Aerial view of the Duncombe Barracks site, adjacent to the Bootham Crescent football ground, 2000 (© City of York Council, York Images)

Part of the Duncombe Barracks site, on Burton Stone Lane, is surplus to requirements, and may be bought by the City of York Council, for housing. This hasn’t got much coverage, and perhaps deserves more.

Recent pages haven’t moved much from Bootham/Clifton, I realise, but as this is my local patch, and as there’s been a lot to report and ponder upon recently in terms of plans and possible developments for various sites in this area, we’re again focusing on this part of town.  This Google map indicates where we are on this page, and the two nearby sites written about recently.

I was pleased to find fairly recent aerial views in the city archives online collection. The image above shows the barracks site towards the bottom. The football ground is adjacent to it, taking up most of the image.

Barracks have been on this site since the early 20th century, and covered a larger area. This included the area to the bottom right on the image above, on the corner of Burton Stone Lane and Grosvenor Road, which was called Lumley Barracks. I vaguely remember this. It had low buildings, a large area of concrete, and vehicles parked on it, as shown on the image above. This area was sold and had housing built on it about 15 years ago. (Images of that housing are included on one of my very old pages from 2004.)

I’ve been to take some more up-to-date photos of the part of the site that’s for sale, but clearly, as it’s MoD land, you can’t just go wandering about on it for a nosy around, so I’ve taken a few photos from the boundary.

A boundary which, as I’ve mentioned before, on another really old page from the past, has markers on the verge showing the ownership of this particular piece of land.

M.O.D boundary stone, in the verge outside Duncombe Barracks, Burton Stone Lane

This is quite a small site that’s for sale — not the whole of the remaining barracks, as I originally thought. The part that’s being sold is the area to the left of the main entrance, the area of grass and trees with an access road around it and a few buildings on the perimeter.

Part of the Duncombe Barracks site, viewed from Burton Stone Lane, 15 Oct 2018

(There’s a plan (PDF) on this link).

Next to one side of the site is St Luke’s church, and a small development of almshouses. On the other side is the remaining barracks area.

Duncombe Barracks entrance, with site for sale to the left. Bootham Crescent floodlight in the background, 15 Oct 2018

As mentioned on the earlier page about Persimmon’s Bootham Crescent plans, the city council has for a while now been investigating the possibility of buying this adjacent site.

I’ve been waiting for further information on this, and now we have it, in the form of a report going to the council Executive meeting on 18 October, for a decision on whether to proceed.

Part of the Duncombe Barracks site on Burton Stone Lane has been offered to the council for purchase from the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association (RFCA). This report sets out the opportunity a purchase of the site presents for delivering – subject to planning approval – a mixed tenure housing development including 40% affordable housing and a future income for the council from rents and sale receipts.
— source (PDF)

The site includes a couple of houses already, but they’ve never looked like they were occupied.

Houses on the Duncombe Barracks site, 15 October 2018

I wonder if they could be included in a housing development without being demolished.

As I’m sure we’re all aware, housing (or lack of it) has been a major concern in this city in recent years, with the situation seeming to get worse. Plenty of housing being built recently, but most of it out of reach, as the report prepared for the meeting states:

The limited supply and high cost of house prices and rents in the city is having a marked impact on the ability of York’s low to middle income households including first time buyers, young families and key workers in the health, education and care sectors to continue living in, or moving to, the city.

…  The Duncombe Barracks site is a time limited and rare opportunity for investment by the council to purchase land off-market and, subject to planning approval, deliver a mixed tenure housing development.

…  If the council decided not to purchase Duncombe Barracks the site would be offered on the open market with the likely outcome that a private developer would purchase the site. The maximum affordable housing that could be expected in that instance would be 20% under current planning policy.

… It is difficult to acquire land on the open market in York, and the opportunity to develop the site for mixed tenure housing would relieve pressure on green belt housing proposals in the city and also provide much needed affordable housing at higher than planning policy levels.

I’m not an expert in housing matters, but I am increasingly interested in land use, and who owns land, and I think I’d rather have the council buy the land than see it being bought by Persimmon as an extension to their existing plans for the adjacent site.

According to the press release, this site, if the council bought it, could provide ‘40% affordable housing’. That would be 40% of around 36 homes, from early assessment of the site, in the report. (I noticed something a bit confusing: because of the way URLs translate from headlines (in this case missing out the percentage sign), the link to this article suggests that 40 ‘affordable’ homes will be built on the site (https://www.york.gov.uk/press/article/2702/site_for_sale_could_deliver_40_affordable_homes) … Not quite that many, if you read the text.)

