New deal expected to restart Hungate development

The Hungate development in York

The Hungate development in York

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , mark.stead@thepress.co.uk

DEVELOPERS may get the all-clear this week to restart work on a £130 million city-centre scheme in York, four-and-a-half years after the recession led to it being shelved.

City of York Council planning officials say the second phase of the Hungate development, including 195 homes and space for shops, restaurants and bars, should be approved as long as a deal is struck over affordable housing and payments towards community facilities – an issue which threatened to derail the project in 2012.

Hungate (York) Regeneration Ltd had warned it may never complete the scheme unless a new agreement was reached with the council over contributions known as Section 106 payments.

If the council’s planning committee backs the plans for the second stage of the development, the company will be able to start building the homes once it commits to providing 31 affordable homes – 16 per cent of the total, which is four per cent lower than originally required under the council’s affordable housing policy.

It must also agree new “trigger points” when it would have to make contributions towards roads, CCTV, education and open space.

The overall Hungate project is intended to have 720 homes and may not be finished until 2024.

Its first phase, including 162 flats and houses, was completed in 2009, but work stopped shortly afterwards amid the economic downturn.

The second phase would now have more housing and less commercial space than originally planned.

A report by council planner Rachel Tyas said this would affect the area’s “vitality”.

However, it added: “The applicant’s argument that there would not be adequate interest to support the amount of commercial space previously proposed is accepted and the remaining commercial unit would face on to St John’s Square, the primary space within the development.”

The Guildhall planning panel, which opposed the Hungate scheme in the past, has said it believes the new design of the second phase is an improvement.

Four objection letters have been lodged, with concerns including the impact of the development on nearby Rowntree Wharf’s appearance, the possibility of construction work polluting the River Foss and claims it could create “wind tunnel issues”

The scheme would have 99 one-bedroom, 80 two-bedroom and 15 three-bedroom apartments around a central courtyard, as well as 78 car-parking spaces and 146 cycle spaces.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:36am Mon 17 Feb 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

It doesn't reflect well that we now have to accept CCTV as part of any deal these days.
It doesn't reflect well that we now have to accept CCTV as part of any deal these days. Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 8

11:23am Mon 17 Feb 14

Semprini says...

They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that?

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none.

Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?
They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none. Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that? Semprini
  • Score: 0

11:33am Mon 17 Feb 14

Kelvar says...

Semprini wrote:
They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that?

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none.

Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?
Whilst I agree with the first part of your comment re Safety and Protection - I do NOT agree with the 2nd part -

I personally do NOT want my private Medical Data sold to ANYONE!!
[quote][p][bold]Semprini[/bold] wrote: They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none. Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the first part of your comment re Safety and Protection - I do NOT agree with the 2nd part - I personally do NOT want my private Medical Data sold to ANYONE!! Kelvar
  • Score: 11

12:05pm Mon 17 Feb 14

TheTruthHurts says...

Semprini wrote:
They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that?

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none.

Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?
I know sometimes humour is difficult to gauge on the interweb... is this post serious or not?

And I hate hearing the 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear argument' it makes me sick.
[quote][p][bold]Semprini[/bold] wrote: They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none. Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?[/p][/quote]I know sometimes humour is difficult to gauge on the interweb... is this post serious or not? And I hate hearing the 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear argument' it makes me sick. TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 12

12:06pm Mon 17 Feb 14

old_geezer says...

Kelvar wrote:
Semprini wrote:
They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that?

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none.

Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?
Whilst I agree with the first part of your comment re Safety and Protection - I do NOT agree with the 2nd part -

I personally do NOT want my private Medical Data sold to ANYONE!!
I do rather think Semprini intended what's known as "irony" - keep up!
[quote][p][bold]Kelvar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Semprini[/bold] wrote: They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none. Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the first part of your comment re Safety and Protection - I do NOT agree with the 2nd part - I personally do NOT want my private Medical Data sold to ANYONE!![/p][/quote]I do rather think Semprini intended what's known as "irony" - keep up! old_geezer
  • Score: 4

12:11pm Mon 17 Feb 14

old_geezer says...

