£25m "world-class" housing plans unveiled for St Leonard's Place

An artist's impression of St Leonard's Place converted into town houses and apartments

The Royal Crescent in Bath, which the St Leonard's Place development has been likened to.

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author Exclusive by , Business editor

DEVELOPERS have unveiled £25 million housing plans for St Leonard's Place in York city-centre, after hotel plans for the site were scrapped.

The Grade II listed offices, which housed City of York Council until last year, are to become 40 homes, made up of four-storey town houses, mews houses and apartments.

Developer Rushbond says it aims to create a "stunning, high-quality residential development", on a par with the Royal Crescent in Bath and Grosvenor Square in London’s Belgravia.

The plans will return the building to its original purpose and the company's managing director Jonathan Maud said he expected interest from around the world.

Rushbond had secured planning permission to turn the building into an 88-bedroom hotel, but Ambiance Hotels dropped out of the plans for a £20 million four-star hotel, which would have created 80 to 100 jobs. Ambiance has since been unavailable for comment.

Mr Maud said: "After two years trying to get interest from a hotel company it was time to accept what the market was telling us; it wasn't going to work as a hotel.

"That's probably a combination of the fact hotel companies don't want the complexity of a sensitive project and lengthy conversion such as this when they can get a ready made hotel already in operation, coupled with the fact York already has a great hotel offering.

"We knew we had to bring this fabulous building back to life, and it was imperative that we got it right, and gave the people of York something to embrace.

"We want to create an exemplar of world-class residential accommodation in York, as a final piece in the jigsaw of what the city has to offer. We envisage this scheme will attract national and international business leaders to live in the city and invest in the city."

The building, which was built in 1831 as nine town houses, will become five townhouses and 29 apartments, and a mix of six conversion and new build mews properties are planned for the rear of the main crescent.

The properties will use existing parking to the right of the property, and garage space under the mews houses at the rear.

Mark Finch, director of Real Estate at Rushbond, said: "When it was built in the 1830s, St Leonard’s Place was the pinnacle of fine living in York - and it can be so again.

"Our plans will see us create a stunning high-quality residential development that can exceed anything else in the region and indeed the North of England.

"We need to ensure we can bring the building back into a sustainable and beneficial use and to support the exciting investments planned in this part of the City, including the restoration of the Art Gallery and the redevelopment of the Theatre Royal and Explore Library, as soon as we can."

A planning application for the scheme is due to be submitted in coming weeks, with a decision expected in November.

If approved, work will start by next March, with the first homes available within a further 15 to 18 months.

City of York Council leader James Alexander said: "This is great news. The development of St Leonard's will mean an iconic building in York being put back into use in the way it was originally intended and after some time.

"I’m pleased also that the developers are keen to meet affordable housing commitments.

"It joins a growing list of investments and important developments in the city being progressed or completed in recent months after long periods of stagnation, such as the Bonding Warehouse, Terry’s and White Swan."

Rushbond had bought the premises from the council in 2006 and leased them back to the authority until last March, when the council moved to West Offices in Station Rise.

Comments (98)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:11pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

So let me get this right...

City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of.

Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments.

Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments.

With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.
So let me get this right... City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of. Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments. Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments. With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here. Jack Ham
  • Score: -24

10:23pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Knavesmire view says...

Of course the demise of the hotel plans are in no way linked to Lendal Bridge being re-opened....
Of course the demise of the hotel plans are in no way linked to Lendal Bridge being re-opened.... Knavesmire view
  • Score: -40

10:26pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Knavesmire view says...

And how on earth is James Alexander expecting any of these to be 'affordable housing'?!
And how on earth is James Alexander expecting any of these to be 'affordable housing'?! Knavesmire view
  • Score: -65

10:27pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Dr Brian says...

Wow Jimmy and his voting fraternity have managed to do 216 thumbs down votes for the above post in about 15 minutes.

We still won't be voting for you Alexander however many thumbs downs your gang put LOL
Wow Jimmy and his voting fraternity have managed to do 216 thumbs down votes for the above post in about 15 minutes. We still won't be voting for you Alexander however many thumbs downs your gang put LOL Dr Brian
  • Score: -71

10:28pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

Jack Ham wrote:
So let me get this right...

City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of.

Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments.

Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments.

With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.
Wow. Just 15 minutes in and already -219 likes!!

The Labour Party truth massages must be working late tonight!
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: So let me get this right... City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of. Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments. Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments. With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.[/p][/quote]Wow. Just 15 minutes in and already -219 likes!! The Labour Party truth massages must be working late tonight! Jack Ham
  • Score: -80

10:32pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Mr Anderson says...

Lendal Bridge closure falls through, followed by hotel deal. H,mmmm. I smell fish.
Lendal Bridge closure falls through, followed by hotel deal. H,mmmm. I smell fish. Mr Anderson
  • Score: -45

10:36pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Justin7 says...

-259.

It's not any political thing, there's no way 259 people aligned to the Labour party would be on here at 10pm downvoting.