I’m still not entirely clear how ‘affordable’ the ‘affordable’ housing is, here or elsewhere, but hopefully it would be more ‘affordable’ than the rest of the housing in this particular area.

Whoever buys it, it looks like another site on my patch will turn from being fairly green and grassy to being covered with housing. Bootham Crescent (definitely, quite soon), parts of Bootham Park (probably), the barracks site (definitely, in the longer term, whether owned by the council or someone else).

This makes me feel a little bit sad, and unsettled, of course, because I’ve lived here so long, and like it how it is, and I want green and grassy places, with trees, where wildlife can wander, or fly, or nest, or feed.

On the other hand, I often wonder what Clifton locals thought back in the 19th century when whole streets of terraced houses covered the fields and the long plots of garden/open land behind the houses on the streets of Bootham and Clifton, filling a huge amount of open land in a short period of time, towards the end of the 19th century.

It would be hard to do this website if I was sitting in a field in Clifton rather than a house in Clifton, clearly. I get a bit exasperated when people sit in their homes built on what was green and open land complaining about green open land being built on. All things considered I recognise that we have to accept the change, and I want other people to have somewhere to live. There’s less and less land available, and so much demand, so the infilling continues.

Aerial view of the Bootham Crescent football ground, with the barracks site behind it, 2000 (© City of York Council, York Images)

After feeling a bit sad about the loss of the green area and trees where the new housing may be built, I thought I’d go off and do a bit of research, looking at old maps. I’m glad I did that, as the old maps (from various dates in the 20th century) showed that the area of the barracks site that’s now green and grassy had buildings on it before, right across most of it by the looks of it, for several decades in the later 20th century.

I just hope that any housing development will retain the trees. After seeing a large mature ash tree on the site felled to make space for a firing range I’ve asked about the possibility of a TPO on the remaining trees, but haven’t had a response.

And of course any family housing built here is likely to have some garden area attached, as do the houses built on the earlier development to the other side of the barracks site. These will be supporting more of the local bird and insect populations than the concrete yard that used to be there will have done.

This wider image sets the barracks site in its context, from a different perspective (with the city centre behind us, and looking out of town). Again, this is from some years back (2000), but the green spaces pictured are still green, in 2018.

Aerial view of the area, 2000 (© City of York Council, York Images)

The huge complex of buildings making up the city’s main hospital fills most of the bottom of the photo. To the bottom left are the buildings of Bootham Park Hospital. (The ‘gala field‘ in front of them is off to the left, not included on this photo.) The line of Bridge Lane runs between them (turning into Grosvenor Road after the railway line and its footbridge), and the railway line runs across the middle from left to right.

Beyond that, densely packed Victorian terraced housing. Apart from the railway line — which is a green corridor supporting wildlife (I’ve seen foxes on it, heard tawny owls in the trees around it) — there’s not much green. The football ground and part of the barracks site stand out, as does the green space of playing fields further in the distance, near Clifton Green Primary School. That, I hope, won’t be built on, at least not for a while yet …

Of course, green space doesn’t necessarily mean ‘public open space’.  I hope that the football ground and barracks site developments, when they happen, will be able to keep at least a ribbon of green running through, publicly accessible, maybe also have a snicket through for pedestrians and cyclists. ‘Opportunities for connectivity between the two sites (such as pedestrian and cycle access)’ are mentioned in the report (PDF) on the possible purchase of the barracks site.

But that’s some time in the future. First, the council’s Executive has to decide, at the meeting on 18 October, whether to go ahead with the purchase of the barracks land.

‘It is difficult to acquire land on the open market in York‘ is the line that stands out in all that text above.

. . . . .

This site is where I share what I know about York, and ask questions about things I don’t know, and ponder local issues in a thoughtful, non-inflammatory, generally non-political and objective kind of way, where possible. I add to this site when I can and pay the hosting fees every month. If you’d like to express appreciation for the time and effort involved in adding to and maintaining this online record of York and its changes, and would like to help pay the hosting fees, virtual coffees are always appreciated. Thanks to everyone who supports the site in this way.

The post Duncombe Barracks: possible CYC purchase, and housing plans appeared first on York Stories.

Bootham Park Hospital, by Irene Hawkins, circa 1940. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

From Bootham Crescent (football ground) to Bootham Park, very close by. I’ve been wanting to write an update on this for some time, and as the council has recently announced it would like residents’ views on the future of the site, now seems like a good time.

After publishing the previous piece on the Bootham Crescent football ground I received by email this aerial view of the area, including both Bootham Crescent and Bootham Park. It dates from around 1909.

