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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, hurrah for that.

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

But no.

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

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

A broader view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On balance

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

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

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

And other things …

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

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

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

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

More information

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

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

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

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

. . . . .

Update, 13 Dec 2017

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

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

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

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

Carlton Tavern, October 2017. If you owned this, would you want to demolish it?

Time to return to the Holgate/Acomb area, to the Carlton Tavern. If the current planning application (17/00476/FULM) is approved at a meeting this week then the applicants will have permission to demolish the building.

The planning committee meeting is at 4.30pm on Wednesday 18 October. Further details on this link.

I wrote about the building back in March, when the planning application was submitted. Since then there has been an impressive campaign against the proposed demolition.

It’s not only about local residents and heritage organisations wanting to save the building, but also, more recently, interesting ideas for its future use have been put forward which would make more use of the building, for the benefit of the local community.

Seems obvious really, doesn’t it, that in 2017 we shouldn’t be destroying handsome Victorian buildings when they could be reused and appreciated.

But it’s more complicated than that. So many angles we could approach this from, but let’s start with this angle — a bit of the front of the building.

Carlton Tavern, detail

Handsome, isn’t it. I wonder how long it took to attach these tiles in this pattern. I wonder how long it will take to destroy this pattern, and the rest of the building with it. I wonder if these tiles will be salvaged and sold on, or just slung into a skip, all broken. Then there’s the bricks, the slates, the handsome windows, the impressive conservatory, all the internal joinery, all that work by the Victorian builders and joiners and craftsmen.

Carlton Tavern and conservatory

I can’t help but think about another large Victorian villa on my side of town, also the focus of a campaign to save it from demolition, more than a decade back. Burton Croft, on Burton Stone Lane. In that case, as in this, if planning permission is granted, to the developers the building is just an object to be cleared, from ‘Land Acquired’.

Burton Croft, Clifton, 20 Nov 2004

Burton Croft, like the Carlton Tavern, was originally built as a family home. Both had a second life as a care home. The Carlton Tavern was for many decades the Godfrey Walker home for children, as previously discussed. Burton Croft, a BUPA-owned facility, was one of quite a few smaller residential care homes for the elderly that closed in the early years of the 21st century.

A lack of care

There’s a bigger picture here of course — the lack of care home provision. Following on from the closure of smaller care homes, cuts to council funding have led to the closure of the larger council care homes, including Oak Haven, a couple of doors down from the Carlton Tavern. So it’s over to the private sector to provide these facilities. Clearly there’s a bit of a panic about how and where older and vulnerable residents of the city are going to live when in need of care. Crown Care appeared and put forward these plans for a care home for the Acomb/Holgate area.

Just a shame that the site they chose has the Carlton Tavern in the middle of it.

The pub company who own it want to make profit from selling it to a care home company, and the care home company doesn’t care about the handsomeness of the building or its use to the local community because it just wants the site cleared for its new build.

Thinking about Burton Croft, mentioned above, I did a quick bit of Googling for more information on the care home industry in recent years. According to a Yorkshire Post article from April 2002 the closure of Burton Croft and other care homes back then followed ‘complaints from private sector homes that fees paid by local authorities are too low while they have also been expected to upgrade standards to meet new regulations.’ Apparently these problems continue in the care home industry. It’s an industry ‘in crisis’, according to a report in the Guardian earlier this year.

Should a building that has managed to survive for over 130 years be cleared out of the way to provide what might only be a short-term gain, in what seems to be a rather precarious care home industry?

Still, Crown Care are confident in their plans for this development. On their website their list of ‘new developments’ includes one in York — presumably the Carlton Tavern site — despite the fact that the planning application hasn’t yet been approved.

Whether it will be approved or refused is ultimately up to a group of local elected representatives to decide — our local councillors on the planning committee. Crown Care don’t care about the value of the existing building to the local community, but York councillors should.

In the balance

In planning terms, as always, the planning officers have to weigh these things up in terms of perceived ‘harm’ and ‘benefit’, and then recommend that councillors either approve it or refuse it.

The report prepared for the decision meeting this week recommends approval:

In conclusion … the overall judgement is balanced. Nevertheless it is considered that the significant benefits which the Care home would provide would be sufficient to outweigh loss of a non –designated heritage asset, even one of the undoubted local importance of the Carlton Tavern, and furthermore would outweigh the loss of a listed Asset of Community Value. It is considered that the possible harm to part of the root zone of the nearest tree to create the lift platform is not sufficient to weigh in favour of refusal in its own.
– Committee report (PDF)

I’m sorry, I’m not convinced, having read the committee report, and the many objections.

