Front cover of the official guide: City and County of the City of York (1961). Illustration by Kenneth Steel.

I’ve recently been perusing an interesting guide to York, bought as part of a small pile of publications from the Barbican Bookshop, in its closing down sale, some years back. As previously mentioned, I found the ‘local interest’ shelves pretty much cleared, but a few little treasures were found. (See ‘related posts’, below, for several of them.)

I’ve wanted to mention this particular guidebook, and feature a few scans of its pages, for some time.

Much of it is the familiar tourist-focused information on the Minster and other famous buildings. But alongside that are many pages illustrating York as it was for people living in the city, the places where residents worked and shopped.

My particular copy was once the property of Moorlands Hotel in Whitby, the stamp in the front suggests. I wonder how and when it ended up tucked away in a corner of a secondhand bookshop in York.

The booklet was published ‘by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of York’.

Title page of the 1961 York guide

For me, looking at this title page of the booklet, the inclusion of the ‘Citizens’ — and the fact that the word is capitalised — really stands out. Do we use the word ‘citizens’ as often now? Probably not, and perhaps not with this amount of civic pride.

The guide, in its introductory ‘Welcome to York’ page, ends with:

‘This book is not intended for the delectation of visitors only, but also for the men, women and children who dwell within the boundaries of our City.  The citizens of York are proud of their City, and York is proud of its citizens.  No matter where they may roam, those who have lived within the sound of the Minster bells, and have trodden its old streets, never forget the City of their birth or adoption, and for them this book may perhaps bring back happy memories.’

It’s perhaps even more likely to provoke memories now it’s 57 years old, and it certainly gives an insight into the city as it was at the start of the 1960s.

After many pages of the kind of information you’d expect to find in a guide for visitors — the history of the city, and its well-known historic buildings — the subject of page 69 is the University of York, not built at that point, but clearly seen as an exciting and important thing for the city, after government approval in 1960.

‘The university will be built at Heslington, less than a mile from the city walls, on a site of nearly 200 acres which includes Heslington Hall and its grounds.’

This is followed by a page on the city’s library and information service, and several pages on the history and uses of the Ouse, then brief information on the strays (mainly the Knavesmire), and the city’s parks and open spaces. There’s then, rather surprisingly, a ‘French Section’, which is actually just the one page. My French is quite poor but this part stood out:

From the French section of the 1961 guide to York

Ah yes, the wagons de chemin de fer, the chocolat and the instruments optiques. It sounds even more impressive in French.

The reason this is in the French summary section is because this official guide, in 1961, devoted a whole four pages to ‘Commerce and Industry’ (pages 88-91). Featuring, as you might expect, Rowntree and Co Ltd, followed by Joseph Terry and Sons Ltd. But then a reminder that the city’s workforce in the factories didn’t just make chocolate, with a page on the York Carriage and Wagon Works (aka the carriageworks), followed by a page on Cooke, Troughton and Simms Ltd. (Cooke’s factory was at the Haxby Road site where the new mental health facility is to be built.)

The advertisements towards the back of the guide remind us too of other places where many York citizens worked, back then.

Examples of Adams Hydraulics ironwork can of course be seen all over York, if you’re paying attention to ground level ironwork (and perhaps in particular, as a 21st century citizen, if you’ve had concerns about silted-up street drains).

Adams Hydraulics, advert from the 1961 guide

Big buildings advertised by Shepherd’s, including one for the University of Leeds which seems to be still in use (see Google Street View), though it seems less likely that the ‘Boiler House for 52 acre factory’ will have survived. (A quick Google suggests that the building was apparently still standing in 2010.)

Shepherd, advert from the 1961 guide

And then Shepherd Homes, building family housing out in the expanding suburbs:

Shepherd Homes, advert from the 1961 guide

From where the citizens of York might have worked and lived, to where they shopped:

Hunter and Smallpage, Goodramgate, advert from the 1961 guide

Hunter and Smallpage’s advert inside the back cover of the guidebook highlights that the shop had ‘6 floor showrooms’ and its own private car park, which must have been where Café Luca is now.

I remember the name Hunter and Smallpage, but don’t remember a store called Harts. But Harts also advertised in the 1961 guide, with a map showing the locations of various landmarks, including their shop:

1961 York guide: advert for Harts store

Interesting that the map includes mention of the telephone exchange, which of course at that time would have been a fairly new building, and was clearly seen as a landmark worthy of mention. And in the bottom corner of this page, the last page of the guide, mention of the printer of this official guide to York, in 1961. Printed locally, of course, at Ben Johnson’s, as so many things were, back then.