Bootham Park aerial view, circa 1909 (Evelyn collection, yayas.org.uk)

The Bootham Crescent football ground, then a cricket ground, is towards the bottom right, marked ‘B’. The line of the old ‘Asylum Lane‘ (now Grosvenor Road and Bridge Lane) is a distinct line running through the centre of the image from right to left. The footbridge on it — crossing the York-Scarborough railway line — is marked ‘A’. The large open area on the bottom left is now the site of the city’s main hospital. Bootham Park Hospital buildings are just above the ‘A’, and its extensive grounds, towards the top of the image, are marked ‘C’.

The photo looks like it was taken during one of the galas held on Bootham Park, presumably by someone enjoying one of the balloon rides from there. Here’s another view of Bootham Park at gala time, looking towards the hospital building, across the grounds.

The gala on Bootham Field, 1909 (source)

I’ve mentioned before Charles Brunton Knight’s book This is York, published in the 1950s. I particularly appreciate the way the author includes snippets of recent history from his particular perspective, alongside the established ‘proper history’. Mr Knight was born in 1877, and so would have been in his later 70s when the book was published. In one of the walks in the book, which takes the reader along Bootham and past the hospital, he writes:

Between the Hospital and the street are the Hospital grounds, consisting largely of meadow land. For a period of about sixty years commencing in 1859 these grounds were the scene of York’s greatest public holiday since the times of the mediæval Corpus Christi pageants—the Grand Yorkshire Gala. Beginning as a flower show (a feature which continued throughout its history) it speedily developed into a three days’ festival with “all the fun of the fair”, balloon ascents, and nightly firework displays. Railway excursions brought multitudes of visitors to York at Gala time, and tens of thousands of visitors passed the entrance turnstiles daily. Bootham Park, as the grounds are now called, was always spoken of in those days as “The Gala Field” — and is yet, by many of us.

‘And is yet, by many of us’, he wrote, in the 1950s. Perhaps not now. I’ve not heard anyone refer to it in this way. Some other older texts also refer to what we now call Bootham Park as ‘Bootham Field’, or ‘the Asylum Field’.

Whatever we call it, I hope we’ll all be pleased that the sale of the site has been paused while other options are explored. It was bad enough that the hospital closed, then worse to see that the site might be sold off with no thought about its importance to the city and its residents. I wrote a lot about Bootham Park (approaches 1, 2 and 3) after the closure.

I’ve lived close to Bootham Park for 27 years, and in recent years in particular have cycled and walked through it many times. For me my main interest is the grounds, the open space, and public access to it. After the hospital closure, I was concerned about (annoyed by) a security firm’s signs on the boundary, and being asked to leave the open space while walking around its perimeter.

That was then. Now, there are some interesting ideas in the recent council proposals regarding the site’s future, and how it might link in with areas of land alongside it.

The site has very definite boundaries on three sides: the main road of Bootham to the front of the site, the York-Scarborough railway line down one side, and Bridge Lane on the other side of the boundary wall to the back, with the main general hospital on the adjoining site there. But on the remaining side, to the east, there’s more scope for change, and it’s interesting to see the ideas for that in the proposals from the council. Part of that side of the site adjoins the Union Terrace car and coach park on Clarence Street, which is council-owned land. Ideas include opening up more cycle and pedestrian access from there.

The ideas also include the possibility of opening up the long-closed rusty gates at one end of the Bootham boundary, mentioned on an earlier page.

Bootham Park railings and gate, 2 April 2015

That would be nice. They look like they haven’t been opened since the days of the galas.

More recently closed are the main access gates at the other end of the Bootham frontage, the double gates onto the access road. When I’ve been past and through the site recently only a narrow side gate is open, for pedestrians and cyclists, which is a bit annoying and inconvenient. Perhaps those gates could be opened up again without us all waiting for the results of the consultation on the various ideas.

The field is generally now seen as ‘underused’ — a term which often makes me a bit nervous, as it’s often used about places that aren’t making money for someone, places that only local folks appreciate, and wander across for free. The council proposals hint at making more use of the grounds, to generate income.

The site has always been appreciated by local residents, and some of its more hidden corners in particular seem to have been quite well-used, judging by the finds from an interesting archaeological dig here, in 2011. (See my 2012 page ‘It’s all connected’. Homeless heritage mapped‘, and the ‘further information’ links below for more.)

I’d rather it was left as it is. But perhaps, if income-generating things are needed, an annual gala/celebration could be reinstated? (But without wildlife-disturbing fireworks.)

Or how about a modern re-imagining of an event held here in 1866?

The Yorkshire Fine Art & Industrial Exhibition, 1866, on Bootham Field (source)

The street of Bootham runs across the bottom of the photo, and a rather splendid temporary building sits imposingly on the field in front of the hospital. (For more images of this see my page from a few years back – ‘Bootham Field and its rusty relics‘.)

