Hefty bill to stop ‘wobbling tables’

York Press: King’s Square King’s Square

AS CABINET member Dave Merrett welcomes my feedback on King’s Square (letters 12 December), I will happily give him some more. Together with thousands of other residents, I do not agree that the previous paving was “tired and dated”.

I certainly don’t regard the new billiard-table surface as a “significant improvement” but a costly design error which has not “reinvigorated” the area but ruined it. The essential character of the square has been lost.

Also, I find the continuing criticism of the 1970s paving work as a means of justifying the current scheme to be deplorable.

It is a slur on the reputation of previous council officers who went to great lengths to ensure the design and materials of the hard surfaces then installed were in keeping with this historic city. The argument about “reinforcing paving foundations to avoid future deterioration” is spurious.

Even if it was accepted that the sub-base needed upgrading, this did not prevent the entirely appropriate previous flags, setts and cart-tracks from being re-laid.

I can see only two things going for the revamp. One is that it can be put forward as an “achievement” of the Labour administration; the second is that pavement café tables will be less likely to wobble. For £500,000 I would rather it was left alone.

John Jones, Sand Hutton, York.
 

• SEEING 2,000 people have opposed the work in King’s Square, does the council not realise what dreadful damage is being done to our city?

As for the excuse of litigation, I suppose the next step will be tearing up the paths and road in Shambles.

The council says that King’s Square looked “cluttered” previously. It was not cluttered, just ancient and beautiful, along with other parts of our city that dare not be mentioned in case the council decides to unclutter them.

What we citizens really want are proper refuse collections, salt bins and rubbish bins.

Wendy Blanchard, Huntington Road, York.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:02pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Fat Harry says...

£500,000 certainly seems to me to be too expensive for what's been done.

However, the new surface is certainly easier for my tired old feet to walk on, and I do reluctantly agree that the square looks looks better.

Others obviously disagree, but please can we stop parading this nonsense about how "ancient" and "historic" the square is? That kind of rhetoric might have made a little sense in the 1930s when Holy Trinity King's Court was demolished, but now it's claptrap.
£500,000 certainly seems to me to be too expensive for what's been done. However, the new surface is certainly easier for my tired old feet to walk on, and I do reluctantly agree that the square looks looks better. Others obviously disagree, but please can we stop parading this nonsense about how "ancient" and "historic" the square is? That kind of rhetoric might have made a little sense in the 1930s when Holy Trinity King's Court was demolished, but now it's claptrap. Fat Harry

4:24pm Mon 16 Dec 13

spiritofyork says...

i think its OK, and a bit better than how it was. that's about as good as it gets though. will be easier to scrape kebabs and sick off on sunday mornings too.
i think its OK, and a bit better than how it was. that's about as good as it gets though. will be easier to scrape kebabs and sick off on sunday mornings too. spiritofyork

5:30pm Mon 16 Dec 13

LAHegarty says...

It had much more character before they modernised the pavement, I now think it looks out of place with the surrounding buildings.
It had much more character before they modernised the pavement, I now think it looks out of place with the surrounding buildings. LAHegarty

6:45pm Mon 16 Dec 13

ColdAsChristmas says...

Half a million quid on that while most of our Green bins have been full for over a month! Then there is the salt bin saga.
Half a million quid on that while most of our Green bins have been full for over a month! Then there is the salt bin saga. ColdAsChristmas

6:52pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Buzzz Light-year says...

the second is that pavement café tables will be less likely to wobble.

Love this. Nicely put and most likely bang on the mark.
[quote] the second is that pavement café tables will be less likely to wobble.[/quote] Love this. Nicely put and most likely bang on the mark. Buzzz Light-year

7:20pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Lunatic says...

A lot of melodrama over some 70s cobbles. The feel of the place is no different now, but it certainly looks less worn out.
A lot of melodrama over some 70s cobbles. The feel of the place is no different now, but it certainly looks less worn out. Lunatic

10:01pm Mon 16 Dec 13

akaroa says...