When I first thought about including this 1961 guide I thought it would be a case of just scanning some of the pages and adding them without too much comment, perhaps no comment at all. But it always ends up being more complicated than that, and several hours on from when I started this ‘quick page’ I find I’ve still not finished, as looking carefully always prompts more questions, and usually more Googling. So I just have to mention the cover illustrations of this lovely guidebook, and the fact that when scanning it I paid more attention to the signature, Kenneth Steel, apparently. The back cover illustration is particularly pleasing.

1961 York guide, back cover. Illustration by Kenneth Steel.

Footnote

… Gentle nostalgia, sometimes … getting to grips with important current things sometimes … hundreds of pages of all kinds of things here on this citizen’s record of York and its changes. And all without annoying adverts or pop-ups nagging you to join my mailing list (though you can do that on this link if you’d like to), and all proper ‘authentic’, independent, and apparently unique. Looking after this online resource I’ve built up over the years also involves paying website hosting fees every month. If you’d like to say thanks for this online resource, virtual coffees are always appreciated. I continue to add to these pages what I can, when I can. Thanks for your interest and support,
Lisa

The post York in 1961 appeared first on York Stories.

Gasworks railings, between Heworth Green and Layerthorpe

This week we’re heading (again) down the snicket between Heworth Green and Layerthorpe, by the side of what’s left of the gasworks site. Its boundary is still marked with now rather rusty railings, painted with a colour I’ve heard referred to as ‘gas board blue’.

This old snicket was at one time known as Fawdington’s Lane, apparently, a name which probably meant something to the people in the area, as the old names usually did.

Not sure about the new names. Here’s one of them, for the road running alongside it, partially constructed in recent years:

I’m not sure but I guess that the ‘Eboracum’ bit is connected to the naming of the buildings in the new residential development between this road and the Foss, which I mocked rather rudely some years back in a page titled ‘Selling York’.

There’s a large office block here, on the part of the old gasworks site redeveloped some years back. It reflects what’s left of the gasworks, and this red brick building in particular, which I’ve been told is the old gasworks social club.

Eboracum Way passes this office block and then ends abruptly — basically a road to nowhere. It has been that way for years.

But in recent weeks the other half of it has been under construction, while for many months before that, as briefly mentioned on a previous page, a building has risen up to one side of this site, near the Foss. It’s a new hotel, a Travelodge, pictured here on the right as we look across towards Layerthorpe. That Foss Islands chimney so prominent on last week’s page is again a landmark on this photo.

From the photos on these pages of mine you might get the impression that it’s always sunny in York. Not the case, of course, but I’ve always tried to capture my images of this place on bright days. And the same on this walk, the target of which is this rather controversial new hotel building. It seemed even more important in this case to get good sunlight on the thing, to show it to its best advantage, to see if we can find any merit in it, as the comments I’ve seen online suggest most people really aren’t impressed.

And as it was cloudy and dull on my first attempt I went back to try again. Actually I’ve been taking photos of the development for months, but building sites and buildings under scaffolding aren’t enormously interesting to a wide audience, so I thought I’d wait until it was unveiled. And here it is, the new Layerthorpe hotel, captured from various angles. This photo taken through the barriers at the end of the snicket isn’t the greatest quality but it does show an important angle, with the Minster in the background:

The Minster looks a bit shocked.

It’s huge and dominant, this new building. Perhaps that wasn’t seen to matter in this particular place, as the Layerthorpe area has already been destroyed and rebuilt and its earlier character and history obliterated. (See the Layerthorpe page on this site and my accompanying Layerthorpe project site for more on its recent history.)

Here’s the new hotel from the other side, viewed from Monk Bridge at the start of Heworth Green:

It perhaps looks better when reflected in the Foss. Here we’re following the curve of Foss Bank, back towards town:

The round iron structures on this side of the river are apparently the old supports for a bridge that once carried a small gasworks railway over the river. As pictured on an earlier page:

The hotel site is part of what was once a very large gasworks, occupying land on both sides of the Foss. I’ve written a few pages about the gasworks.

When work began on the hotel development it initially involved removing the legacy of that previous use. In spring 2016 fragments of old ironwork were visible through the building site fencing:

Part of a gasometer perhaps? Or part of the gasworks railway? Rather handsome, isn’t it.

I have several photos of the lumps of rusty iron the site clearance revealed, and may share some more with you, dear readers, at a later date. I bet you can’t wait.

There used to be several gasometers in this area. Now there’s just one, no longer used, sitting on the site on the other side of the snicket we’ve just been down, looking rather flat and low:

Development of the hotel site was held up by this gasometer, according to the report prepared for the meeting at which the hotel planning application was decided, back in 2014 (PDF on this link).

