Library lawn, 30 March 2022

Next to York Explore, the city’s main library and archives, there’s a lawned area. It’s a place I’ve often sat for a while, on one of the benches, after visiting the library. It’s one of those ‘steeped in history’ places, very special. From the benches you look at the Multangular Tower on one side, the Roman wall in the middle, and the remains of what was St Leonard’s Hospital in the other corner. Or just enjoy the greenery and quiet.

Like all the land here in central York between the river and the Minster it has a long and complex history.

In the reports and articles I’ve been reading while compiling this page I’ve seen many references to this area being ‘underused’, ‘overlooked’, that people don’t know it’s there. The word ‘underused’ should probably ring alarm bells, as it often seems to mean that only the locals appreciate it and that it isn’t making any money, so some commercial activity is probably looming. As seems to be the case here.

There’s a nice description of this place included in documents on the planning portal:

The green colour of the grass is the dominant colour of the area, contrasting strongly with the orange brick of the library and the greys of the ruins. As a quieter secluded space from the surrounding business of the Museum gardens and shopping streets, it is used by local people in fine weather. It is enclosed and intimate and ‘off the beaten track’.

– Design and Access Statement, p18 (PDF)

Library lawn, 30 March 2022

When I first heard mention of plans for a mini-golf course here I thought it was an odd and inappropriate idea, and seemed so odd that I thought it was just one of those things that wouldn’t progress any further.

But it did, and now there’s a planning application. A rather controversial one.

Planning application

21/02758/FUL | Change of use of land to form a 12 hole mini golf course for a period of 7 years | Central Library Gardens Museum Street York

I’ve been reading the pre-application advice included on the planning portal, and was struck by the response from the council’s Development Management Officer, given back in March 2021, which wasn’t exactly encouraging:

In conclusion, officers advise that the principle of the development in this location would not be supported and we would not support the grant of planning permission. If however, notwithstanding this advice, you intend to submit a formal application, we would advise referencing the full advice from the conservation officer […]
Please note this advice does not negate his and our fundamental objection to the principle of the proposed scheme and notwithstanding, an improved design would similarly not be supported by officers.

– p23-24, Design and Access Statement (PDF)

Since then, and despite this rather negative response, work has clearly progressed on the application, which was submitted in December.

The application, submitted by York Mini Golf Ltd, states:

The presence of the mini golf course will mean that a currently much underappreciated area of York that is rich in heritage will be known and enjoyed by a wider audience, including people who wouldn’t normally visit a historic space.

It clearly isn’t underappreciated, as the large number of objections makes clear, as reported in an interesting piece by Gavin Aitchison in York Mix, on 2 Feb.

There’s plenty of information available about the significance of the site and the various buildings and structures around it, for anyone who wants to know more.

Having read some of the comments made by residents, I was interested to see what the statutory consultees had to say in response to the planning application. As with all planning applications involving sensitive historic sites and buildings, various relevant organisations are invited to have their say. And of course they have a defined remit for any objections, based on the organisation’s area of expertise.

Historic England and the Council for British Archaeology have no objections to the plans. There are no concerns about damage to archaeology, or to neighbouring historic structures. Historic England’s response states:

The mini golf proposal offers an interesting ‘meanwhile’ use for a limited period. It has the potential to serve as an introduction to the history of York, but in a different and entertaining manner that could appeal to a wide range of people and age groups. The York heritage ‘offer’ is certainly broad enough to accommodate different approaches.
(source – PDF)

Sense of place

Yes, it is an interesting idea, and yes, different approaches can be accommodated. But perhaps not on one of the most sensitive and profoundly interesting bits of the city centre. And this isn’t just for one summer, it’s for 7 years, perhaps longer.

I’ve been thinking a lot about why some places matter so much to so many people, and in particular thinking about that deep connection some of us feel to certain places just as they are. And why it is that other people, looking at the same place, see it differently.

This area is so historically significant and resonant that there’s probably nothing much that could ‘improve’ it as a long term intervention. Just my view. Shared by others though, I think.

I wonder how many of us who appreciate this place as it is would want to sit there in future with a mini-golf course in the middle of it. It will of course fundamentally alter the nature of the place, making it a different place entirely.

The ruins of St Leonard’s Hospital, at one side of the site, will also be utilised:

It is anticipated that part of the room in St Leonard’s undercroft will be used as a ticket office and place where players can collect and return their clubs

Library lawn, from St Leonard’s hospital, 30 March 2022

That doesn’t seem appropriate either.

Several comments on the planning application suggest other more appropriate locations. But clearly the proposed visitor attraction is intended to help raise funds for the library, which is why this location has been chosen.

Ownership, income and the ‘disposal of open space’

I’ve wondered before about the ownership and management of this area of land next to the library. It is owned by the council, but was recently leased to York Explore, as reported in York Mix in October 2020.

There was apparently a public consultation, in 2020, and advertising, as required by law, of ‘the Council’s intention to dispose of open space’.