It's hacked. I've seen it in the 1000s for other stories.
-259. It's not any political thing, there's no way 259 people aligned to the Labour party would be on here at 10pm downvoting. It's hacked. I've seen it in the 1000s for other stories. Justin7
  • Score: -15

10:54pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Martin true Viking says...

It's what should have happened to the buildings in the first place a hotel was never a good idea. Hope they don't keep changing the plans and chopping trees down willy nilly as they are doing at Terry's though as that is a disgrace.
It's what should have happened to the buildings in the first place a hotel was never a good idea. Hope they don't keep changing the plans and chopping trees down willy nilly as they are doing at Terry's though as that is a disgrace. Martin true Viking
  • Score: 61

10:56pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Silver says...

Well I hate to say it but we all knew that Labour gambled big that we'd agree with them and the masses spoke otherwise and it's come back and bit them in the bum. But thats what you get for doing for something illegal. Still surprised the repercussions have only been refunding people. If I do something illegal and get caught I'd expect to you know, be punished by the law.So Labour you've got one thing going for you, immunity to prosecution doesn't mean the public forget. Sincerely a labour voter
Well I hate to say it but we all knew that Labour gambled big that we'd agree with them and the masses spoke otherwise and it's come back and bit them in the bum. But thats what you get for doing for something illegal. Still surprised the repercussions have only been refunding people. If I do something illegal and get caught I'd expect to you know, be punished by the law.So Labour you've got one thing going for you, immunity to prosecution doesn't mean the public forget. Sincerely a labour voter Silver
  • Score: -43

10:58pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Martin true Viking says...

Good grief I've just noticed when the council sold them the building 2006. How much was it for and what was the rent the city paid back.
Good grief I've just noticed when the council sold them the building 2006. How much was it for and what was the rent the city paid back. Martin true Viking
  • Score: 39

11:24pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Dave Ruddock says...

The City Council (all of them, all parties) ran the old offices into the ground, no real maintenance done. They (all Parties) should Publicly state what they did not do. Now Central York has another run down, building, that is constantly changing int use. and Rougier St Office site in a mess.
wonder if if Rushbond can get a grip and start work
The City Council (all of them, all parties) ran the old offices into the ground, no real maintenance done. They (all Parties) should Publicly state what they did not do. Now Central York has another run down, building, that is constantly changing int use. and Rougier St Office site in a mess. wonder if if Rushbond can get a grip and start work Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -3

11:32pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Omega Point says...

Do buses run outside the Royal Crescent in Bath and Grosvenor Square in London’s Belgravia. Just asking
Do buses run outside the Royal Crescent in Bath and Grosvenor Square in London’s Belgravia. Just asking Omega Point
  • Score: 61

11:33pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Abisman says...

The picture of Bath is actually The Circus, not Royal Crescent. Perhaps try reading the page you're lifting a picture from next time
The picture of Bath is actually The Circus, not Royal Crescent. Perhaps try reading the page you're lifting a picture from next time Abisman
  • Score: 28

11:36pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Abisman says...

Omega Point wrote:
Do buses run outside the Royal Crescent in Bath and Grosvenor Square in London’s Belgravia. Just asking
Yes. Those open top tourist buses do. And they used to come out of the upper windows and throw buckets of water on them, cos they were sick of hearing the commentary on the bus every 5 minutes! Might just happen here too.... Anyway, it's not Royal Crescent in the picture anyway, it's the Circus.
[quote][p][bold]Omega Point[/bold] wrote: Do buses run outside the Royal Crescent in Bath and Grosvenor Square in London’s Belgravia. Just asking[/p][/quote]Yes. Those open top tourist buses do. And they used to come out of the upper windows and throw buckets of water on them, cos they were sick of hearing the commentary on the bus every 5 minutes! Might just happen here too.... Anyway, it's not Royal Crescent in the picture anyway, it's the Circus. Abisman
  • Score: 24

12:08am Wed 20 Aug 14

RoseD says...

By 'affordable' they mean only £3 million. It is, after all, within the walls....
By 'affordable' they mean only £3 million. It is, after all, within the walls.... RoseD
  • Score: -35

1:23am Wed 20 Aug 14

York1900 says...

Jack Ham wrote:
So let me get this right...

City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of.

Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments.

Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments.

With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.
This is one you can not blame this on Labour because St Leonard's Place and West Offices deal was signed by Lib Dems and all the costs incurred on the project after there at Peasholme Green and Hungate hit the skids
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: So let me get this right... City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of. Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments. Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments. With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.[/p][/quote]This is one you can not blame this on Labour because St Leonard's Place and West Offices deal was signed by Lib Dems and all the costs incurred on the project after there at Peasholme Green and Hungate hit the skids York1900
  • Score: 83

2:44am Wed 20 Aug 14

anistasia says...