That same report makes clear how many holdups and setbacks there have been to the redevelopment of the hotel site:

An application was also made in 2004 for 158 residential apartments at the site (with basement parking). The scheme was approved by members, subject to a legal agreement to deliver affordable housing, offsite open space provision, a bond for remediation of contaminated land, a contribution toward a car club and access arrangements to a riverside walkway. The legal agreement was not signed and the application withdrawn as the scheme was not financially viable.

And:

Planning permission was granted for the same type and amount of development in June 2012 (application 11/02210/FULM). It has not been possible to implement the previous permission as the hotel aspect could not go ahead until the gasholder, which is to the northeast, is de-commissioned. This was a requirement from the Health and Safety Executive due to the scale of the hotel and its proximity to the gasholder. The gasholder is yet to be de-commissioned, therefore applicants have come forward with an alternative scheme which moves the building further from the gasholder to the extent that the HSE requirement would no longer apply.

(23 October 2014 committee report: PDF)

So there it sits now, the new hotel, almost finished, on its site by the Foss where the old gasometers used to be.

Looking at it from further up Foss Bank I was particularly struck by this view of it:

The other sides are full of windows. This side, facing the city centre, has very few, and those that are there look like windows on corridors. Standing here looking at it, then turning round and facing the other way, I could see the Minster. Why was the building designed to face the other way?

It might be, of course, that the Sainsbury’s on Foss Bank and the large former hospital building behind it block out views of the Minster from the new erection, hard to tell from down at street level, but surely something of the city’s handsomeness could be glimpsed from windows facing that way? So why is the whole thing orientated the other way, turning its back on the charms of the city it’s wanting to make a profit from?

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this development, at least from my point of view, is a new access to the Foss riverside. A riverside walk, following on from a section of riverside that already has benches and a path.

That existing section, however, is gated with a security lock and a ‘private property’ sign:

So I’m not sure how and when it’s going to be opened up to the public.

A revisit may be a good idea when the new road is open, and when the new riverside walk is accessible.

On the site boundary on the old snicket of Fawdington Lane there’s a noticeboard with information about the building work, a site notice for a licensing application, and this invitation:

Not sure what kind of suggestions they’re hoping for, and it would be interesting to know if they’ve had any.

Meanwhile, your views on this new addition to the skyline are welcome here via the comments form below.

Map

Following a request from a reader I’ve marked the location of this week’s wander on a Google map: see this link.

Footnote: then and now

I’ve been writing about York, and taking photos of York, and freely sharing it all online for many years now. Some of those earlier pages I’ve linked to above — for example this one from 2007 — have really small photos, because that was appropriate in those ancient days when most of us didn’t have broadband. That’s how long I’ve been doing this.

As I now have my own archive going back more than a decade, and as I now have more of an understanding of how it all works, these plans and changes, it seems a good idea to keep producing these pages. On the other hand it’s working for free, and that can sometimes be hard to justify. So if you’d like to express your appreciation and power more pages, here’s a way to do that, with my groovy new ‘buy me a coffee’ button. Thanks to the supporters who powered this week’s page.

(via ko-fi.com. “Ko-fi helps creators get support from people who love what they do”)

Pages now usually appear weekly, on Tuesdays. For notifications of new pages appearing, join the mailing list or follow me on Twitter.

The post By the Foss: Layerthorpe hotel, old gasworks site appeared first on York Stories.

It’s getting on for five years since I wrote about a fundraising campaign for the Arts Barge Project. Since then a barge called Selby Tony has been acquired, and as far as I know the barge is still sitting in the Foss Basin where it was last May, when I admired it and took the photos on this page.

A planning application for a permanent mooring for the Arts Barge is to be discussed at today’s planning committee meeting (Thursday 16 Feb). Application details and documents can be found here:

16/01769/FUL | Mooring of Ouse Barge converted to create floating arts venue adjacent to Tower Gardens / Skeldergate Bridge | Proposed Floating Arts Venue South Esplanade York

As is so often the case with planning applications, the accompanying documents provide interesting historical information. A Heritage Statement (one of the documents in the list on the link above) includes the following information on the barge’s history:

Selby Tony and the other barges in the fleet worked from Hull into Goole, Leeds, Selby and York and carried bulk loads including grain, molasses, coal tar from York gasworks, creosote, coal for domestic and industrial use, newsprint for the Evening Press and seeds and rice for the mills. Animal cake was also transported back to Hull for export.