The Section 123 Open Space notice was published in the York Press on 13th August and 20th August 2020. … Only one comment/objection was received in response to the Notice
(Library lawn lease report, 22 Oct 2020, PDF)

I wasn’t aware of this at the time, and perhaps not many people were, if only one comment was received in response.

A council Executive meeting on 22 Oct 2020 (agenda item 51) agreed:

“That approval be given to grant a lease of Library Lawn and the St Leonards Hospital Ruins (Store) to Explore York and Archives Mutual Limited (Explore) until 31 March 2034 … To allow Explore to use the space in connection with the operation of York Explore library and to sub-lease to third parties in order to generate income.”

The current planning application is presumably a result, with a third party putting forward proposals to generate income.

In July 2020 another possible ‘new flagship attraction’ was also suggested for the area, though so far only the mini-golf idea seems to be at planning application stage.

Thoughts, queries

Many thoughts and queries have come to mind over the time I’ve been writing this page.

I’ve wondered what’s wrong with a place just being quiet and serious, as this place is. We all recognise the appeal of what would be called ‘fun activities’, and York is full of them, but they’re surely better placed in areas where there’s nothing much of interest there already. I’ve wondered why imposing some intrusive intervention into a place like this is seen as somehow necessary and beneficial. Why not wait for appreciation of historic places to happen naturally, as it usually does? And with so much information available so easily now, via the devices so many of us carry with us, surely it’s possible to provide more information, linked to place, in small-scale ways, for anyone wanting to understand more?

Would this not be a good place for outdoor plays, over the summer months? Like the Mystery Plays that were held in the Museum Gardens, but on a smaller scale? That could bring in income and seems to fit with the setting. Maybe that has already been considered and dismissed.

I’ve wondered too about what’s going to happen to the Anglian Tower, just behind the library, a rather magical and atmospheric place which I’ve written about before, some years back.

Maybe you have to visit at the right time to find places magical and atmospheric. Maybe I’ve just been lucky to have seen the Anglian Tower and the buildings around library lawn in particular light, at particular times, when there’s been no one else around, when the history and complexity of it is so apparent.

The kind of moment you won’t probably get next to a mini-golf course full of people.

But then of course there’s no money to be made in people just wandering through or sitting and quietly appreciating. And we have to fund our libraries somehow, as libraries too are special and important places.

Your thoughts?

There have been comments in support of the planning application, alongside the objections. You can add your own comments or read the other comments and documents on this link to the planning application. And of course comments are welcome here on this page, below.

. . . . .

Welcome to everyone who has joined the mailing list recently, I hope notification of this page has reached you. Thanks too for your ko-fi coffees, which are always appreciated, either in recognition and support of the large archive of pages hosted here on York Stories, or to power more pages in the present time. There’s a lot to cover as I try to catch up. For various reasons this page has been in draft form for many weeks, and it’s good to get it published at last. Rougier Street next I think …

The post Library lawn to mini-golf course? appeared first on York Stories.

Sunset over Clifton, with Bootham Crescent floodlights, Jan 2021

The photo above was taken from Crichton Avenue bridge, looking across the Clifton area of the city, in January this year. I’ve included it as the first image because this skyline, so familiar to me and many others, has since lost something. To the left, silhouetted against the sunset sky, are two of the floodlights that lit the Bootham Crescent football ground for so many years.

I’m writing this at 7pm on the last day of December. Technical difficulties and other issues earlier mean I won’t be able to send out a mailing list email about this, or the previous page, so perhaps no one will realise it’s here and read it, but I thought I should make the effort anyway, as this end of year review is now a tradition.

Also, there were quite a few things I wanted to add to these pages and didn’t, so this seems like a good time to at least give them a brief mention.

In January, plans to build a multi-storey car park at St George’s Field were approved – part of the wider Castle Gateway plans. (Approval doesn’t mean it will happen, as this proposal was seen as controversial, and sparked debate and disagreement, which continues.)

At the heart of the Castle Gateway plans is of course the castle – Clifford’s Tower – which back in February was surrounded by an impressive scaffolding structure.

Clifford’s Tower surrounded by scaffolding, Feb 2021

Major conservation works to the tower’s historic fabric have been taking place, alongside the installation of a new free standing roof deck.

In February came ‘the most shameful and absurd decision any committee has ever made‘, according to the author Terry Deary. Quite a claim. He was speaking to BBC Radio York, in response to a planning committee decision to refuse plans for a ‘Roman Quarter’ on Rougier Street. ‘They have put a knife into the city,’ he said.

I’ve just looked at a draft page I did on this, which didn’t get finished and published. I want to just include a couple of images from it.

This is how the end of Rougier Street looks at present (photo taken one evening earlier this year when I was up that way looking at the Triangular Gardens):

Approaching Rougier Street, 2021

As you pass through the archway in the city walls, this is what would greet you if the Roman Quarter proposals had gone ahead.

What had been proposed … Roman Quarter (Image: planning application documents)

Presumably the massive great bit on the top was intended to finance the interesting bit underneath. Glad it wasn’t approved, and still surprised at Mr Deary’s hyperbole, all these months on. As far as I know he doesn’t live in York so wouldn’t have to see the huge thing as often as we would.

