Looks like there will be more delays on the Lowfield project as the communal housing section of the scheme has failed to attract sufficient investors.
It could mean the project will take even longer to complete.
It is not clear whether the Council and Yorspace have exchanged contracts for the sale (at a discount value) of the land in question.
The Councils track record on asset use is being increasingly criticised on social media with a deals for the sale of Willow House and29 Castlegate (both empty for over 3 years) still not concluded
TheOakhavenbuilding in Acomb is also still unused.
Given the claims made by Council leaders about addressing housing need urgently, the dithering on these projects is difficult to justify.
The Council is providing little useful update information on their Lowfields overall development timetable.
. Westfield Ward Councillors have been asked to “call in” the proposal which would see the perimeter railings removed. The local Lowfields Action Group say they have had no response to their enquiries about the plan.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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”.
For the first time in nearly 3 years, the Councils Executive will review what is happening with the “Yorspace” communal housing project at Lowfield. A meeting, being held on 26th September, will consider “Progress and Opportunities for Self and Community Build Housing” in the City.
The report comes in the wake of concerns being expressed about a large discount being agreed, by a Council official, for the transfer of a building plot to the Yorspace “Community Benefit” Society .
Although Yorspace haven’t
endeared themselves to the existing local community in Westfield, because of
their trenchant support for the development of the playing field which is
adjacent to their site, the main concern relates to the “affordability” of the
homes that they hope to construct.
A Council official, at aprivate meeting held in August 2017, agreed an “exclusivity agreement” to sell the land to what was then styled as a “Mutual Home Ownership Society”. The official decided that a discount could be offered because individuals would not benefit financially from the deal. Homeowners would buy shares in the Co-op in return for the leasehold of a property. When they move on, they can sell the shares.
No alternative proposals for the land were considered, there was no analysis of the advantages of communal ownership compared to those offered by the construction of (say) more Council houses on the land or indeed the possibility of an open market sale with the proceeds being used to quickly increase the availability of social housing in the City.
The report in 2017 gave an estimate of the value of the site. That figure remains confidential. Another “behind closed doors” meeting held in January of this year valued the land – after discount – at £300,000.
site at Lowfields recently sold for over £400,000.
The Council justified its decision by quoting
Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 which allow authorities to dispose
of land other than at its full value.
However, that power
is heavily constrained.
The issue with this
sale relates to the absence of an “end occupier” agreement. Council officials confirmed,
when considering amendments to the Local Plan, that this development would not
be classified as “affordable”. This is because there is currently no
requirement for the shareholder in the Co-op to be in housing need.
The Council could have insisted that, in return for any discount, the homes must be occupied by low income families or, at least, by transferring existing social tenants.
In effect, taxpayers may be subsidising the housing costs of relatively wealthy individuals.
Hopefully, the new report
will candidly address these issues.
When the land sale was approved, Yorspace agreed to complete their development within 3 years. No work has started there or on the adjacent “self-build” plots. No construction timetables have been published.
NB. We have submitted a FOI request for information on the Council’s “shared ownership” programme. The last report (to another “behind closed doors” meeting held last year) suggested that such a model would not be of interest to existing social tenants or those on the waiting list. The Councils Executive has yet to review progress on this scheme (which accounts for a significant proportion of new build plans for the City)
Statistics for the last available quarter (Jan – Mar) reveal that the number of house building starts in York fell.
Those attending a recent housing scrutiny committee, will have witnessed a mundane exchange about obstacles to increasing the amount of social housing in the City. Most comment centred on the lack of skilled labour in the sector, with a joint plan with York College the only idea cited to address the issue. Historically, of course, such skills have been imported from other parts of the country, and indeed Europe, to meet peaks in the house building programme.
Other questions remain unanswered.
While the Council policy of purchasing empty homes on the open
market – to add to the Council housing pool – has been a limited success, other
“innovations” have stalled.
There are around 200 people on the “self-build” register in the
City. Plots were allocated for their use at the new Lowfields development. It turns
out that the Council has made no progress in finding buyers for the plots. This
is another worrying factor on this controversial development where neighbouring
residents have given a high priority to having the site development completed
quickly. Self build is one of the slowest ways of providing a house, so hopes
that the builders would leave Lowfields within 3 years are fading.
Nearby the future of the Yorspace communal living experiment
remains in doubt. The Councils decision to sell a plot to them at a discount is
likely to face a further challenge if and when contracts are exchanged.
These are both relatively small initiatives, though, compared to the Council’s decision to go big on shared ownership programmes.
Shared ownership allows people to buy a share of between 25%
and 75% of a home from a landlord, usually the council or a housing
association, and rent the remaining share at a reduced rent. Of the 600
affordable housing units the Council expects to build over the next few years,
almost half will be designated as “shared ownership”.
Support for shared ownership came mainly from former
Conservative Councillors at the authority (mostly not re-elected in May). Ironically
they argued that the scheme would avoid the pitfall of “right to buy” applications
which could impact on the rental availability of any new Council houses built,
almost as soon as they were completed.