Selby Tony was built in 1957 by Dunston’s at Thorne. The boats were moored alongside many other barges of similar size and larger, along York city centre’s riverbanks. The Selby Tony, is one of the last remaining cargo barges from that fleet remaining with others surviving by being converted into houseboats. Selby Peter was found stored alongside Selby Tony in Waddingtons, Swinton and was destroyed as The Arts Barge Project acquired Selby Tony.
(p29, Heritage Statement)

The focus on the heritage aspect and the stories of working life and industry is a particularly interesting and valuable part of the project, and one that doesn’t seem to have got much attention. The Heritage Statement again:

As part of the Arts Barge project, one of the first community-focused activities will be the River Heritage Project. This has already begun, when the skipper of Selby Tony (Laurie Dews, now 95) was interviewed about his time on the barge. More research will be carried out into the history of barges in York and the people who worked on them.
(p42)

The same document includes an interesting snippet of information regarding the ship’s bell, which has been ‘donated to the Project by Barry Heath who bought it thirty years ago from a Car Boot sale.’

Fascinating, I think, and there’s clearly been a lot of support from many people.

It seems to have provoked equally strong ‘anti’ feelings, which I don’t quite understand. If the idea of the Arts Barge on the river in York makes you angry I’d really appreciate an explanation of why that is, as I try to understand and appreciate all points of view. As I understand it the project has had very little financial support from the council, and a lot of hard work has gone in to raising money from other means, including organising events and through donations from individuals.

After all that hard work, and with a barge in waiting, what the project needs now is a bit of river and riverbank to have a permanent mooring, which is what this planning application is about.

Looking at the planning application documents and reading the many project updates on the Arts Barge Project website gives some idea of the amount of work that has gone in to this project and in particular this important stage of trying to get a permanent mooring.

After many years of hard work, and with dear old Selby Tony already sitting in the Foss Basin, and with so much preparation and discussion of options as part of the planning application process, you’d think that the plans would have been recommended for approval.

But not so. The officer’s recommendation on this one is ‘Refuse’. That doesn’t mean the councillors have to, when they vote at Thursday’s meeting. It will be an interesting one to watch on the webcast, I think.

It’s worth reading the committee report (PDF) prepared for the meeting. Along with comments made by both supporters and objectors (and there have been a high number of both lodging comments in response to this application) it makes for a thought-provoking read. It’s provoked so many thoughts over the course of this week since I’ve read the report that I thought I’d record some of them here. The following excerpts are from that committee report.

Riverbank access

The report expresses concern that the proposals ‘would remove a public benefit i.e. free public access, views and openness between the park, river bank and the river; and replace with private access.’

Notwithstanding the fact that the Selby Tony is a normal barge as used in York historically, the permanent mooring of such a large vessel would block access for the general public to the remaining stretch of open river bank in this location

Many other changes and developments have stopped the public being able to access places we could walk before and  I haven’t seen massive public concern. Numerous private developments and the associated gating or raising of boundaries stopping us wandering onto bits of land we could wander on to before. The Theatre Royal colonnade, for example, blocked off by glass, or in the case of Bootham Park, a security guard asking us to leave, or the St Leonard’s Place development enclosing the formerly accessible car park area and Roman wall fragment, or the Stonebow walkways being no longer accessible. It seems such things are widely accepted as part of the changing nature of the city, so why not in this case?

Pilings, and rising and falling

When I’d first thought of the proposed Arts Barge I guess I’d vaguely imagined it as a vessel on the river that could move about when needed. But not so, and that’s why there’s a planning application to consider. It needs holding in place by pilings, though these will of course allow up and down movement – necessary when the river level changes, as of course it often does.

The boat would be permanently moored through pilings into the riverbed and would be held on 3 new steel river piles sited 2.5 metres from the bank on which it would rise and fall. The piles would project approximately 6 metres above embankment level.

I’m trying to picture how wide and how dominant these pilings would be. They ‘would be considered to cause views of and across the river to be permanently interrupted’, says the report.

Barge or building?

This permanency of the pilings and the need to keep the barge in a particular position on the river creates some of the difficulties in the planning application:

a distinction needs to be made between a boat utilising the mooring with normal patterns of movement and this proposal for the permanent mooring of the Arts Barge. The static permanence of the Arts Barge would be considered to be akin to that of a new building, and therefore an argument that it would increase activity levels on the river is not accepted. Similarly, by virtue of its proposed permanence, it is considered appropriate to apply the same principles of design as one would with the siting of a new building in the Conservation Area.

Which then puts the emphasis on how it looks, how it fits in with its surroundings, and notions of ‘harm’.

Views, heritage, and ‘harm’

Reading these officer reports reminds us that in a place like York, full of heritage assets and important and cherished views, it’s all about weighing up perceived ‘harm’ against the benefits. So we read statements like this:

The harm to the heritage assets is assessed as less than substantial but in these circumstances the council’s statutory duty under Sections 66 and 72 gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted, and considerable importance and weight must be given to the harm in the planning balance, despite it being less than substantial.