Anyway, moving on. It was spring next.

Daffodils on Bootham Stray, 20 March 2021

Daffodils on the bar walls are a familiar sight, and have clearly been deliberately planted in that city centre location. But it’s always interesting and a bit odd to see tidy clumps of large-flowered daffodils in more remote locations. These were a surprising sight in the middle of Bootham Stray, a clump of yellow standing alone in what was otherwise a landscape made up mainly of grass and nettles. Presumably deliberately planted here by someone. Or perhaps brought in in soil dumped from somewhere else.

Back to the built environment, moving on into April.

In recent years the city has seen many blocks of purpose-built student accommodation built, and although it might have seemed like there must now be enough to satisfy demand, apparently that’s not the case, with plans for more still being considered. In April plans for another new block – on the former Plumbase site on Fawcett Street, came before the planning committee. Concerns were expressed about ‘teeny tiny rooms’. The application wasn’t approved, but deferred. It came back before the committee again during the course of the year.

Also in April, the floodlights at Bootham Crescent came on for the final time. Those of us living close to the ground perhaps thought that we’d already seen the last dimming of the lights before that, with the disruptions caused by Covid meaning that there wasn’t an obvious farewell game. For those of us who cared, fans, and neighbours, this final switch-on was significant and important. And also very nicely done. (As reported in yorkmix.com.)

In May … oh lovely May. I had some notes about things I could include, but …

Clifton Park, May 2021

… it was May, and it was green and lovely, as it always is.

I wrote a flurry of pages back in May.

In June, the plans for student accommodation on the former Plumbase site on Fawcett Street were back with the planning committee. Though the officer report recommended approval, the committee voted to refuse.

In July, after their last switch on back in April, the Bootham Crescent floodlights came down. Lowered slowly onto the now meadow-like long grass of the pitch. Such a familiar part of the skyline, and so familiar to me after so long living nearby. It took some time to adjust to their absence.

In August, the Press reported that a new area of woodland near Knapton in York was to be named York Community Woodland. It’s a place I’ve wanted to cover here on York Stories but haven’t got around to yet. More information on this link.

In September, plans for the former Plumbase site on Fawcett Street were back with the planning committee again …

Away from the buildings, I find I appreciate more and more a walk by the Foss, and had a pleasant stomp down this way in September.

By the Foss, 10 September 2021

In October, plans for the closure and redevelopment of part of the Barnitts shop on Colliergate were approved, having been deferred at an earlier planning committee meeting.

The Barnitts store on Colliergate remains, and clearly that’s the most important thing.

Early on, I looked at the plans to turn the former Drill Hall into townhouses and apartments, and it looked like just another development of more cramped housing with not much light, which was a bit disappointing. It has been suggested to me that it would make a good music venue. Makes sense. We’re rather lacking in those now, here in York. But perhaps not financially viable.

In November, plans for more student accommodation went to the area planning sub-committee. On this occasion, not in the former Plumbase premises on Fawcett Street, but at the Castle Howard Ox pub on Townend Street, off Clarence Street. The application was refused, despite the officer recommendation to approve.

Moving on to November. In November, and at many other times through this year (and previous years), I walked through Bootham Park.

Bootham Park, November 2021

I was trying to get a better sense of the plans for its redevelopment, as discussed in a page earlier this year, particularly in regard to the loss of trees, and what looks like an unreasonable amount of car parking proposed, for a site so close to the city centre.

In December, the planning committee approved plans for the Cocoa West development, as mentioned on the previous page.

The same committee meeting discussed a planning application for the former Mecca Bingo building on Fishergate – replacing it with purpose built student accommodation – 276 rooms. The application was deferred.

Presumably still a lot of money to be made from providing purpose-built student accommodation, hence the high number of applications still coming in, for various sites, and the way that the former Plumbase plans kept coming back through the year.

Away from the buildings, sidling gently into December’s quietness and its winter skies, and the tree branches against them. In December, doing my best to appreciate all the local and good things, as I always try to do, I had a walk up to Clifton Park to hug a couple of old beech trees and watch the sunset to the west.

Clifton Park, December 2021

. . . . . .

Thanks to everyone who has supported the site this year with virtual coffees, and added comments with information and memories. I also appreciate the good work of the local journalists and local democracy reporters who have so helpfully covered the many planning applications this year and continue to keep us all informed.

Best wishes to everyone for 2022.

The post Review of the year, 2021 appeared first on York Stories.

The Cocoa Works in all its complexity, in times past

Previously, we were at the Cocoa Works development, the former Rowntree factory buildings facing Haxby Road. These are just part of what used to be a very large site, shown on the old image above.

Behind the main factory buildings, demolition took place more than a decade ago to clear the rest of this part of the site, back to the Wigginton Road entrance. (Wigginton Road is indicated by a line of trees in the top left of the image above.) This large site was then known as Nestlé South — as Nestlé retained more modern buildings to the north.