So this long-running saga (and eyesore) has nothing to do with the City council literally chucking our £millions into a hole in the ground for a project that nobody but they wanted and that they were advised against from the start? Which involved them having to beg for a lease extension on their old HQ when they were finally wrestled into submission?
So this long-running saga (and eyesore) has nothing to do with the City council literally chucking our £millions into a hole in the ground for a project that nobody but they wanted and that they were advised against from the start? Which involved them having to beg for a lease extension on their old HQ when they were finally wrestled into submission? old_geezer
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Semprini says...

Kelvar wrote:
Semprini wrote:
They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that?

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none.

Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?
Whilst I agree with the first part of your comment re Safety and Protection - I do NOT agree with the 2nd part -

I personally do NOT want my private Medical Data sold to ANYONE!!
Good grief people, do wake up. It's little wonder we have a surveillance state.

Re: your medical data. Pop the form from here into your GP:
http://medconfidenti
al.org/
[quote][p][bold]Kelvar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Semprini[/bold] wrote: They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none. Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the first part of your comment re Safety and Protection - I do NOT agree with the 2nd part - I personally do NOT want my private Medical Data sold to ANYONE!![/p][/quote]Good grief people, do wake up. It's little wonder we have a surveillance state. Re: your medical data. Pop the form from here into your GP: http://medconfidenti al.org/ Semprini
  • Score: 2

2:09pm Mon 17 Feb 14

York_Jester says...

old_geezer wrote:
So this long-running saga (and eyesore) has nothing to do with the City council literally chucking our £millions into a hole in the ground for a project that nobody but they wanted and that they were advised against from the start? Which involved them having to beg for a lease extension on their old HQ when they were finally wrestled into submission?
i live in the Hungate development. I was extremely lucky that a flat opened up when it did, because all of the other places I'd seen in York were either poorly maintained, over priced or riddled with damp.

York needs more developments like this. They provide good family homes, good basic flats for young workers (like myself) and some higher end apartments for higher earners.

What exactly do you have against the development?
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: So this long-running saga (and eyesore) has nothing to do with the City council literally chucking our £millions into a hole in the ground for a project that nobody but they wanted and that they were advised against from the start? Which involved them having to beg for a lease extension on their old HQ when they were finally wrestled into submission?[/p][/quote]i live in the Hungate development. I was extremely lucky that a flat opened up when it did, because all of the other places I'd seen in York were either poorly maintained, over priced or riddled with damp. York needs more developments like this. They provide good family homes, good basic flats for young workers (like myself) and some higher end apartments for higher earners. What exactly do you have against the development? York_Jester
  • Score: 5

3:49pm Mon 17 Feb 14

JHardacre says...

"should be approved as long as a deal is struck ... payments towards community facilities"

If this was in another country it would be reported as being a bribe.
"should be approved as long as a deal is struck ... payments towards community facilities" If this was in another country it would be reported as being a bribe. JHardacre
  • Score: 1

5:32pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
Semprini wrote:
They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that?

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none.

Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?
I know sometimes humour is difficult to gauge on the interweb... is this post serious or not?

And I hate hearing the 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear argument' it makes me sick.
Why does the saying 'if you've nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' make you sick?
Personally I don't mind one bit if I am photographed, filmed or listened to, and to my mind including CCTV surveillance into a new development isn't sad, it's a certain percentage of our society that is sad.
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Semprini[/bold] wrote: They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none. Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?[/p][/quote]I know sometimes humour is difficult to gauge on the interweb... is this post serious or not? And I hate hearing the 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear argument' it makes me sick.[/p][/quote]Why does the saying 'if you've nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' make you sick? Personally I don't mind one bit if I am photographed, filmed or listened to, and to my mind including CCTV surveillance into a new development isn't sad, it's a certain percentage of our society that is sad. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 3

6:52pm Mon 17 Feb 14

old_geezer says...