It’s less than substantial, the perceived harm, but it leads to a recommendation to refuse the planning application. I don’t get this at all, I’m afraid. Again, just comparing with other local examples.

We’re surrounded by examples of what could be seen as ‘harm’. Every new thing has the potential to ‘harm’ the existing cityscape, and depending on how much you admired what was there before, it often does. So, for example, just across the river from the proposed mooring site, is the Bonding Warehouse, with that extra bit added above it, when it was redeveloped. Another example of harm/change, depending on your viewpoint. And far more ‘harm’ being proposed to cherished views over on Haxby Road with the strange little chalets/sheds on top of the Rowntree factory, but that harm will get recommended for approval I expect. The perceived (essentially subjective) ‘harm’ seems to be accepted when it’s a developer needing to make a profit, over and over again. And then of course the controversial proposals for the Clifford’s Tower visitor centre, which will change an existing view quite dramatically, and therefore, on the same kind of criteria, cause ‘harm’ – change the look of something many local people cherish.

In a building instead?

The really interesting thing about the Arts Barge Project is its focus on the barge. The lovely big rusty thing being rescued and reused. Imaginative and ambitious, but then it comes up against the planning process, and this response:

It is considered that the public benefits associated with the proposed development are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the heritage assets because the applicant has not demonstrated that a permanent base for community arts could not be provided from an existing building in the city.

The whole emphasis of the many years of work has been about bringing a barge into the city, and now they’re supposed to start looking for a building instead? I read this as one too many hoops for them to jump through.

North Street …

There’s not much choice for the Arts Barge Project if they want Selby Tony to be moored between Lendal Bridge and Skeldergate Bridge. By the North Street gardens seems to be the only other place. In many ways it seems more fitting than Tower Gardens. Opposite the City Screen development, that is, opposite where the old Evening Press used to be based, where deliveries of newsprint were made by barge, including Selby Tony apparently. The newsprint delivery was the only remaining river cargo into York by the 1990s. Having a barge opposite the building would be a proper connection to that heritage.

However, the report notes:

North Street gardens was discounted as it would involve significant structures including substantial gangways in order to deal with the 4.5 metre height difference between water level and North Street. The costs of this was deemed to be prohibitive as well as the difficulties of dealing with accessible access.

If it’s just about cost then perhaps that could be overcome. But if this application is approved by councillors then it won’t need to be, and the Arts Barge Project can proceed with bringing Selby Tony to Tower Gardens.

More information

The council’s planning committee meeting where the issue will be discussed can be watched via the webcast (www.york.gov.uk/webcasts) from 4.30pm Thursday 16 February or via the council’s YouTube channel. More details of the meeting can be found on this link, and the planning application documents are on this link.

Update, 17 Feb

Despite the recommendation for refusal, the planning application was approved at yesterday’s meeting, so the Arts Barge Project now has the planning permission for the mooring at Tower Gardens.

16 Feb planning meeting on YouTube

It was a long discussion, covering all aspects and with a range of views. Part of a long meeting, lasting over four and a half hours.

. . . . .

If you’d like to be kept informed of new additions to this site please join the mailing list.
If you value this thoughtful analysis of York and its changes please look at supporting this site in 2017. And if you use content from this site, please link back to the page where you found it. Thank you.

The post Selby Tony, heritage, and the Arts Barge mooring appeared first on York Stories.

Bridge Lane gates, 2017

Long ago, way back in the mists of time — 2004 — I took a photo of some rusty old gates on Bridge Lane, the last photo on a fairly long wander through town. I don’t think the photo appeared in one of my York Walks pages on York Stories at the time, but many years on I got around to posting a page on the gates and gateposts, still there then, still rusting: Walker foundry relic on ‘Asylum Lane’ (2012).

Since then, very recently, they’ve been restored, so a revisit seems appropriate. I also have some queries about the land behind them.

But first, these gates.

In August 2004 they looked like this:

Bridge Lane gates, August 2004

In November 2012, like this:

Bridge Lane gates, Nov 2012

And now, in 2017, like this:

Bridge Lane gates, 2017

As previously mentioned, in a walk along Bridge Lane back in October, I’d noticed their removal and some helpful signs put up by York Civic Trust explaining that they were being restored and would be put back in due course.

It’s more obvious now they’re restored and repainted that the gateposts don’t match — they’re different designs if you look at the details of the scrolls and the flowers in the photos above. There’s probably a story behind this, but I don’t know what it is. Normally, with a pair of gateposts, you’d expect them to match one another.