But the early signs are that there is only a very limited market for shared ownership tenure in York. Few of the 1700 or so who are on the housing waiting list seem to see this as a solution to their problems. (Many are older people seeking to “downsize”)
The Council offers to help individuals (with incomes of less than £80,000 a year) to buy homes on the open market and then allocate them to shared ownership. It has not published any figures which show how many have taken up this offer.
The Council also has some new build and conversion properties which it markets itself as shared ownership. It says on its web site that it does not have any such properties available at present. Nevertheless, it continues to advertise properties on Cemetery Road.
Again, no performance stats have been published by the
Council. Councillors need to question how the shared ownership programme is
impacting on the housing waiting list.
They may also wish to question further whether the Council is right to set up its own development and sales arm.
Local estate agents are better qualified to find buyers and renters.
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
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
“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.
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.
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.
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.
The Council has relented in the face of pressure from local residents and has agreed to provide an additional 3 off street parking spaces on Tudor Road.
Location of proposed additional verge parking spaces on Tudor Road
The original plans only showed two spaces being provided in the rear garden of a block of flats. Now this is being increased by three. They will be constructed on the verges about halfway down the road.
The plan goes some way to compensating for the three spaces which will be lost when the access road for the Lowfield development is constructed.
Even two extra spaces will not be enough to satisfy the pent up demand which is already apparent in the area with verges and forecourts being pressed into service as impromptu parking areas.
The parking problem is likely to get worse when the new development is occupied. The “Yorspace” section of the development site has been criticised as it will only provide 12 parking spaces for 19 new homes. This may force some occupiers to park on Tudor Road
Separately the Council has now revealed that the “Yorspace” homes will not be categorised as “affordable”. This calls into question why the land for the development was sold by the Council at a heavily discounted rate. The discount means that taxpayers will effectively be subsidising the occupiers of the properties although in some cases they may be relativity wealthy individuals.
The Lowfields Playing Field Action Group have recorded an objection to plans to build 19 “communal living” homes on the Lowfields site. Although the Action Group states that it has no “in principle” objection to the development of this part of the site (they are mainly concerned about the loss of the nearby sports field and green open space) they have highlighted several issues.
One of these was a “behind closed doors” decision – only just published by the Council – to sell off 0.7 acres of land, to the “Yorspace” developers, for only £300,000. That would mean a plot cost of around £15,000 – far below the market value. A typical housing plot is that part of the City is currently fetching in excess of £50,000.
The decision was taken by a Council officer.
The papers to support he decision are very thin on detail. The Council can only legally sell at below market value if it can demonstrate that a lower priced sale “will facilitate the improvement of economic, environmental or social well-being of the area“.
Apparently the official was convinced that the shared ownership model being proposed would ensure that a continuing supply of low cost housing would result from the development.
But will it?
The papers don’t suggest that those who will occupy the homes, are required to be registered on the housing waiting list. There is no maximum income level mentioned for shareholders. There doesn’t seem to be any requirement for the investors to be York citizens or even UK residents.
As the homes turn over, it is unclear how investors in later years will be selected.
Housing subsidies are a controversial area. A more straight forward option would simply to have built more Council houses on the site (The Council’s housing debt ceiling has recently been lifted by the government).
But this is clearly an area where full transparency is needed. This would ensure that innovative house funding and ownership models are encouraged, while safeguarding the taxpayer’s interests. Sadly it appears that no York Councillor has had the wit or wisdom to press for all the facts to be made public.
The Action Group has also highlighted concerns about parking provision, security and nature conservation issues on the plans which can be viewed by clicking here
Lowfields Action Group planning objection Feb 2019
The Council has revealed that it has done a deal to sell 0.74 acres of land to Yorspace at the Lowfield school site.
The land is located next to Tudor Road and is expected to accommodate a high-density development of 19 houses and flats. The communal living style model involves people purchasing shares in a “Mutual Home Ownership Society”.
A report, made public only after a decision had been taken says, “It is a high-density development, to reflect its sustainable objectives, and will also include a community building which can be used for events, as well as some shared outdoor communal areas and growing spaces. As part of the groups green objectives, they are aiming for around 1-1.5 parking spaces per house. The site will be constructed using a variety of environmentally friendly materials and processes, possibly including straw bale and solar”.
The report also says, “As part of the agreement they may also take on the management of the growing spaces and some green areas of the Lowfield site and will run them for the wider community’s benefit”.
The council is refusing to say how much the land will be sold for nor will it say what the market value of the land is.
It is clear that a substantial discount has been negotiated.
It appears that the Council is not stipulating that the plots should be reserved for use by local people with a proven need for cheap accommodation (e.g. on the housing waiting list &/or key workers).
The Council has already changed its plans for the relocation of the football team which currently uses the Lowfields playing field.
In December, they were supposed to be relocated to Tadcaster Road. Last month the Council said they were considering fencing off Chesneys Field to accommodate them.
That announcement produced a barrage of opposition from the current users of Chesneys Field.
Residents opposed fencing the public open space by a ratio of 3:1 in a recent door to door survey.
The decision to sell off the land to Yorspace was taken last week by the Councils Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care (Jon Stonehouse), at a private, behind closed doors, meeting.
There was no consultation with affected residents before the meeting was held.