York_Jester wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
So this long-running saga (and eyesore) has nothing to do with the City council literally chucking our £millions into a hole in the ground for a project that nobody but they wanted and that they were advised against from the start? Which involved them having to beg for a lease extension on their old HQ when they were finally wrestled into submission?
i live in the Hungate development. I was extremely lucky that a flat opened up when it did, because all of the other places I'd seen in York were either poorly maintained, over priced or riddled with damp.

York needs more developments like this. They provide good family homes, good basic flats for young workers (like myself) and some higher end apartments for higher earners.

What exactly do you have against the development?
I have nothing at all against the development! Do you know the history, how the city council wanted to build a Hungate HQ, poured £millions into it but finally had to give up? (They're now in West Offices, Tanner Row) This meant a hole-in-the-ground which stymied development for years, though obviously also entangled with the financial crash.
[quote][p][bold]York_Jester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: So this long-running saga (and eyesore) has nothing to do with the City council literally chucking our £millions into a hole in the ground for a project that nobody but they wanted and that they were advised against from the start? Which involved them having to beg for a lease extension on their old HQ when they were finally wrestled into submission?[/p][/quote]i live in the Hungate development. I was extremely lucky that a flat opened up when it did, because all of the other places I'd seen in York were either poorly maintained, over priced or riddled with damp. York needs more developments like this. They provide good family homes, good basic flats for young workers (like myself) and some higher end apartments for higher earners. What exactly do you have against the development?[/p][/quote]I have nothing at all against the development! Do you know the history, how the city council wanted to build a Hungate HQ, poured £millions into it but finally had to give up? (They're now in West Offices, Tanner Row) This meant a hole-in-the-ground which stymied development for years, though obviously also entangled with the financial crash. old_geezer
  • Score: -3

7:38pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Pinza-C55 says...

There's a possible positive side to this. Forget all the guff about "affordable housing" and "community facilities" and make it a condition of the new build that it include a new venue for Fibbers, The Duchess, Herons and the Jorvik Cafe then they can move into swish new premises and we can see Stonebow House hit the ground. We could have a raffle for who pushes the plunger to set off the explosives.
There's a possible positive side to this. Forget all the guff about "affordable housing" and "community facilities" and make it a condition of the new build that it include a new venue for Fibbers, The Duchess, Herons and the Jorvik Cafe then they can move into swish new premises and we can see Stonebow House hit the ground. We could have a raffle for who pushes the plunger to set off the explosives. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 7

10:39pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Pinza-C55 says...

old_geezer wrote:
York_Jester wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
So this long-running saga (and eyesore) has nothing to do with the City council literally chucking our £millions into a hole in the ground for a project that nobody but they wanted and that they were advised against from the start? Which involved them having to beg for a lease extension on their old HQ when they were finally wrestled into submission?
i live in the Hungate development. I was extremely lucky that a flat opened up when it did, because all of the other places I'd seen in York were either poorly maintained, over priced or riddled with damp.

York needs more developments like this. They provide good family homes, good basic flats for young workers (like myself) and some higher end apartments for higher earners.

What exactly do you have against the development?
I have nothing at all against the development! Do you know the history, how the city council wanted to build a Hungate HQ, poured £millions into it but finally had to give up? (They're now in West Offices, Tanner Row) This meant a hole-in-the-ground which stymied development for years, though obviously also entangled with the financial crash.
Don't forget the warehouse which mysteriously caught fire and left part of the site vacant just in time for the start of the scheme 8-)
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]York_Jester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: So this long-running saga (and eyesore) has nothing to do with the City council literally chucking our £millions into a hole in the ground for a project that nobody but they wanted and that they were advised against from the start? Which involved them having to beg for a lease extension on their old HQ when they were finally wrestled into submission?[/p][/quote]i live in the Hungate development. I was extremely lucky that a flat opened up when it did, because all of the other places I'd seen in York were either poorly maintained, over priced or riddled with damp. York needs more developments like this. They provide good family homes, good basic flats for young workers (like myself) and some higher end apartments for higher earners. What exactly do you have against the development?[/p][/quote]I have nothing at all against the development! Do you know the history, how the city council wanted to build a Hungate HQ, poured £millions into it but finally had to give up? (They're now in West Offices, Tanner Row) This meant a hole-in-the-ground which stymied development for years, though obviously also entangled with the financial crash.[/p][/quote]Don't forget the warehouse which mysteriously caught fire and left part of the site vacant just in time for the start of the scheme 8-) Pinza-C55
  • Score: -2