Another view of the same building must have been taken from the top of Grosvenor Terrace, before the tall trees grew on the boundary alongside the railway line.

The Yorkshire Fine Art & Industrial Exhibition, 1866, on Bootham Field, from Grosvenor Terrace (source)

The railing and brick piers at the bottom of the photo are still there by the edge of the railway line, though so many other things have changed.

No balloons taking off from here now, but part of the land in front of the hospital is often used by a more modern form of aerial transport.

Yorkshire Air Ambulance taking off from Bootham Park, by the former chapel, 5 April 2018

The air ambulance often uses Bootham Park to land. I’ve seen it many times from the local area, on its approach, but only this year saw it on the ground in Bootham Park, as I happened to be walking through, and watched it take off.

As well as the large field in front of the hospital there’s green space to the side of it, around the chapel pictured above, and also the area where the nurses’ accommodation used to be. I suspect that some of this green space will be built on, and perhaps gated off.

I think it might need another page at least to try to cover other parts and other aspects of the site, in light of what I’ve just read of the proposals for its future, and after completing the online survey.

But for now, I hope this page has been of interest. Further links are below. Before you leave here and perhaps follow them, I just have to fit in my regular reminder of how to sustain this much-loved community resource. 

Virtual coffees are always appreciated, thank you.

More information

Proposals for the future of the site: see the city council’s page about the Bootham Park site. Comments need to be made by 9.00am on Thursday 1 November.

York Central MP Rachael Maskell has set up a petition: Public Land for Public Good: Bootham Park

More on Irene Hawkins’ painting, pictured at the top of the page. Worth a read.

Information on the Bootham Park archaeological dig in 2011, from the University of York, Department of Archaeology, and a YouTube clip of it on this link (should start at the relevant point, 14:48). A proper exploration of place, one of the most inspiring things I’ve seen. There was also an exhibition. I missed the dig and the exhibition, but wrote about the project in ‘It’s all connected’. Homeless heritage mapped‘, in 2012, after watching the video. See also a nice article on it from Stephen Lewis (York Press).

The history of the Yorkshire Fine Art & Industrial Exhibition, York – official publication on the 1866 exhibition on Bootham Field, published in 1867 – available to read or download from the Internet Archive. Some of the images above of the exhibition buildings come from this publication.

There are many lovely postcard images of the galas held on Bootham Field on cardindex.com. This link should take you to them.

I’ve compiled many pages about Bootham Park over the years. This link will take you to all pages tagged Bootham Park.

The post Bootham Park, the ‘Gala Field’, and the council’s survey appeared first on York Stories.

From Severus Hill, looking out over York, 8 Oct 2017

Revisiting the subject of the Carlton Tavern, and other York things, while looking out across the city from a high vantage point in Holgate/Acomb.

A while back, before the recent silence regular readers may have noticed, I saw York from a vantage point I’ve not appreciated it from before, from Severus Hill.

Is that the wolds in the distance? Remarkable views from up here.

It has changed a bit in the last couple of centuries, as you’d expect.

Image courtesy of York Museums Trust :: https://yorkmuseumstrust.org.uk/ :: Public Domain. More …

Since Henry Cave’s depiction the cows have gone and the fields have been covered with roads and houses. We defend the small green spaces that are left. A planning application to build on Severus Hill was the reason I went up here on 8 October, on the way to take photos of the Carlton Tavern for an earlier page.

The Carlton Tavern (formerly the Godfrey Walker home) is just down the road from where I took the photo above, at the bottom of the hill, to the south.

The planning application to build housing on the green area on Severus Hill was refused, so that’s one less thing to worry about/get engaged with/spend time on.

The planning application to demolish the Carlton Tavern (17/00476/FULM) was however approved, at the meeting on 18 October, and that’s one of the reasons I’ve not written much in the last couple of months, managing only one page. I’ve tried to write, several times, but never managed to hit ‘publish’, as the writing turned a bit ranty for my liking.

So let’s try again, as the Carlton application is going back before the planning committee tomorrow (13 December). I’ve never seen anything like this happen before. The recent Press article quoted Mike Slater, assistant director for planning:

“A local resident and the Victorian Society have queried to way in which we interpreted national policy around heritage assets when arriving at our decision.

“We have decided to refer it back to the committee so it can be clearly seen how we have arrived at our recommendation, and allow them to reconsider the issues.”

Well, hurrah for that.