As the report mentions possible harm to one of the trees on the site, let’s have a look at the roots of the fine old mature trees at the front of the site. I was rather impressed by them.

Hanging on in there, trees in front of the Carlton Tavern

They’re a really impressive feature on the driveway to the pub.

Trees and their roots, Carlton Tavern entrance

The plans appear to retain the trees, but presumably there will be damage to the roots of some of them once the work starts on digging out the site and putting foundations in for the new building. According to the committee report ‘the trees have good vitality and are likely to respond to any loss of roots with regeneration of new root tissue.’ ‘Likely to’ doesn’t mean ‘will’.

The committee report also mentions that bats live in the building:

Dusk and dawn activity surveys were undertaken in June and July 2017. This concluded that the public house currently supports small numbers of roosting Common Pipistrelle bats, which emerged from under the wooden fascia on the north eastern elevation. Due to the number of old droppings found within the roof space a maternity roost may have been previously present (and therefore could be again in future years)

(- but not if the building is pulled down.)

They’ll have to be evicted and perhaps settle for a nest box in one of the trees. They don’t get any say in the matter.

But the locals should get a say, and be listened to. After all, the sign at the entrance proudly declares: ‘Your Community, Your Pub’.

Carlton Tavern sign: ‘Your Community, Your Pub’

Nice cosy advertising slogan, giving customers a nice warm glow and a feeling of ownership. All nonsense, of course, as the proposed sale of the site and demolition of the building shows.

Good to see though that the local community has a sense of ownership and has campaigned against the closure.

Louise Ennis, Carlton Tavern campaigner and local resident explains:

“This isn’t just an empty building plot. It contains a much-loved local landmark which also happens to be an Asset of Community Value and a heritage asset with significance for the history and character of the local area. It’s also on the Local Heritage List which would be taken into account by planning decision makers if the York Local Plan was in force. It would be sad indeed if this important survival was lost to future generations – like neighbouring Shelley House, and Burnholme, both recently demolished for development – because bad timing meant reduced protection.

Historic buildings matter to communities. The Carlton Tavern, or West Garth makes a huge contribution to Acomb and Holgate both architecturally and aesthetically, but it also matters to local people, giving continuity to their lives, and memories of visiting, working or living at the Godfrey Walker Home for Children which held a central place in Acomb life from the 1940s to the 1980s.

West Garth also tells us so much about the development of this affluent York suburb of Holgate where York’s civic leaders built their Victorian and Edwardian villas just outside the city walls. The first owner was Lieut. Col. Arthur H. Russell and his family. West Garth has been attributed by local heritage experts to celebrated York architect Walter Green Penty, whose firm Penty & Penty designed Elmbank on The Mount and Tudoresque Aldersyde on Tadcaster Road, as well as buildings in Hampstead Garden Suburbs.

It’s not just national and local heritage experts, from York Civic Trust, and York Conservation Trust, to the Victorian Society that think the Carlton should be saved. It’s part of the shared history of our community. Having spoken to hundreds of residents over the past few months, I know that I truly represent local people when I say that they do not want to lose this building.”

I mentioned Burton Croft earlier on. To end this piece, a couple of photos of that Victorian building as it ended up — in heaps of broken slate and brick and timber. Twelve years on from that particular destruction, I hope we can do better in the case of the Carlton Tavern.

Burton Croft demolition, 5 Feb 2005

A heap of slates and bricks: Burton Croft demolition, 5 Feb 2005

Further information

Members of the public are welcome to attend the planning committee meetings at West Offices. The Carlton Tavern application is first up on the agenda at the meeting starting 4.30pm on Wednesday 18 October. Campaigners for the Carlton Tavern would I’m sure welcome further public support.

Members of the public can also attend the site visit, along with the councillors who will decide the issue, on the morning of Tuesday 17 October. See this PDF for details of timings.

Objections to the application can still be registered but at this late stage any further representations will be reported as numbers only, so don’t spend time writing a long essay in objection. The committee report has been written and includes a summary of objections received so far.