4:00am Tue 18 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
There's a possible positive side to this. Forget all the guff about "affordable housing" and "community facilities" and make it a condition of the new build that it include a new venue for Fibbers, The Duchess, Herons and the Jorvik Cafe then they can move into swish new premises and we can see Stonebow House hit the ground. We could have a raffle for who pushes the plunger to set off the explosives.
Perhaps, but there's a key factor you've overlooked... the "something is making noise, and I must try to get it abated despite that thing having been around for longer than I have" mentality. Case in point being Elvington... the airfield has been in use from World War 2 at least, if not sooner, and yet people living in houses built in the 1980's seem to think they have a right to force all noise from the airfield to cease entirely - depite the fact they looked around the house and the area and saw it was close to an active aerodrome.

... so what's to stop people complaning about a relocated Fibbers? I've nothing against the venue, quite the opposite in fact - as what i could well forsee is the venue relocates to somewhere without adequate insulation, then people complain and a 9pm curfew is imposed.
Perhaps if a commercial aspect is part of the development, then perhaps a large basement area could be provided underneath the shops for Fibbers and the Dutchess - with only the primary access point being at ground level (and a fire exit at the other end of the building) and the rest being underground so that sound doesn't carry, thus meaning the music could go on into the night without disturbing anybody and freeing up stonebow house for redevelopment.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: There's a possible positive side to this. Forget all the guff about "affordable housing" and "community facilities" and make it a condition of the new build that it include a new venue for Fibbers, The Duchess, Herons and the Jorvik Cafe then they can move into swish new premises and we can see Stonebow House hit the ground. We could have a raffle for who pushes the plunger to set off the explosives.[/p][/quote]Perhaps, but there's a key factor you've overlooked... the "something is making noise, and I must try to get it abated despite that thing having been around for longer than I have" mentality. Case in point being Elvington... the airfield has been in use from World War 2 at least, if not sooner, and yet people living in houses built in the 1980's seem to think they have a right to force all noise from the airfield to cease entirely - depite the fact they looked around the house and the area and saw it was close to an active aerodrome. ... so what's to stop people complaning about a relocated Fibbers? I've nothing against the venue, quite the opposite in fact - as what i could well forsee is the venue relocates to somewhere without adequate insulation, then people complain and a 9pm curfew is imposed. Perhaps if a commercial aspect is part of the development, then perhaps a large basement area could be provided underneath the shops for Fibbers and the Dutchess - with only the primary access point being at ground level (and a fire exit at the other end of the building) and the rest being underground so that sound doesn't carry, thus meaning the music could go on into the night without disturbing anybody and freeing up stonebow house for redevelopment. Magicman!
  • Score: 3

10:42am Tue 18 Feb 14

meme says...

cannot go underground as Viking remains need preserving plus water table too high!
cannot go underground as Viking remains need preserving plus water table too high! meme
  • Score: 3

12:14pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Magicman! wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
There's a possible positive side to this. Forget all the guff about "affordable housing" and "community facilities" and make it a condition of the new build that it include a new venue for Fibbers, The Duchess, Herons and the Jorvik Cafe then they can move into swish new premises and we can see Stonebow House hit the ground. We could have a raffle for who pushes the plunger to set off the explosives.
Perhaps, but there's a key factor you've overlooked... the "something is making noise, and I must try to get it abated despite that thing having been around for longer than I have" mentality. Case in point being Elvington... the airfield has been in use from World War 2 at least, if not sooner, and yet people living in houses built in the 1980's seem to think they have a right to force all noise from the airfield to cease entirely - depite the fact they looked around the house and the area and saw it was close to an active aerodrome.