When I watched the webcast of the meeting and listened to local residents and councillors giving their thoughts on the proposed demolition I really thought that something had shifted at last, that intelligent thought and hard work and people power had at last come together to mean that this kind of short-sighted destruction would be refused. At last, something truly invigorating from all those planning meetings I’ve watched, and six years on from the first demolition of a ‘heritage asset’ I really cared about.

But no.

I just couldn’t write about York things for a while. Seemed better to disengage and think about other things, rather than bothering to put energy and time into trying so hard to articulate the importance of local character, distinctiveness, history and heritage. Money talks loudest and the planning system is so weighted in favour of developers. Our elected councillors are our only hope, and when it’s that close on the vote, as it was in this case, it’s one opportunity to stand up for something locally valued, and for reasons I don’t understand the chair decided to vote to approve.

I’ve been observing this city quite closely for many years now, and the result of that is that I’m more of a realist. I didn’t expect the council to replace Stonebow House with a park, for example. It’s usually all about the value of land, land values, who owns it, who can afford to buy it. But every now and then it would be good to see our elected representatives fighting a bit harder to defend the heritage valued by the people they represent, and in particular the heritage out in the suburbs, where most of us live.

A broader view

Looking out from Severus Hill I felt a fondness for and attachment to the place that I get rarely now. York set in its landscape, the bigger picture, the hills beyond. But the city we see below us is basically parcelled pieces of land, plots with different owners. As more hotels go up, more pubs are sold off and demolished, it often feels like the city is being sold off, bit by bit, to people who don’t understand it, don’t give a damn about its heritage (what we inherit, that’s important, it’s the thread making the coherence, the history, the stories, making the place). So much now owned by people investing, passing through, not here really, just in it for the money.

Looking out from Severus Hill, or rather sitting here at my desk looking at the photos from Severus Hill taken a couple of months back, I’m thinking of how much has changed in the years I’ve been writing about York. Writing for these pages doesn’t just involve typing and taking photos, it involves a lot of reading of press reports and council minutes and other peoples’ views. A recent comment on a story in the Press seemed to sum up rather well how many residents feel. ‘Expat pete’ wrote about how the city has changed dramatically over recent decades:

Every week seems to introduce yet another restaurant or cafe catering to the tourist market. The city centre is home to more Airbnb type occupants than full time residents. York residents prefer to stay away from the city centre as much as possible as York becomes, increasingly for them, a superficial heritage theme park rather than a viable community. York can take its place among other destinations in Europe suffering the unfortunate consequences of mass tourism.
(‘Tourism bosses’ high hopes after China visit‘, 3 Dec 2017)

A recent comment here on this site made a similar point about residents staying away from the city centre and shopping out of town instead.

I went shopping in Acomb recently, cycling over from Clifton, visiting Savers and Boyes, pleased to see the Herbert Todd shop is still there, getting a few bargains in the charity shops. Impressive number of cycle racks at Acomb shops, and a nice community feel about the place.

What’s all this got to do with the Carlton Tavern?

One of the more positive aspects I’ve noticed in recent years is how local communities outside the city centre seem to be more focused on their identities as separate settlements, and how much good work is going on to celebrate and build community cohesion around local facilities. Obviously there’s the famous ‘Bishy Road’, but Holgate and Acomb and Tang Hall all seem to have more projects and groups focused around their particular places.

Approaching Acomb: Acomb Road, near the tree-lined Carlton Tavern site

Recognising the built heritage of these places, the buildings and the stories they tell about the development of the place, is a crucial part of strengthening this sense of community. The locally-valued buildings should be protected and cherished just as much as city centre buildings. Why should Acomb/Holgate lose another handsome building and all its stories just because the authority is in a bit of a panic about the care home situation?

On balance

I’m struggling to understand the thought process of those councillors who voted to approve, at the meeting in October. The officer report (now updated for the 13 December meeting) suggested that things were finely balanced between recommending approval and refusal. The word ‘balance’ occurs over and over in the report. The vote was then perfectly balanced (the same number for and against), until the chair’s casting vote. I hope this time a little more weight will be given to the reasons to refuse, tipping the scale in the right way.

I heard comments about ‘heart’ and ‘head’, in the discussion in the webcast. As if the case against demolition is just some soppy cherishing of old things for the sake of it, sentimental and foolish. Looking at this rationally, as I am, I can see no justification for approving the destruction of a building that could be reused in some way.

It could just be another demolition, to add to a depressingly long list, or we could try to stop it. There’s an online petition — one way of conveying views to the city’s elected representatives on the planning committee.

And other things …

Also on the agenda for the planning meeting on 13 December are other planning applications I’ve mentioned before:

The new mental health facility on the BioRad site on Haxby Road (17/02283/FULM)
— to be decided at the planning committee on 13 December. I wrote about it a couple of times before. Impressively quick processing of this one, no objections, how could anyone object. Much-needed replacement for Bootham Park Hospital, on what looks to be the best site of those available. ‘Generally the building is at single storey and two storey at most’ – makes a refreshing change doesn’t it (see below).

46-50 Piccadilly — another hotel (17/00429/FULM)
— mentioned a while back. Erection of part 5/part 6 storey hotel. It appears that the plans don’t include provision for a riverside walkway along that side of the Foss, despite riverside walkways being often mentioned in plans for the wider Castle Gateway area. Our nice notions of riverside walkways might have to be on the other side of the Foss, by the looks of things.

Hungate development (17/02019/OUTM)
— continuing on from earlier developments on the site. They’re wanting to raise the height of part of one of the next blocks planned for the site, making it even more lofty and light-blocking. ‘An increase in the height of Block G, to include an eight storey element on the corner of Hungate and Carmelite Street.’ Some objections, including from York Civic Trust, but recommended for approval. The officer report refers to ‘the provision of much needed dwellings in the City’ being in the scheme’s favour, but of course as we know by now those who need them probably can’t afford them.

More information

The planning committee meeting is on Wednesday 13th December at 4.30 pm. More information on this link. Webcast: www.york.gov.uk/webcasts

If you’re interested in reading more about Severus Hill, see Ice and Fire: the mystery of Severus’ Hill, by Liam Herringshaw.

Some of the local community-focused projects in the Acomb and Holgate area:

The Acomb and Westfield Forum, ‘developing a framework of planning guidance to protect the unique character of our community for the future’. Chill in the Community, ‘a community minded collective’. Acomb Alive represents local traders. Summer sees the ADAM festival (Acomb, Dance, Arts & Music Festival), a community event. In Holgate, Friends of West Bank Park, the Carriage Garden project, and Save Upper St Pauls.

. . . . .

Update, 13 Dec 2017

On the second vote, the planning application to demolish the Carlton Tavern was refused, as it should have been the first time. Long discussion at today’s meeting, repeating many of the points made at the earlier meeting, but the public speakers in objection were excellent (again), and though it was a close vote it didn’t need a chair’s casting vote. Hurrah. The chair summed up with several references to fears it would be a pyrrhic victory, as the applicants may appeal, but if they’ve any sense they won’t. Too much against their plans for this particular site. I’m surprised that they pursued it for so long. Nothing ‘caring’ about that. The fact that they might appeal shouldn’t mean that our representatives roll over and say okay, and I’m glad that enough of them didn’t to make it go the right way this time.

Anyway, here’s the all-important vote, which in this case is in favour of a motion to refuse. (Lots of interest in the discussion before that if you want to watch/listen). It’s at around 1hr 49. The embedded thing below should start at that point.

If you’ve enjoyed these pages, found them useful/interesting, virtual coffees are always welcome, thanks.

The post York from Severus Hill: Carlton Tavern and other stories … appeared first on York Stories.

A railway runs through it … view from Water End towards the York Central site

Time to head over to Holgate, as the city council is asking for our views on which bit of it should be blighted/destroyed by a road to the oily bit of land known as the teardrop site, where eventually perhaps we’ll see some big ugly buildings go up, which will probably bring satisfying profits to outside investors.

I’m sorry, I’ll try that again.

Time to head over to Holgate, as the city council would like our views on the options for the new access road to the York Central development, which is going to unlock the site, to the benefit of the residents of the city, offering well-paid employment and affordable housing.

None of us know as yet how the York Central site is going to develop, but there is a current consultation on the access road options (deadline is soon: 13 September 2017).

We have moved on a bit since I wrote about the York Central plans and the access road a while back.

It seems that public pressure has resulted in this opportunity to comment. I can’t claim credit, I think it was probably the impressive and concerted campaign by the community around the Holgate Garden, a community green space and play area which would be destroyed by the access road going in at the former carriageworks entrance (called ‘southern option’ in the current consultation documents).

The route in that many of us who have followed this issue saw as the most logical isn’t available at present. So because this is all about available funding ‘unlocking’ the site, and because that funding has a time limit on it, there are only three options.

They’ll all cause disruption and destruction, but one of them appears to cause less destruction than the others — Western option 01 — so it seems logical to me to support that option.

It’s more expensive, but if the teardrop/York Central development is as important as we’re being told it is then the way into it should set the standard. Being sensitive to what’s already there. If it doesn’t take that as a starting point then it’s like going back to the plans for the 1970s ring road.