More obvious is the change of colour. Personally I find the colour very pleasing, and think it makes sense to draw attention to the restoration by choosing something other than the more usual black.

Also interesting are the maker’s plates, which I hadn’t noticed before. They’re now clearly visible on the gates between the columns of the gateposts, but they don’t say ‘Walker':

Nick Beilby, York Civic Trust’s Project Manager, confirmed that they were there before:

The gates were cast by Hawley’s who were brass founders on Walmgate, close neighbours of Walkers. It is likely that they carried out the work on a sub contract basis to Walkers. The ‘Hawley’ plates were found when we blast cleaned the ironwork.

The ironwork was restored by Barker and Patterson (Hull).

Leading to … playing fields, and ridge and furrow?

The gates don’t open now, but let’s imagine we’re pushing them open onto the land behind, before it was built on, when it was fields, and later, playing fields.

The land behind the gates is now occupied by the city’s hospital, and has been since the mid 1970s. But as previously mentioned on the earlier page these fine gates used to lead to playing fields, and two comments on previous pages, from Stephen and David, shared memories of this area at those times, which many other readers will remember:

At this time [late 1960s] there was a mature hedge on the opposite side of the lane to the wall, and beyond this a large expanse of grassland where the hospital now stands. I used to play football there with friends, and also remember York City would use it for training. I also remember watching a school rugby game adjacent to Wiggington Road between my school Lowfields, and Park Grove, who used the area as playing fields. There was a rudimentary changing hut next to the ornate gates mentioned in your article. I seem to remember it was oval in shape, and built of Asbestos sheets, rather like the garages of the forties and fifties.
– David Bower

A map available on old-maps.co.uk, dating from 1937, suggests that at that time the large area of land here was divided into several distinct areas of playing fields, with a smaller school sports ground to the right of these gates, a larger sports ground on what is now the southern part of the hospital grounds, and a separate cricket pitch to the northern area. This would be from around the time Stephen remembers it, I think.

A 1961 map (from nearer the time David describes) shows the school sports ground apparently absorbed into the main sports ground, with a small area marked as ‘playground’. There’s still the cricket ground to the north, and a bowling green and tennis courts also marked in this area. There’s also the rugby ground to the east (since relocated, site filled with housing), and the York City ground (still there) to the west.

Quite the ‘Sports Quarter’ back then, apparently.

But I’ve also read, in several reliable sources, that remnants of ridge and furrow were visible on this particular piece of land, into the 20th century. Bridge Lane was formerly known as Asylum Lane:

Formerly in Clifton, the largest surviving block of broad ridges within the city is on playing fields N. of Asylum Lane (around 60205300) measuring at least 300 by 200 yds. This clay area, at one time Laithe Close, has slightly sinuous ridges, 30 ft. wide and 1 ft. high. One parcel of ridges is aligned E.N.E. and another N.W.
– (source)

I’m wondering how that fitted with playing fields, which are traditionally flat. Presumably by the 20th century it was just a few bits around the edges, or perhaps football players had to battle with balls falling into furrows?

More information

Historic Environment Record, a fascinating resource, local historic features mapped and described. This link may work to take you to the relevant point (though you’ll need to zoom in). The brown lines denote the ridge and furrow. Clicking on the relevant area takes you to the Heritage Gateway pages: see this link and also this link which includes the brief explanation ‘Ridge and furrow seen as earthworks on 1936 air photographs’.

. . . . .

If you’d like to be kept informed of new additions to this site please join the mailing list. 
Please also have a look at supporting this site in 2017.

The post Rusty gates restored, and ridge and furrow ruminations appeared first on York Stories.

From the cycle track, July 2011

On Tuesday (24 January) I received an email invitation to an exhibition of plans for the old Rowntree factory buildings. The plans were to be displayed in the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Library in front of the factory, for one day only, that afternoon and evening.

This page includes some information from that event, from the display boards, as I know that many people who would have been interested didn’t know about it. And it needs to be widely known about, I reckon. Even more important than the Terry’s development, I reckon. Some personal opinions follow. Feel free to add your own, in the comments.

Plans for the Cocoa Works: redevelopment of Rowntree factory buildings

Sheds/chalets on the roof

I was pleased to be inside the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Library. More on that story later.

I really wasn’t pleased to see this proposal on how the building behind it might look:

Proposed extra bit on top of the factory buildings

Note the addition, above the original parapet.

This is a massive factory building. This illustration shows an extra floor added, and I really don’t know what to say. These days I don’t tend to fling terms like ‘greedy developers’ into my pages. But I don’t know how else to react to this.

It ruins the building, looks cheap. It looks like a load of sheds, or holiday chalets, plonked on the top, to maximise profit. Six floors already I think? Is that not enough?