... so what's to stop people complaning about a relocated Fibbers? I've nothing against the venue, quite the opposite in fact - as what i could well forsee is the venue relocates to somewhere without adequate insulation, then people complain and a 9pm curfew is imposed.
Perhaps if a commercial aspect is part of the development, then perhaps a large basement area could be provided underneath the shops for Fibbers and the Dutchess - with only the primary access point being at ground level (and a fire exit at the other end of the building) and the rest being underground so that sound doesn't carry, thus meaning the music could go on into the night without disturbing anybody and freeing up stonebow house for redevelopment.
Well a large part of the site will be the Hiscox building so noise nuisance won't matter as it won't be occupied at night. Also, any new building could be designed to modern noiseproofing standards. I don't know the history of the music venues but I suspect they were not purpose built.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: There's a possible positive side to this. Forget all the guff about "affordable housing" and "community facilities" and make it a condition of the new build that it include a new venue for Fibbers, The Duchess, Herons and the Jorvik Cafe then they can move into swish new premises and we can see Stonebow House hit the ground. We could have a raffle for who pushes the plunger to set off the explosives.[/p][/quote]Perhaps, but there's a key factor you've overlooked... the "something is making noise, and I must try to get it abated despite that thing having been around for longer than I have" mentality. Case in point being Elvington... the airfield has been in use from World War 2 at least, if not sooner, and yet people living in houses built in the 1980's seem to think they have a right to force all noise from the airfield to cease entirely - depite the fact they looked around the house and the area and saw it was close to an active aerodrome. ... so what's to stop people complaning about a relocated Fibbers? I've nothing against the venue, quite the opposite in fact - as what i could well forsee is the venue relocates to somewhere without adequate insulation, then people complain and a 9pm curfew is imposed. Perhaps if a commercial aspect is part of the development, then perhaps a large basement area could be provided underneath the shops for Fibbers and the Dutchess - with only the primary access point being at ground level (and a fire exit at the other end of the building) and the rest being underground so that sound doesn't carry, thus meaning the music could go on into the night without disturbing anybody and freeing up stonebow house for redevelopment.[/p][/quote]Well a large part of the site will be the Hiscox building so noise nuisance won't matter as it won't be occupied at night. Also, any new building could be designed to modern noiseproofing standards. I don't know the history of the music venues but I suspect they were not purpose built. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

1:49pm Tue 18 Feb 14

TheTruthHurts says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
TheTruthHurts wrote:
Semprini wrote:
They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that?

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none.

Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?
I know sometimes humour is difficult to gauge on the interweb... is this post serious or not?

And I hate hearing the 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear argument' it makes me sick.
Why does the saying 'if you've nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' make you sick?
Personally I don't mind one bit if I am photographed, filmed or listened to, and to my mind including CCTV surveillance into a new development isn't sad, it's a certain percentage of our society that is sad.
Thats fine.

But personally I would rather not be photographed, filmed and listened to whilst I am out and about breaking no laws and doing nothing illegal.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Semprini[/bold] wrote: They are there for your SAFETY and PROTECTION. What could be wrong with that? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. How many abuses of power by the state can you think of? That's right, none. Next thing you'll be telling us you don't want all your private medical data sold to the highest bidder. What could be wrong with that?[/p][/quote]I know sometimes humour is difficult to gauge on the interweb... is this post serious or not? And I hate hearing the 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear argument' it makes me sick.[/p][/quote]Why does the saying 'if you've nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' make you sick? Personally I don't mind one bit if I am photographed, filmed or listened to, and to my mind including CCTV surveillance into a new development isn't sad, it's a certain percentage of our society that is sad.[/p][/quote]Thats fine. But personally I would rather not be photographed, filmed and listened to whilst I am out and about breaking no laws and doing nothing illegal. TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree