
(which scrutinises planning applications), a “ward team” and a “ward committee”
together with several “action groups” which tend to focus on stimulating, or preventing,
Adding an additional tier of representation, although only a
consultative body, would involve additional costs and could lead to confusion
about roles and responsibilities.
When it comes down to it, Foxwood has little in common with
Chapelfields or the Gladstone Street area.
It has even less shared interest with Ouse Acres and vice versa. Arguably Foxwood has more in common with the Woodthorpe area.
In our view, this proposal represents an unwelcome diversion
and could take resources away from the key task of raising public service standards
in the area. Residents Associations are bested suited – and of the right scale –
to identify changes that need to be made in local neighbourhoods.
They deserve more Council support.
In most built up sub-urban areas, there is little scope for redevelopment anyway with the focus being to retain existing open spaces. There is an opportunity for more public open space on land lying between the existing development and the A1237 bypass. The proposed Neighbourhood Plan boundaries exclude this land from consideration.
Ward Councillors are already aware of the need to move the extra public open space issue forward.
There may be a case for a neighbourhood plan covering the Acomb village conservation area and its immediate environs.
The “forum” organisers would be wise to focus on a smaller area like this – where there may be a need for more clarity on its future – rather than try to “boil the, proverbial, ocean”.
In the meantime residents should email the Council to oppose this unnecessary proposal.
In response to a Freedom of Information request the York Council
has now confirmed that it did not consult neighbours or local Councillors
before issuing a license which allowed a building contractor to occupy the “old
allotments” site at the rear of the library car park.
This site has been owned by the Council for over 15 years. The
developers of the adjacent bowling Club land (which does have planning permission)
had previously said that they did not want to combine the two sites to provide
a abetter overall layout.
Work on the site disturbed residents living in South View
Terrace and part of Lowfields Drive.
The first that residents knew of the arrangement, was when
heavy plant moved onto the site and started to clear it. This prompted complaints
about noise, dust and vibrations.
Spoil heap heights reached over 4 metres at one point.
Local fauna and flora on the site were badly affected.
The Council now says that it granted a license to occupy its
land on 8th April. There was no consultation undertaken with
Residents complained to the Council on 16th May
about the problems being caused.
It wasn’t until 28th May that the Council wrote to
affected neighbours telling them about the license.
The Council says that working hours on the compound are
restricted to 8:00am – 6:00pm, Mon – Fri plus 9:00am – 1:00pm on Saturdays.
The Council says that “The compound licence requires the developer
to leave the property in a clean and tidy condition at the end of the licence,
including the removal of hardcore”.
It goes on to say that it expects the compound to be in use
for 12 months.
An investigation into whether the developers have the
necessary planning permission to use the building compound is still underway.
In our view affected residents have suffered unexpected and unreasonable
disruption and should be entitled to compensation.
It is possible that the matter may be referred to the Local Government Ombudsman
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
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.