Here’s another view of how those cheeky sheds/chalets might look, from the southern approach (from town, heading out of town), again from the display boards:

Additions proposed on the top of the Rowntree factory buildings

The remaining factory buildings are in general quite plain and functional. The sheer bulk of what’s left is still impressive, but the really impressive bit is the corner you see when approaching from town, heading out on Haxby Road. Or from the cycle track below, where its proud corner is seen to best advantage. The former route of the railway line that used to link to the factory.

From the cycle track, July 2011

The former Rowntree factory still towers proud above it. If you know the local landscape and its history it’s full of significance. Full of meaning and memory, collective York memory.

Imagine that photo above with the shed-like/chalet thing sticking up above it.

If the proposals go ahead I’ll look the other way when cycling or walking past it, and not be able to look up at it with fondness and York-based understanding and pride, as I do now.

Does that matter? Maybe not, if the main need is to maximise profit/cram as many people into it as possible. But is that where we’ve got to? The limit of our aspirations?

It takes years to understand the place, get to know its meanings, what things stand for, why they’re important. I’m still learning, we all are.

But in the end it probably doesn’t matter what we know or don’t, as it’s all about the money, profit.

I’ve tried to be tolerant and accepting of inevitable change, but this goes beyond my limits of tolerance. I hope that we’ll all oppose the imposing of a tasteless extra layer on this important landmark building.

I’m not sure about a campaign slogan. ‘Fight the chalets’/’Oppose the sheds’?

Road … only for buses?

The proposals include a new road, cutting through across the site between Wigginton Road and Haxby Road, alongside the retained factory buildings. I’m not a car driver, but I know how horrendously congested Wigginton Road is, around the Crichton Ave junction in particular. So a road through to relieve some of that, so that all the cars aren’t heading for the fork where Haxby Road and Wigginton Road meet, the junction in front of Groves Chapel, what a great opportunity to disperse some of that traffic, in a more logical way.

But it seems this new road is just for buses. It seems to have some bollard thing in the middle preventing it being used as a link road between Wigginton Road and Haxby Road.

Whereas my impression is that a link road to relieve the traffic on Wigginton Road is exactly what we need in this area, and that to build a road and then not let most people use it is really quite illogical.

I’m baffled about this. Perhaps someone else can add more info on why a road is being constructed at great expense just for buses to use. What a waste.

But then, this current scheme can only build half of the road anyway, as Newby have only half the site.

In context

To put this site into its wider context, again with an image from the display boards, the red boundary line shows the site in question:

Cocoa Works development, site boundary

It’s part of the Nestle South site, not all of it. Behind it is a large area where many of the old Rowntree factory buildings were cleared, some years ago. The site we’re looking at on this page is the most impressive part, fronting on to Haxby Road. The main factory buildings, with the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Library in front, and trees and garden areas.

Cocoa Works, site plans: “Access and Transport”, from the 24 Jan 2017 exhibition

Convenience store

The plans show a convenience store at the edge of the site, on the corner of the new road where it meets Haxby Road. It’s the strange triangular shape on the image above. If it was a Co-op that would be great, as we don’t have a Co-op on this side of town. But it will probably end up being something disappointing like a Spar.

And the library …

Well, it was nice to be in the library, and I ended up taking more photos of it than I did of the display boards. As the library is a listed building it will be part of the plans, but from information available it seems likely it might end up being some kind of concierge thing for the accommodation in the factory buildings behind. So not very inspiring really, for a building erected in gratitude for the life of Joseph Rowntree. But the owners can do what they like with it. They could try to be true to the spirit of the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Library, understand and respect the place, be philanthropic, be visionary, thoughtful … or they could just turn it into a place for the people in the flats to collect parcels.

In gratitude

Publicity and consultation

I couldn’t find any more information online about the exhibition of these plans. I asked about this, and was sent the leaflet distributed to local residents, which I shared on Twitter, within hours of receiving it, but too late for many people to get to the exhibition.

Apparently it had also been advertised in the Press, but despite searching, I couldn’t find the information on the Press website.

Below is a copy of the questionnaire/survey I picked up from the event. (Which I had to scan, convert to PDF, and upload. Medal please …)

I don’t need a medal really. Just please, people of York, people of anywhere, stop the chalets on the roof.

oneill-associates-cocoa-works-dev-questionnaire-jan2017 (PDF)

The PDF should give you some idea of what the ‘consultation’ event asked for responses on, and you can see in due course if they took any notice.

You can also email responses to enquiries@oneill-associates.co.uk by 3 February 2017. If you do so, I suggest you put ‘Cocoa Works plans’ in the subject line and ask for an acknowledgement that your views will be noted.

There’s a planning application to follow, which of course will be the main opportunity to comment.

Too large and complex a scheme to cover adequately in one page. It’s taken many hours already but it needs returning to later.

. . . . .

If you’d like to be kept informed of new additions to this site please join the mailing list. 
It’s quite frustrating that people like me have to fill in the gaps, try to get info out there. I don’t get paid for doing this. Please have a look at supporting this site in 2017.

The post Cocoa Works: plans for Rowntree factory buildings appeared first on York Stories.

Razor wire by the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Library, Sept 2016

After a summer break it’s time for a wander. Let’s start on Haxby Road, with a look at the old Rowntree factory buildings, again. This seems like a good idea for several reasons:

— it follows on nicely from Alison Sinclair’s guest contribution on the city’s other famous chocolate factory, Terry’s
— because of a recent comment in response to one of my earlier pages on these buildings
— and because of the rolls of razor wire decorating the Haxby Road frontage, which I’ve been meaning to mention since I first noticed them, back in May.

Roll out the razor wire … Nestlé/Rowntree Conservation Area, Sept 2016

These buildings here, the remnants of Rowntree’s, were designated a Conservation Area some years back.

According to the council’s own guidance:

Conservation areas have extra planning controls applied to them to help preserve or enhance their character and protect their settings.

These controls apparently mean permission is needed for a range of alterations, including minor details like installing satellite dishes. There’s no specific mention of whether permission is needed to unravel great long rolls of razor wire all around buildings in a Conservation Area, but personally I found it didn’t really enhance the character of this important group of buildings.

I’ve popped by every now and then over the years to take photos here. The main factory entrance, as it was, some years apart:

Rowntree factory main entrance, March 2012

Rowntree factory main entrance, September 2016

It hasn’t looked impressive for many years now. But the main difference between the two images above, four years apart, is the razor wire.

Closer view: former factory entrance, and razor wire, Sept 2016

Perhaps this is one interpretation of ‘protecting a setting’? It’s clearly intended to protect the property from potential trespassers. But just look at this vicious stuff. All around a place famous for its fairness and kindliness.

Behind the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Library: buddleia and razor wire, Sept 2016

The site is overflowing with foliage, including the ubiquitous buddleia. The local wildlife will have benefited from its fenced-off emptiness. Birds, bats, bees, possibly larger beasts like hedgehogs and urban foxes. I’m a bit worried about any hedgehogs snuffling about in there, with the razor wire all around it, across the grass and through the bushes.

Presumably Nestlé still own the site, or at least have some interest in it. They did a fine and thoughtful thing in the work on the old factory clocks, a few years back. There has been some management of the weediness around the entrance. Personally the weediness didn’t bother me: at least it was wildlife-friendly. The razor wire really isn’t though, is it.

Hard to imagine that massive factory building finding a new use, and if it is to find one, it will presumably take years before work even starts. So rolls of razor wire around the place for years then?

Former Rowntree factory buildings, Sept 2016

In front of the massive factory block is a much smaller and more handsome building. I’ve written about that before too.

While it’s understandable that the huge factory building is still empty, it’s harder to understand why this building still is. The Joseph Rowntree Memorial Library, as it states proudly above the door. I wonder what he’d think about our lack of action in finding a new use for this. Years now it has been sitting there empty. Now with rolls of razor wire around it.

Joseph Rowntree Memorial Library, Sept 2016

So much is said so often about the city’s proud chocolate-related heritage. We’re really good at promoting it to visitors, selling it. In recent years we’ve also become really good at recording the oral history part of it, collecting the stories of people who worked in the chocolate factories. And over at the Terry’s site there’s a lot of interest in what happens to its landmark clock tower, seen as iconic.

This factory remnant isn’t as pretty, and doesn’t have a clock tower visible for miles around. What remains of the factory block is still a landmark in the local neighbourhood, and particularly from Haxby Road, as I fully recognised when approaching it to take these photos, last week.

But more important, and very different from Terry’s, is its clustered effect, onto the street. Buildings together telling the story of what the Rowntree family aimed for and achieved, a community of buildings for the workforce. A collection of buildings recognised as important because of that, and therefore designated a Conservation Area.

Nestlé presumably have enough funds to pay for security guards, if that’s what’s needed to protect the premises. So why the razor wire?

And the empty library …  if it was in a different part of the city, it might it have been reused already. It’s only small, it’s Grade II listed, it’s handsome inside, apparently. It could be reused in a way that would benefit the wider community, celebrating the legacy of the Rowntree family, and Joseph Rowntree in particular. It could be reused as … well, a library seems the most obvious.

The post Rowntree’s and razor wire appeared first on York Stories.