The cleared area behind the main factory buildings is now known as Cocoa West, and a planning application for its redevelopment has recently been approved.

This is an important development — the future of a place so significant in the history of this city I call home — and I appreciated having some free time to focus on it again — so let’s continue the journey, with photos taken earlier this month.

We start where the previous page ended, by the arch of the bridge that carried Haxby Road over the railway line in times past. We were looking up from it, at the factory buildings, but now stay at its level, down in the cutting between roads.

Haxby Road bridge over the cycle track (former railway line), 12 Dec 2021

What was a railway line has for some decades been a cycle track.

There are so many of these brick-built bridges curving across former railway lines. Easier to appreciate them now, passing under them on two wheels or on foot. As is often the case, this one is graffiti-covered. It doesn’t bother me at all, personally, down here under the curve of the bridges, I like the creativity of it, the bright bursts of colour.

Graffiti, Haxby Road bridge, 12 Dec 2021

‘AND THEY KEEP ON WALKIN …’ it says.

So let’s keep on doing that. Passing under the arch of the bridge, and coming out into the late afternoon sunlight, we pass one end of the old factory buildings previously discussed, here viewed through trees.

Old factory – Cocoa Works -from the cycle track

The trees alongside this former railway line have grown a lot since the trains ran through here. This section to the south of the old factory site is a tree-shaded green tunnel for cyclists and pedestrians, and a much-appreciated and well-used link between Haxby Road and Wigginton Road.

We approach the curved brick bridge carrying Wigginton Road over what used to be a railway line.

Cycle track, approaching Wigginton Road, December 2021

Here, on the section of track near Wigginton Road, the factory had its own stop, Rowntree Halt. I was pleased to find some images, and even a film, from the days when the trains ran down here.

Passenger train approaching Rowntree Halt, late 1980s. Still from BFI film.

There was also a line in to the factory site, pictured here. (There are a couple more images of the line and platform at the bottom of this page too, and a nice photo and more information on this page.)

As we get to the bridge, on a winter afternoon, the sunlight is so low, but let’s hope there’s enough left to illuminate and illustrate ‘Cocoa West’ …

Cycle track and bridge, Wigginton Road, 12 Dec 2021

We take a right turn here just before the bridge, and it takes us on a short section of cycle path through more trees, passing one of the old factory clocks, and to the Wigginton Road entrance to what used to be the other part of the old factory site.

Cocoa West, Wigginton Road, 12 Dec 2021

It’s a very large site, the size perhaps not clear from the image above.

Most of its buildings were cleared some years back. On this side, one small gatehouse remains, to remind us of the factory with such a long history.

By the entrance to the old factory site, Wigginton Rd

In the background are the old factory buildings visited on the previous page.

In late afternoon sun back in December 2009 I took photos from this Wigginton Road entrance as the range of buildings on this side of the site were being demolished.

Demolition of former factory buildings, from Wigginton Rd, Dec 2009

Quite a collection of structures, different shapes and sizes. What a confectionery manufacturer needed back then, and doesn’t need now.

Demolition of former factory buildings, from Wigginton Rd, Dec 2009

Melangeur block before demolition, Dec 2009

This month, so many years on from the demolition pictured above, a planning application  has been approved for housing development here. The Cocoa West development was approved at a recent planning committee meeting. Not just approved, but welcomed:

Councillor Michael Pavlovic said: “It really is heartening to hear of an application that ticks quite so many boxes – it’s not something this committee is used to from developers.”

The planning application documents state:

Our vision is for Cocoa West to become an uplifting and sustainable neighbourhood, with productive, ecologically rich landscapes and crafted architecture that respects the site’s heritage and celebrates its legacy

— and include images of how it will look:

Image from plans for Cocoa West (ref 21/01371/FULM)

A new link will be made to the cycle track/former railway line (shown on the right of the image above).

This place has been a long-running thread through these York Stories pages. I don’t have close personal family connection to the factory, and probably didn’t appreciate the Rowntree approach, and its legacy, when I was younger, as much as I should have done, but have appreciated it more in more recent years. Over the years I’ve included many pages on the Rowntree factory (see all pages tagged Rowntree on this link).

Dear readers, your knowledge, insights, comments, and coffees, are welcome as always.

The post From Cocoa Works to Cocoa West appeared first on York Stories.

Plans for Bootham Park: new buildings in the area around the chapel, from ERL planning application

Hard to believe that in a few days it will be exactly six years since Bootham Park Hospital closed. This month, after years of concerns about its future, and with various visions for it publicised, there’s an actual planning application available to view on the council’s planning portal:

21/02108/FULM

(if that direct link doesn’t work, go to planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/ and enter the reference number 21/02108/FULM in the search box)

Local media reports in recent months covered the sale of Bootham Park to ERL, and the ‘visions’ for how it might look. These included a rather idyllic looking representation of all kinds of lovely things going on in the green space in front of it.

How Bootham Park might look … (Image: ERL)

There would be a walkway around it, a picnic area, an edible garden, a sensory garden, sports pitches, and perhaps a pop-up outdoor cinema occasionally, and a temporary market.