I’m trying to approach the consultation on this road in a positive and balanced way, but having seen the endless years of complexity and delay around the community stadium project I fear that whatever ‘unlocking’ route we choose will be a road to nowhere. That massive John Lewis at Monk’s Cross was supposed to be an ‘enabling development’ for the community stadium, I think? We got the big shops, but not the thing they were supposed to be enabling.

I don’t want to sound negative. I’d rather feel positive and optimistic about the plans for York Central. Things seem a bit better than they were when the earlier York Central consultation took place. I’m aware of two community/campaign groups focused on the York Central plans and the potential impact: the Friends of Holgate Community Garden, and York Central Action. It’s good that that residents are questioning and challenging and trying to protect the local green spaces around the site.

It’s good that there’s a consultation on the access road options, and there’s some helpful information on the website about it regarding many of the aspects of the decision on what route to take.

Unfortunately the survey form used on the site seems to be the only way to make comment online — a simple email address would have been much better, but I can’t see that option.

If you want to comment you’ll need to select the ‘feedback’ button on the bottom right, which opens a popup with a survey form.

I got quite exasperated with the embedded survey form. If you just want to add written comments you’ll first need to get past a page of options where you’re supposed to rate the importance of different aspects — it is possible to select ‘N/A’ if you don’t want to bother with that part, and you then get a text box for your comments. On my laptop screen it’s showing up as too small to type much into comfortably and I’m not seeing any options to increase the size — maybe they don’t want us to write much? — so it’s all looking pretty poor to me. Perhaps it looks better on other devices, I hope so. At the moment it’s looking like one of the least user-friendly things I’ve seen for a long time.

York Central access road consultation form. (Linked to a larger and more user-friendly version)

But, thanks to @SaveUpperStPaul on Twitter, I have the direct link to the consultation form:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CPB332H

— which isn’t confined in a small box and should therefore be easier to complete. I must get around to doing so, when I’ve published this page, and an accompanying one on the effect the ‘Western’ options might have on Millennium Green.

The consultation on the access road options closes in a few days — the deadline is 13 September 2017.

Please try to comment if you can: www.yorkcentral.info/consultation/ for the info, and

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CPB332H

for the consultation form if you have difficulties via the ‘Feedback’ button.

The post York Central access road consultation appeared first on York Stories.

Ordnance Lane buildings, May 2016

Sometimes, on a Thursday, I settle down to watch a bit of ‘council telly’, as we call it in this house — the City of York Council webcast. There are many of these, but Thursday is usually the day for the planning committee, or, like this week, the executive meeting. It sounds quite dull, doesn’t it, but don’t leave yet. I just wanted to point out a few things of interest relating to buildings already discussed here on these pages in the past.

Ordnance Lane, plans abandoned

A while back, 27 May 2016, I wrote a piece about a planning application to demolish the interesting buildings on Ordnance Lane (pictured above). The planning application languished, undecided, for months. The matter was discussed at this week’s executive meeting (number 17 on this link), as there’s now a change of plan, involving using a different building, on James Street, for emergency accommodation for people who need assistance after becoming homeless. It sounds far more suitable.

James House, James Street

There’s more information in the report prepared for the meeting (PDF).

What will happen to the Ordnance Lane buildings remains to be seen, but for now they’re apparently safe from being flattened. They would make desirable residential accommodation if refurbished.

As they’re apparently still council owned I hope the council will aim for that outcome. Enough unlisted heritage has been destroyed recently. The council has a duty, I think, to do its best to preserve those heritage assets it still owns, particularly the vulnerable ‘recent’ heritage (19th century onwards), as we can’t do anything much to protect the privately-owned heritage assets/buildings of significance in a system so weighted in favour of developers.

Which leads me on to …

Carlton Tavern (Godfrey Walker Home), plans submitted

This wasn’t on the agenda at this evening’s council executive meeting, but the planning application for the building that was the subject of last week’s page has just gone online:

17/00476/FULM | Erection of three-four storey 79no. bedroom care home with associated parking, cycle racks and landscaping following demolition of existing public house | The Carlton Tavern 140 Acomb Road York YO24 4HA

There are some similarities between the Ordnance Lane buildings and this building, in that they’re both some way out of the city centre on main roads from town, and neither has the protection of any listed status. But as the Carlton Tavern (formerly West Garth, and the Godfrey Walker Home) is owned by a pub company who are selling it to a care home company it’s hard to see it surviving.

The proposed demolition seems like a wasteful and crass destruction of a handsome building that is part of the history of its area, just like the Ordnance Lane buildings are part of the history of their area. Surely, in the 21st century, we’ve got the wit and understanding and technical expertise to incorporate buildings like this into plans for redevelopment of a site, rather than just smash them to bits?

The Carlton Tavern site is large, and it appears that there’s plenty of room for the developers to maximise their profit on the land around it.