The chocolate shop has now taken over nigh on the whole of the pavement, with unsightly flags, A boards and a table handing out leaflets, etc.. They have a tricycle, the size of a small car parked on the square. How long will it be before they monopolise the rest of the square with tables and chairs?. I am beginning to believe that the alterations were done to accommodate the grossly expensive choc shop in order to boost their sales Why are they so privileged to have their own out door space free of restrictions/charge
The chocolate shop has now taken over nigh on the whole of the pavement, with unsightly flags, A boards and a table handing out leaflets, etc.. They have a tricycle, the size of a small car parked on the square. How long will it be before they monopolise the rest of the square with tables and chairs?. I am beginning to believe that the alterations were done to accommodate the grossly expensive choc shop in order to boost their sales Why are they so privileged to have their own out door space free of restrictions/charge akaroa

11:46pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Jonthan says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Half a million quid on that while most of our Green bins have been full for over a month! Then there is the salt bin saga.
Well the answer to this is to vote against the Tories who slashed a huge swathe of local government funding, or to demand that your rates are increased to make up the difference. Which is it to be?

Councils can not borrow from one ring fenced project to fund another. There is legislation that would makes that an offence and would result in councillors being barred from office.

Of course if you don't want to change anything, you can just moan about the council who are hamstrung by central Government and are not in a position to do anything about it.
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Half a million quid on that while most of our Green bins have been full for over a month! Then there is the salt bin saga.[/p][/quote]Well the answer to this is to vote against the Tories who slashed a huge swathe of local government funding, or to demand that your rates are increased to make up the difference. Which is it to be? Councils can not borrow from one ring fenced project to fund another. There is legislation that would makes that an offence and would result in councillors being barred from office. Of course if you don't want to change anything, you can just moan about the council who are hamstrung by central Government and are not in a position to do anything about it. Jonthan

12:53am Tue 17 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

^ - as things are at the moment, this current Labour administration is to local councils what the Tories are to UK government.... and that's a single word that starts with 's' and in 't' and isn't 'soot'.
^ - as things are at the moment, this current Labour administration is to local councils what the Tories are to UK government.... and that's a single word that starts with 's' and in 't' and isn't 'soot'. Magicman!

11:16am Tue 17 Dec 13

The Great Buda says...

Jonthan wrote:
ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Half a million quid on that while most of our Green bins have been full for over a month! Then there is the salt bin saga.
Well the answer to this is to vote against the Tories who slashed a huge swathe of local government funding, or to demand that your rates are increased to make up the difference. Which is it to be?

Councils can not borrow from one ring fenced project to fund another. There is legislation that would makes that an offence and would result in councillors being barred from office.

Of course if you don't want to change anything, you can just moan about the council who are hamstrung by central Government and are not in a position to do anything about it.
But moaning about the council is all they have in their little lives. Would you really deny them that?

Let them moan.
[quote][p][bold]Jonthan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Half a million quid on that while most of our Green bins have been full for over a month! Then there is the salt bin saga.[/p][/quote]Well the answer to this is to vote against the Tories who slashed a huge swathe of local government funding, or to demand that your rates are increased to make up the difference. Which is it to be? Councils can not borrow from one ring fenced project to fund another. There is legislation that would makes that an offence and would result in councillors being barred from office. Of course if you don't want to change anything, you can just moan about the council who are hamstrung by central Government and are not in a position to do anything about it.[/p][/quote]But moaning about the council is all they have in their little lives. Would you really deny them that? Let them moan. The Great Buda

8:32am Wed 18 Dec 13

anistasia says...

How safe are the stones setts and cobbles flint being usedtusedthis is radio active but by how much.microwave the pigeons.
How safe are the stones setts and cobbles flint being usedtusedthis is radio active but by how much.microwave the pigeons. anistasia

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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