I wondered how all that was going to fit in, and work together. Boring of me, perhaps, but I wondered about those messy but important details like dog poo on sports pitches.

Anyway, we now have the actual planning application, not just nice representations.

Inevitably, it’s an application with a huge number of documents and a huge amount of detail. It’s such a historic and complex site, containing many buildings from different periods, and a large area of parkland around them. Here’s an aerial view, from ERL’s website boothampark.co.uk:

Bootham Park site, aerial view, from boothampark.co.uk

Note that the application site is marked with the red line boundary. The plans aren’t for the whole of the site we think of as Bootham Park, as the NHS has retained in its ownership an area of land in the north-eastern corner.

I’ve written about this place many times before, being one of those locals who has a certain sense of connection to it, having lived in the area close to it for some time — 30 years. I probably took it for granted for most of that time, but certainly haven’t in the six years since the hospital closed, as it was clear that it might end up a gated, privatised place. For a while, after the hospital closure, it felt like it already was that, with a security guard on patrol to keep us off the field.

As I’ve said before, it seems to me that the most important aspect of any development is that the current access through the grounds, from Bridge Lane and Clarence Street to Bootham, is preserved, and protected, for pedestrians and cyclists. If not, then we would lose something many of us have valued for many years.

In the available planning application documents I looked for information on the right of way, specifically.

Apparently it isn’t, technically, a right of way at present, but under these plans would become one:

Pedestrians and cyclists can also access the site from the north and south running from Bootham/A19 to the south and to the north to the pedestrian pathway there, linking Grosvenor Road with Bridge Lane, that divides this application site from the
York Hospital site. The pedestrian/cycling route is called ‘The Avenue’; while the public make use of this it is not a Public Right of Way and remains in private ownership.
Should planning permission be granted then a formal right of way or similar dedicated right will be granted in perpetuity.

– Planning statement (PDF)

Sounds great, good news. But I also know that elements of planning applications get changed later, after public attention has moved on to other things, so I hope that this aspect is focused on and legally protected, and that the route through doesn’t end up as a ‘permissive path’, but a properly protected right of way.

The planning statement also emphasises that the developers are committed to preserving the wider public access to the grounds:

Enabling and securing (in perpetuity) public access, including sports pitches use by the adjoining school and other schools during term time. In addition, public access will be secured of the large open area in front of the main listed building.
This will include a 680-metre exercise route around the perimeter of the open space which will be accessible at all times. The open space area will include sensory planting/edible gardens, flexible break out spaces, seating, and spaces for
contemplation alongside natural play equipment as well as biodiversity enhancement. All, of course subject to the Council’s approval.

It looks convincing, and like it’s meant, and I’d like to believe it is. But there’s clearly going to be a huge investment in the site, and it’s clearly intended as a ‘luxury’ kind of place for its residents, so I can’t see how the kind of public access suggested is going to work, without more fencing off/gating of various parts, particularly at night.

Presumably there’s more detail on these aspects in the other documents submitted with the planning application.

A massive investment will of course be needed for all this. The mere cost of the work needed on repairing and repainting the rusting dilapidated railings around the site – a kilometre in length, apparently – will be huge. Which is why it seemed a bit ludicrous that at one time there were vociferous calls for the whole place to be kept ‘for the people of York’. How on earth would we pay for it, and its upkeep?

So into its new life it goes — eventually, when yet another massively complex application for yet another historically important site eventually works its way through the system. I really hope there are enough staff in the planning department to cope with all of this. So much interest in this blossoming/gentrified city, so much money coming in, so much of the old place becoming the new place.

There are other aspects of this planning application I’d like to cover, when I’ve looked at more of the planning application documents. Intending to return to it in stages, coming in from the edges. Near the edges of the site are many trees, and various interesting smaller buildings.

. . . . .

This website is supported by your ko-fi contributions. Thank you.

The post Bootham Park: planning application, and public access appeared first on York Stories.

December 2019: Revised plans for Bootham Crescent housing (ref: 19/00246/FULM) (Persimmon Homes)

Earlier this year I wrote about the planning application to build housing on the Bootham Crescent football ground. On 18 December I mentioned a critical report on Persimmon (whose houses it will be filled with), and the fact that the planning application seemed to have stalled, with no documents added for some time.

Since then, a few new documents have appeared for our perusal, on the planning portal, dated 20 December. See this link, or search for 19/00246/FULM via planningaccess.york.gov.uk/

I thought I’d mention a few of the more interesting points I’ve noticed.

There’s no new written information as yet, just a couple of huge and rather detailed visual representations of the site layout, and some more information on house types.

I suspect most readers won’t be much interested in house types, but the changes to the layout are interesting.

Memorial garden, terracing, wall, and a flagpole

The layout includes a memorial garden that is more central to the housing, rather than on the western edge.

Also indicated on the plan is a ‘section of retained terracing’, where the Popular Stand is currently. Behind it, a section of retained wall from the back of the Pop Stand, which may include signs, or artwork.

A flagpole is also included, to the south-eastern side, where a path leads in to the memorial garden area.

Detail of memorial garden area (ref: 19/00246/FULM) (Persimmon Homes)

A report written some months back (18 April) by Jonathan Kenyon at the city council recommended these elements in a revised design of the site. It’s available on this link (PDF) or via the list of documents for the planning application (ref 19/00246/FULM).

Elements that have been identified in work by Historic England and which should form part of the sites character include historic retaining walls (this includes a narrow section of the wall on the south side with reveals by the site entrance), retention of part of the tunnel beneath the west stand and re-use of the historic terraces (taken from the west or south sides) and timber fencing.

I’d like to read the original report by Historic England that this report refers to, but it isn’t available on the planning portal documents.

An appendix at the end of the report goes into more detail on what should be preserved/reused. It includes:

… As a lasting legacy, create a focal point for memory and orientation. The western boundary wall supports the back of the Popular Stand and forms part of a unique tunnel beneath the stand. The tunnel permitted rival fans to switch ends at half time but has been disused for some time.

…Memorial garden bordered by a wooden picket fence reclaimed from in front of the Popular Stand. (There will be no memorial garden at the new stadium). The one at Bootham Crescent will therefore provide a home for any existing memorials, ashes and interment caskets (subject to family wishes) but also future interments.

… Another seemingly unique historic feature of Bootham Crescent was the lowering of the club flag to signal that there were 5 minutes to go before the end of each match. The flag flew from a flagpole originally located between the south-east corner of the pitch and the main entrance. It is proposed that a new flagpole is erected as close as possible to this original location, and that it flies a replica of the club flag as a permanent and symbolic reminder of fans’ allegiance to Bootham Crescent.

Looking at the revised plans now available it seems that most of the suggested elements have been incorporated. Looks like this doesn’t include the retention of the historic walls near the football ground entrance, however.

Road looking more likely to link ….

The angle of the road at the north-western end of the site is different from the original proposal, having dropped slightly, to join the western boundary where it appears it could link up with a road that may one day be part of the adjacent site, the Duncombe Barracks site, which I’ve written about before, and which is now council-owned.

Planned road alignment (ref: 19/00246/FULM) (Persimmon Homes)

More on that later perhaps.

. . . . .

Other recommendations appear to have been ignored, on heights, and distances, on the southern boundary. But I won’t attempt to cover that here. I don’t like writing about this, it’s all quite depressing. I hope that York City fans find the revised plans better than the previous ones. That’s all I can say on the subject just now. No doubt there will be more in the local media on this in due course. In the meantime have a look at the planning portal for the documents mentioned above and any others that appear after the Christmas and New Year break.

Thanks for your virtual coffees in support of York Stories.

The post Retaining more of the old place: revised plans for Bootham Crescent appeared first on York Stories.

Rawcliffe Meadows, 25 March 2019

Previously, before I had quite a lengthy summer break, we were looking at a phone box on Bootham. From there, heading out of town on the same road, we pass Clifton Green, and we’re on Shipton Road. We pass an entrance to Homestead Park, and to our left is increasing greenery, including Clifton Park, Clifton Ings, Rawcliffe Ings, and an area known as Rawcliffe Meadows. Beyond them is the River Ouse. A much-used Sustrans cycle/pedestrian route cuts through the meadows and the ings.

In this area of the ings are flood banks — barrier banks — built up in the late 20th century to try to contain and control the Ouse when it floods. There’s one close to the river’s edge, and another some distance away running through Rawcliffe Meadows.

The ings and the meadows here are part of my local patch, and through the course of more than a couple of decades living in the Clifton area I’ve walked and cycled through this precious landscape many times. Its preciousness wasn’t immediately obvious to me, as a younger person, but over the years the various details of it, observing the place over the years and the changing seasons, makes a more coherent picture, of its parts and its growth and its boundaries.

Anyway … I can’t go getting all lyrical and sentimental about it, because I’ve got to write a piece I’ve been trying to get together for some months, since I realised that the Environment Agency’s work to alter the flood defences also included this area, and involved quite a lot of environmental change/damage/destruction.

This has had some coverage, but not much. I wonder if it will get a lot more coverage when the many users of the cycle track and the many people who walk in Rawcliffe Meadows and the ings see the tree felling, and the works compound on the cornfield, and the removal of historic hedges and boundary walls. Probably later, in summers to come, people who pass through here will wonder why the wildflowers they used to see every summer are absent from the places they used to be. But it’s about much more than pretty wildflowers.

The planning applications to decide whether this work takes place are due to be decided by the planning committee on Thursday 12 September 2019. The scheme is recommended for approval. There are two applications, one for the barrier bank work and one for an access road into it.

19/00007/FULM  |  19/00009/FUL

Having looked at and absorbed as much of the information as I can, and having started reading it with as open a mind as possible, I have to say that the impact of the proposed scheme looks pretty disastrous to me, and it’s all quite depressing, though clearly the homes at the northern end of this area on and around Shipton Road need to be protected, after residents there have endured the trauma of their houses flooding in the past.

Flooding in York, as we know, has had devastating consequences for so many households, and businesses, so it would be difficult for councillors to vote against something that is being promoted as the way to protect the properties in the area. On the other hand, this proposed scheme is so environmentally damaging on so many levels.

A recent article in the local press, headed ‘Major York flood defence work delayed – by council planning process‘, seemed to be suggesting that something plainly entirely good and beneficial offered by the Environment Agency was being held up by the city council’s planning department being a bit slow/slack/rubbish. As I see it, the planning system is responding exactly as it should, taking time to gather the detail most of us don’t think about. Having looked at the further detail more closely I wish they’d delay it a bit longer. I don’t think most people realise what the impact of this is going to be over a large area.

There was so much complex detail that I couldn’t tackle it earlier as I didn’t know where to start. Thank goodness for the officer reports, summarising it. (On this link and this link.) Even then, these documents are quite long, and took a long time to read. I had to keep pausing and going off to do other things to keep it in perspective, as personally I found it a difficult read, realising what will be destroyed to raise and extend a flood bank.

I thought I’d include extracts from the officer reports that I found particularly striking. Many of them include the abbreviations SSSI – Site of Special Scientific Interest and SINC – Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. All these acronyms can be a bit alienating, but please don’t give up yet – we’re talking about a wildlife-rich area containing several different types of habitat, carefully managed and enhanced by many volunteers over many years. It’s described well in the officer report:

An ecologically high quality site is a product of living elements and their care, management and development over time. The use of the site by visiting wildlife is something to which wildlife becomes habituated over time.

We seem to have come to a time when all that is to be disturbed and damaged.

Officer’s opinion is that there will be a significant effect at a National level in the long term from the loss of SSSI habitat. There is uncertainty in the success of habitat creation and restoration, with time taken to reach target condition in the tens
of years (20-30yrs+), and only then with long term effort in management and monitoring

… There will be a permanent loss of 0.9ha of SSSI through the enlargement of the flood bank

… The 25.13ha of MG4 grassland in Clifton Ings and Rawcliffe Meadows SSSI is 1.67% of the National resource. The proposed development would have a permanent impact on approximately 2.3ha of the SSSI. It would be exceptional for the Local Planning Authority to permit such harm

The area affected includes not just the obvious part of the flood bank in the open meadowland where the cycle track is, but everything alongside the existing barrier bank and a large area continuing on from that in both directions, up to the Rawcliffe country park and into Homestead Park in the other direction. An area inhabited by many creatures, great and small, particularly in and around Rawcliffe Meadows.

… The SINC supports a medium breeding population of Great Crested Newts across several small ponds and scrapes. There will be disturbance and temporary loss to terrestrial habitat within 500m of breeding ponds.

… Using Natural England’s rapid risk assessment tool as a guide it is likely that works will result in wildlife offences and therefore works will have to be carried out under a European Protected Species Licence

… Trenches and other excavations should be backfilled before nightfall, or a ramp installed to allow amphibians and other fauna that may enter the excavations to easily exit.

As mentioned above, the work also requires an access road and a site compound, which involves another area of habitat destruction.

… The proposed works (access road and site compound) will result in the temporary loss of habitat for and disturbance to a range of protected and notable species.

… As well as farmland birds, there will be the temporary loss of habitat and disturbance for a range of other species including Roe Deer, Toads, Barn Owls, and Hedgehogs.

So that gives us some idea of the impact on the SSSI, and some of the creatures it supports. Perhaps most of us don’t fully understand the value of the SSSI, and most of us won’t have seen the larger mammals that inhabit the area (though regular visitors may have noticed foxes, quite often). But I think we all notice when trees are felled, and perhaps when hedges are removed. There’s going to be a fair bit of that kind of thing too.

… The new access will be approximately 26m wide where it ties into Shipton Road and will require a length of hedge to be removed.

That’s a hedge next to the main road, so perhaps that won’t be seen as too bad. But that’s just part of it.

Hedgerow and tree removal would occur, in particular where the embankment would run through the cornfield, along the general extent of the existing barrier (which is to be removed) and where the southern extension is proposed. The EA
have advised that works will be adjusted on site where possible to avoid loss and the impact as shown on the Tree Plan drawings are worse case scenario. This worse case scenario includes a significant length of mature native species
hedgerow alongside Clifton Park that it may not be possible to replant. The tree plans show approx 60 individual trees plus groups of trees will possibly have to be removed.

(Bold emphasis added to the above.)

Gate to the cornfield, site of the proposed access road and site compound

The area sounds like it will be barely recognisable in places, doesn’t it, once this work is underway.

There are other aspects that perhaps only seem like a loss to those of us who’ve got to know the place over many years. A characterful section of brick wall and old hedgerow mark one of the boundaries of the old Clifton Hospital site, and because they’re just inside the ‘dry side’ of the existing barrier bank they’re going to be removed too, thereby removing part of the landscape character and its history.