The meeting will also be webcast — ‘council telly’, as we call it in our house — to watch live, or later. Should be an interesting discussion.

. . . . .

I’m continuing to add to this online ‘resident’s record of York and its changes‘ as often as I can. If you’d like to be notified when new pages appear here, please sign up to my mailing list, or follow me on Twitter.

The post Carlton Tavern: decision this week on demolition appeared first on York Stories.

Carlton Tavern (Image: Google Street View, June 2016)

I’ve been following with interest various planning applications open for comment on the council’s planning access system relating to buildings I’ve written about before on this site. This week I wanted to mention two in particular, with brief reference to a third. The link is proposed demolition of the existing buildings, to make way for new developments. See what you think …

Carlton Tavern (former Godfrey Walker Home), 140 Acomb Road

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

(Or search for the reference 17/00476/FULM in the search box at https://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/ if the ‘planning access’ system is having an off day and the link above isn’t working.)

It’s cheering to see that there have been many objections to the proposed demolition of this building. We have to call it the Carlton Tavern as that’s its most recent name, but calling it the Carlton Tavern doesn’t do it justice. It’s only recently that it has been a pub/hotel of that name. It was built as a home, has a long history as a home/care home, and should be able to be reused in the plans for a 21st century care home.

I wrote about its history on an earlier page.

Godfrey Walker Home, Acomb Road, Nov 1948 (Photo: York Press)

The Victorian Society and York Civic Trust have objected to the planning application.

Victorian Society comments (PDF). A few extracts from that document:

We object to the application, which would entail the total and unjustified loss of a locally significant building and harm to the quality and character of the local streetscape.

… with its generous proportions, richness of elevational treatment, tall chimneys and notable detailing, such as its attractive oriels and striking multi-paned windows, it is an accomplished and highly impressive edifice.

… The demolition of the Carlton Tavern would result in the total and unjustified loss of significance of a locally important historic building. We encourage the Council to inscribe the building on its Local List and ensure its preservation, in the first instance by refusing this inappropriate and harmful application.

York Civic Trust comments (PDF). Extracts from that objection:

… the building has a rich history relating to the urban development of western York and social care provision in the city, both of which have been overlooked in the proposal.

… The Carlton Tavern villa is the last of the four grand Victorian/Edwardian villas that once were seen along Acomb Road. … The proposed demolition of The Carlton Tavern would therefore erase all evidence of a style and size of Victorian / Edwardian properties that as a result of development and under appreciation are becoming increasingly hard to find examples of in York.

…  the Trust would vigorously suggest a revision of the proposed scheme to use constructive conservation by incorporating the current Carlton Tavern building in its nursing home scheme. This could be realised by using The Carlton Tavern building as the desired communal space to the front of the development, and having new, residential space adjoined to it at the rear.

All the documents for the application can be found on this link.

Many local residents have also objected to the proposals.

If you’d like to add your own objections you can do so via that link above, or alternatively by email to planning.comments@york.gov.uk with the reference  17/00476/FULM: 140 Acomb Road. There’s more information on how to comment on this page on the council’s website.

Feel free to refer to/include the Victorian Society and York Civic Trust appraisals of the building in your comments — they are after all experts in recognising and promoting the value of historic buildings.

Hudson House, Toft Green

Hudson House from the city walls, April 2016

As previously mentioned briefly on an earlier page there’s a planning application also open for comment on plans to demolish Hudson House and redevelop the site. This is a change from an earlier plan to retain and refurbish.

Though it might seem that I always oppose demolition of buildings, in this case I don’t have strong feelings. If you do, or if you’re interested in reading more, the documents are here:

17/00576/FULM | Erection of 4 no. buildings comprising 127no. flats (C3), office (B1) use and office or restaurant (B1 or A3) uses following the demolition of existing office building | Hudson House Toft Green York YO1 6JT

(Or search for the reference 17/00576/FULM in the search box at https://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/ if the ‘planning access’ system is having an off day and the link above isn’t working.)

The Design and Access statement (PDF) says of the existing building:

The present condition of the building is relatively poor, extensive repairs have been carried out to the external envelope to prevent the façade from further corrosion. Large areas of single glazing encourage the building to overheat during the summer months and lead to excessive heat loss during the winter months, this in turn undoubtedly puts a strain on the existing dated services. Services/ ductwork in need of replacement after 50 years of use.