If you’d like to comment on the planning application you can do so on this link.

Vibrant hubs and sell-offs

On the link to the recording of the meeting on the council’s YouTube channel the executive meeting agenda is posted under the video, and it’s also available to read on the relevant page on the council’s website. Reading through the list gives a snapshot of York and its concerns and changes at this time, March 2017.

I have to focus on particular aspects here on these pages, as I can’t cover it all. But the meeting covered a lot of ground. There’s also the long-running saga of the community stadium, which has grown into some huge unwieldy thing since I wrote about it years ago. And there’s the plan to turn the Guildhall complex into ‘a vibrant hub’. And the selling off of the site of Oakhaven older people’s accommodation for much less than its market value to Ashley House plc in exchange for an 80 year agreement. I guess the new accommodation might end up looking something like this one in Grimsby.

So much being sold off, moved out of local authority control, privatised.

Lettering on the exterior of Yearsley Baths, May 2015

And a tree

Never mind, if it all gets a bit too much I find it helps to head off for a brisk walk away from the hard-to-keep-up-with vigorous visions and vibrant hubs of the city centre towards the greenery and fine old trees at Clifton Park.

Where, recently, a healthy and supposedly TPO-protected tree was felled, so the Dormouse pub could put up a big advertising sign, alongside a row of more signs (info on this link).

Stump of felled tree, by the Dormouse pub sign

There appears to have been a clearance of vegetation to better display them. As the report (PDF) on this (retrospective) planning application states:

In order to erect the sign, which is already in place, a protected tree has been removed without consent. The TPO reference number is 173/1991 and was served in 1991 as an ‘area’ order which relates to all the trees within a demarcated area, such that all the trees in existence at the time of serving the order are protected.

Not clear whether this is a case of ignorance — not knowing about the TPO protection — or arrogance, thinking that ignoring such things is okay.

The roadside signs didn’t get planning permission so I imagine they will have to come down. Hard to put back the tree though isn’t it.

The post Ordnance Lane, Carlton Tavern, musings … and a tree appeared first on York Stories.

The plans for Clifford’s Tower were approved at today’s council meeting, one of many planning applications in a long meeting with a lengthy agenda.

Once again, the way it has been reported in the Press makes it look like the meeting was bad-tempered and argumentative, with ‘stinging criticism’.

I watched it and found it to be good-tempered, civilised, and with intelligent and thoughtful discussion.

Judge for yourselves, if you’ve got time to watch/listen to the discussion on this item, starting at 1hr 23 mins 21 secs.

It’s particularly interesting to hear what the representative from English Heritage has to say.

A few points from the discussion:

— these plans are the product of a long process, which has carefully examined all options

— there was a public consultation

— there was recognition that this isn’t the first ‘remodeling’ of the tower and the area around it

— funding currently available for this project won’t be available in future years

The discussion wasn’t entirely serious all the way through. Cllr Janet Looker suggested she’d love a glass pyramid design for the visitor centre …

Two contributors felt that they were speaking for the residents of York, who, they felt, were in the main horrified at the proposed changes. I don’t get that impression, apart from vociferous comments under the Press articles, including that one above. How representative of wider public opinion are those comments? We don’t know. But I realise, over time, more and more, that it’s perhaps not wise for any of us to claim to know what ‘the people of York’ think, on this or anything else. The louder/angrier/more confident voices don’t necessarily represent the majority.

At another point in the meeting came the very valid observation that the number of objections was really quite low, considering the importance of the site. Suggesting perhaps that most people don’t feel strongly about it. Certainly I haven’t sensed a huge amount of interest on Twitter, or in reaction to this week’s page on the subject.

Anyway, I just wanted to say, and not for the first time, that I hope the number of people watching the webcasts of these meetings is growing. It’s a good way to get an insight into how the planning process works at this stage of the proceedings. It’s also reassuring to see how much discussion takes place before controversial decisions are made. It might also result in more respect for the hard work of councillors attending the meetings — this meeting seems to have gone on for four hours.

Having listened carefully to the thoughts and opinions of people doing their best to do the right thing and make the right decisions — a generally positive experience, as it usually is — I then read the first 10 or so comments on the Press article … which had the opposite effect. Like two separate worlds, essentially. Will that ever change, I wonder.

. . . . .

After a period of thought, readjustment to changing priorities, the need to do more work on other projects, and a feeling that online work isn’t as interesting or rewarding as it used to be, I’m now aiming to add something just once a week to this website, so the next page is due to be added sometime next week. Please sign up to the mailing list if you’d like a notification of updates.

The post Planning meeting: perspectives appeared first on York Stories.