19th century brick wall, former boundary to Clifton Park Hospital

A report on the ‘cultural heritage’ of the area states:

Groundworks for the proposed raising of the Barrier Bank could impact on two areas of nondesignated ridge and furrow earthworks and a 19th century boundary wall associated with the former Clifton Hospital.

and states that:

The Scheme would not significantly alter the character of the historic landscape or how it is understood.

I disagree. Perhaps it’s only when you’ve lived near a place and walked through it and looked at it closely for decades in different light and at different times of day that you feel a connection to aspects of its heritage and understand their cultural importance. And also appreciate their quiet beauty.

Former boundary to Clifton Park Hospital, and the hospital’s chapel, April 2015

About 15 years ago when I first walked through Rawcliffe Meadows with a digital camera I was rather fascinated by that picturesque and characterful brick wall, and wondered about its significance. Once I recognised its significance I was glad it had been retained. It reminds me of the orchards of the former hospital.

It took me a while longer to recognise and appreciate the ridge and furrow remnant near Blue Beck.

Remnant of ridge and furrow near Blue Beck, Jan 2017

Homestead Park

It’s not just about the meadows and ings. The extension of the flood bank will affect other much-valued places alongside. Particularly worrying is the proposed work through part of Homestead Park, which risks ruining the wilder section of this much-loved park, but has presumably been agreed to by the Joseph Rowntree Trust. There’s no comment by them on the planning portal, and very little detail I could find, except that it presumably involves cutting down some trees. The plan for this area includes the suggestion

 Any felled logs could be retained on site and carved as sculpture, seating or play features

— it’s not logs that are felled, is it, it’s trees, which then become logs. As I recall there’s no shortage of logs in that area, but we may soon be lamenting our shortage of trees.

The Design and Access Statement (PDF here) includes towards the end details of how many vehicle movements are expected and what these heavy lorries will be bringing.

Extract from the Design and Access Statement – construction related traffic

From the dates on the above, it appears that the Environment Agency thought that work would be well underway by now.

‘Compensatory habitat’

There are of course proposals to try to make good some of the damage done, particularly to the SSSI parts of the work area. As the officer report states, ‘the Environment Agency’s proposals include the last resort of compensatory habitat.’

The compensatory habitat will be delivered on land adjacent to the SSSI and owned by the Environment Agency, known as Rawcliffe Ings. Rawcliffe Ings is some 12ha in area and is in the north-west corner of the application site (between
Rawcliffe Park and Ride and Country Park and the river)

I’m no expert, but I don’t think you can just roll up a wildflower meadow like a carpet and lay it somewhere else. According to the report, the replacement will be achieved through ‘translocation of turves, green hay spreading and collected seeds’. I hope that will work, but it seems to be generally acknowledged that it will take a long long time to become something akin to what’s there now.

Why is it recommended for approval?

The officer’s report acknowledges that

The proposed extension to the barrier bank and the pumping station are both in NPPF terms “inappropriate development”

– and that with regard to the effect on a SSSI  ‘it would be exceptional for the Local Planning Authority to permit such harm’.

All things considered then, one might wonder how this application then ends up being recommended for approval. As with all similar applications, harm and benefit is weighed up, and in this case, the officer report concludes that

The works are required due to issues with the stability of the existing bank and as part of a wider programme to improve flood defences throughout the city.

It outlines the ‘very special circumstances’ that lead to the recommendation to approve:

… the benefits of the scheme; managing and reducing flood risk are deemed to be very special circumstances which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other identified harm and make the proposals acceptable in application of Green Belt policy.

…Approval is recommended because the proposed works will bring significant community benefit, by reducing flood risk to a considerable area.

Clearly, from the number of objections, many don’t agree and don’t see a significant community benefit in these proposals.

Though it appears it wouldn’t matter whether the planning committee approve it or not, as the report also reminds us that the Environment Agency has special powers.

The EA state that the bank needs repairs in any event and these would, if permission were not granted, be undertaken under the Reservoirs Act 1975 i.e. without planning permission.

So perhaps it just remains to send heartfelt thanks to the Friends of Rawcliffe Meadows for their work in this area over many decades.

I hope the end result of the Environment Agency’s work isn’t as devastating to the environment as it looks like it might be.

Thanks for reading this rather lengthy piece. Further information can be found in the links below.

. . . . .

I hope to write more frequently for these pages after my long summer break on gardening leave. After a day spent compiling the above, I would appreciate your virtual coffees even more than before. Thank you for your support of this long-running record of York and its changes.

. . . . .

Further information

Agenda for the planning committee meeting, which includes links to the officer reports quoted above

Friends of Rawcliffe Meadows website

Clifton Ings Barrier Bank – The Problem – from the Environment Agency

‘Rawcliffe was completely overlooked and constituents there feel neglected’ – MP Anne McIntosh on the floods in November 2000 and the effect on the Shipton Road area.

The post ‘Very special circumstances': impacts of the Clifton and Rawcliffe flood defence plans appeared first on York Stories.