Those of us who are of a similar age to this building might sympathise with it, and the strain on its dated services.

Though I was cheered to see that I/we (the comments on the page added further information) get an actual credit and link in another planning application document, the Heritage Impact assessment (PDF). It states

Hudson House was designed by S. Hardy of the British Rail Architects Department and was built between 1966 and 1970. It comprises four large interconnected blocks in a ‘pin-wheel’ plan around a courtyard. Blocks A and B, closest to the City Wall are four storeys, while blocks C and D, bordering Toft Green, are six storeys although it reads as five storeys above a sunken ground floor. Constructed of pre-fabricated concrete faced with granite chippings, it is designed in the Brutalist style with simple, regular fenestration and minimal decorative intervention. Although apparently, originally pale and similar in colour to the City Wall, (1) it is now dark brown in colour, contrasting with the red and pale yellow bricks employed by neighbouring buildings.

The (1) is a footnote, on page 6, and the footnote is a link to something I wrote a few years ago – Office block studies: Hudson House (2014). It was pleasing to see that recognition of the value of this website. It would be nice if more people linked to it in that way — rather than just using it for facts and photos without crediting the source, as is depressingly common.

But anyway, back to the plot …

A message from Ordnance Lane?

Ordnance Lane buildings (5), May 2016

This week the planning application to demolish buildings on Ordnance Lane was officially withdrawn. I wrote about the proposed demolition a while back.

A reminder that public opposition to the destruction of heritage assets can make a difference, sometimes.

16/00871/FULM | Proposed Replacement Residential Accommodation Ordnance Lane York (WITHDRAWN)

Map

Google map showing the locations of the buildings mentioned

. . . . .

I’m trying to do my bit to recognise and promote aspects of local heritage here in York — particularly the less well-known aspects. I’ve been doing this work for many years. I want to continue to add useful, thoughtful, interesting content to this site. But this is unpaid work, and it involves a lot of time and effort. If you’d like to power more pages, here’s a way to do that, via my ‘buy me a coffee’ button, below.

Thanks to everyone who asked about supporting this site and to everyone whose support has powered recent pages.

(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 Carlton Tavern and Hudson House: planning applications for demolition appeared first on York Stories.

Ordnance Lane buildings, May 2016

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

Ordnance Lane, plans abandoned

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

James House, James Street

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

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

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

Which leads me on to …

Carlton Tavern (Godfrey Walker Home), plans submitted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vibrant hubs and sell-offs

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

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

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

Lettering on the exterior of Yearsley Baths, May 2015

And a tree

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

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

Stump of felled tree, by the Dormouse pub sign

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

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

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

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

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

Godfrey Walker Home, Acomb Road, Nov 1948 (Photo: York Press)

A recent story in the Press announced plans for the closure and demolition of the Carlton Tavern, on Acomb Road. Many large out of town pubs have closed in recent years, several have been demolished. But this isn’t just another pub closure story. The building has a long and interesting history, part of which is captured in this photo above, from 1948. Calling it the Carlton Tavern doesn’t do it justice. Let’s call it by one of its older names: West Garth perhaps, or the Godfrey Walker Home.

As one of the comments on the Press article mentions, before it was a pub this Victorian villa was for some decades the Godfrey Walker Home. The photo at the top of the page was taken during that time, and shows nursery nurses and children on the lawns and steps in front of the building.

This building was the reason my mum came to York, from Hull, just after the war. It was her first home here, for a year or so, 1947-8. A description of this time, written in the early 1990s as a contribution to a life story project run by the British Library, includes a page or two about the home and her time there. I thought I’d share a few extracts. Imagine, if you will, leaving the bombed-out streets of Hull, just after the war, and arriving in York, in the merry month of May, 1947:

I applied for a job as a nursery nurse with the Church of England Children’s Society. I received a letter telling me that there was a place in Shropshire, but they would try to find me one nearer home. I wrote back and told them that I had no desire to be near Hull, on the contrary the farther away the better.

In York at this time a large detached house in its own grounds had been bequeathed to the society. This was to be opened in May ’47 as a nursery for babies and toddlers up to five years. It was named after the benefactor, and known as the Godfrey Walker Home. I was offered a place here although I was only fifteen and a half. When I was sixteen, in August, I could start a two year nursery nurse course which would include two three month periods at a college in Hornsey, North London.

I arrived in York on a glorious day in May and asked a policeman the way to Acomb. As I walked out of the station I thought I had come to paradise. Brilliant blue sky, white stone walls, green grass and trees. I’d left behind rubble and debris, sandbags and all the reminders of war. I boarded a bus and the journey took me past lilac and laburnum all in their full glory. Past the park with trees of many varieties until I finally walked up the path towards my new home.

There were about six of us altogether. Girls like myself, leaving home for the first time; also one sister and a Matron. Soon the children began to arrive; babies and toddlers from all over the country.

Our wages were £2 a month. Out of this we paid a stamp of 7/6 so we had 32/6d left. Thankfully we were provided with a uniform; a green and white striped dress with a white hat and apron. I wore mine constantly. My underwear had to be washed out and dried ready to put back on the next day. Trying to buy clothing was difficult because I had to buy soap and toothpaste and so on. When the girls asked me to go out with them, maybe rowing on the river or something, I would refuse, then they would insist, and I’d have to say I had nothing to wear. One would then lend me a blouse and another a skirt.

We gave the children their tea in the playroom. Here I had my first taste of honey. We had large jars of it which was spread on brown bread and relished by all. We worked hard but it was enjoyable. Just to live in such a lovely house surrounded by a garden and in such a beautiful city was a constant pleasure.

Mum had left this employment before the photo above was taken, but she stayed in Acomb.

These photos of the building I think date from the 1990s:

Former Godfrey Walker Home, 1990s

Former Godfrey Walker Home, 1990s

I haven’t any recent photos of it available, but Google Street view has an image of it, from 2016:

Google Street View image, June 2016 (view on Google maps)

It’s a rather attractive Victorian villa, dating from the late 1880s, according to a brief mention in the Pevsner guide. (It refers to it together with Shelley House, another tile-hung Victorian villa next door. That has been demolished and replaced with a modern block of flats.) It was originally called West Garth, and available records show that it was the home of the Russell family for some years, towards the end of the 19th century.

How it then changed ownership and came to be the Godfrey Walker Home is something perhaps someone else can investigate further. For now it seems sufficient to observe that it looks not much altered, externally, even apparently keeping its original windows (though hard to be sure without a closer look). Unusual perhaps for a building that has had so many changes of use, and isn’t a listed building.

The article in the Press this week revealed that there are plans to demolish the building and replace it with a new purpose-built care home. Plans which apparently received a largely positive response at a recent consultation/exhibition to which some local residents were invited. (But then people exhibiting plans for redevelopment always say that the reaction is positive.)

Seems a shame to destroy this building. In fact I’d go so far as to use a phrase I’m not in the habit of using except when I really need to: it seems like an act of vandalism to destroy it.

I’m not thinking particularly of my own family connection to the place, and this interesting aspect of its history, but more that it makes no sense to me to destroy a solid-looking handsome building that has been adapted for several different uses over the last 130 years or so and yet still retains so much of its original character.

Why could it not be kept, with a modern development around it? If it has outlived its usefulness as a pub that doesn’t seem sufficient justification for its complete destruction.

I’m not naive, and realise that for companies owning ‘assets’ like this it’s all about how much profit they can make.

Maybe they could make just a bit less, by adapting what’s already there, and leave the entrance to Acomb with at least one characterful handsome old building. ‘The next few hundred yards and the blasted village entrance have little aesthetic appeal’, wrote John Hutchinson in 1980.

Technically I think the building is in Holgate, as the boundary between Acomb and Holgate is at Acomb Regent, just along the road, so I’ve been told many times.

Whether we think of it as in Acomb or in Holgate, whether we call it the Carlton Tavern or West Garth or the former Godfrey Walker Home — should it go the same way as the 19th century Burnholme WMC building, and Burton Croft, and North Lodge at Clifton, and the lodge at the old fire station, and so many other Victorian buildings demolished in the last decade or so?

A planning application and planning permission will of course be needed. I can’t see any sign as yet of a planning application on the online system, but I’ll look out for it and link to it when it does.

There’s more information on the Godfrey Walker Home in the online catalogue of the records of the Children’s Society, on this link.

Update: planning application

Now open for comment:

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

. . . . .

If you’d like to be kept informed of updates, or other things I’m writing elsewhere, please join the mailing list.

The post Memories of the Godfrey Walker Home, and plans for its demolition appeared first on York Stories.