At least its not student accommodation where no council tax or bin tax gets paid.wonder what the council tax will be on these places will this hinder people buying them I think so.so only people who have plenty of money could afford them so not exactly affordable housing.
At least its not student accommodation where no council tax or bin tax gets paid.wonder what the council tax will be on these places will this hinder people buying them I think so.so only people who have plenty of money could afford them so not exactly affordable housing. anistasia
  • Score: 27

2:46am Wed 20 Aug 14

johnnyzim says...

what do you expect from elected people who wouldn't last 5 minutes in private industry?

you get what you vote for

lets close other bridges to cars and charge a fee for car ferries, it would reduce road accidents

John Zimnoch
what do you expect from elected people who wouldn't last 5 minutes in private industry? you get what you vote for lets close other bridges to cars and charge a fee for car ferries, it would reduce road accidents John Zimnoch johnnyzim
  • Score: -72

3:23am Wed 20 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

Not seeing any bus stops in that "artists' impression" of what St Lenoards Place might look like.

But who knows... maybe this council plans to do a "Exhibition Piazza" for the area - ie, take up the road and put paving slabs all the way along it, remove the road but put down nothing at all to show where the road goes and then stand by as pedestrians nearly get knocked down by buses as thay stand in the middle of the road looking at the old buildings whilst not aware they're standing in the middle of a public highway due to there being no bollards / tactile paving / change in surface colour or levels to denote this... the council managed to successfully do pretty much the same thing just around the corner from there.
Not seeing any bus stops in that "artists' impression" of what St Lenoards Place might look like. But who knows... maybe this council plans to do a "Exhibition Piazza" for the area - ie, take up the road and put paving slabs all the way along it, remove the road but put down nothing at all to show where the road goes and then stand by as pedestrians nearly get knocked down by buses as thay stand in the middle of the road looking at the old buildings whilst not aware they're standing in the middle of a public highway due to there being no bollards / tactile paving / change in surface colour or levels to denote this... the council managed to successfully do pretty much the same thing just around the corner from there. Magicman!
  • Score: 28

6:23am Wed 20 Aug 14

mjgyork says...

Is anyone suggesting that these properties were originally built as "affordable housing"? I think not! York needs MORE people living in the town centre, whatever their social category, we do NOT need more hotels without adequate parking. Another "piazza style" area, restricted to buses and taxis? Great idea - get my vote!
Is anyone suggesting that these properties were originally built as "affordable housing"? I think not! York needs MORE people living in the town centre, whatever their social category, we do NOT need more hotels without adequate parking. Another "piazza style" area, restricted to buses and taxis? Great idea - get my vote! mjgyork
  • Score: 20

7:10am Wed 20 Aug 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

'City of York Council leader James Alexander said: "This is great news.'

Yeah right. 80 - 100 potential jobs gone and yet more housing instead.

We need to attract employers because once the building is finished we are just left with more housing and all that goes with it.

Where are the new jobs, Jimmy?
'City of York Council leader James Alexander said: "This is great news.' Yeah right. 80 - 100 potential jobs gone and yet more housing instead. We need to attract employers because once the building is finished we are just left with more housing and all that goes with it. Where are the new jobs, Jimmy? ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -17

7:14am Wed 20 Aug 14

pedalling paul says...

The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around.
The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge.
New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life.
Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.
The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around. The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge. New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life. Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents. pedalling paul
  • Score: 8

7:16am Wed 20 Aug 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Quote J.A. "City of York Council leader James Alexander said: "This is great news. The development of St Leonard's will mean an iconic building in York being put back into use in the way it was originally intended and after some time."



Hang about! Is this a socialist talking? we are talking about housing that only the very wealthiest will be able to afford,the elite of the elite??

Quote J.A."I’m pleased also that the developers are keen to meet affordable housing commitments."??

Affordable to whom?? K.E. P.E.J. ? and anybody else on £700 per day at the council perhaps?
Quote J.A. "City of York Council leader James Alexander said: "This is great news. The development of St Leonard's will mean an iconic building in York being put back into use in the way it was originally intended and after some time." Hang about! Is this a socialist talking? we are talking about housing that only the very wealthiest will be able to afford,the elite of the elite?? Quote J.A."I’m pleased also that the developers are keen to meet affordable housing commitments."?? Affordable to whom?? K.E. P.E.J. ? and anybody else on £700 per day at the council perhaps? oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -70

7:25am Wed 20 Aug 14

oi oi savaloy says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around.
The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge.
New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life.
Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.
the people buying these properties won't have pushbikes you tool! they will bring high powered cars like Ferraris and lamborghinis , it will be millionaire playboy weekend pads for like'S of Euan Blair and Wayne Rooney etc.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around. The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge. New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life. Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.[/p][/quote]the people buying these properties won't have pushbikes you tool! they will bring high powered cars like Ferraris and lamborghinis , it will be millionaire playboy weekend pads for like'S of Euan Blair and Wayne Rooney etc. oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -72

8:21am Wed 20 Aug 14

nearlyman says...

How wonderful......just a short hop across the road to the theatre.............
can even whip home for a G & T in the interval !
How wonderful......just a short hop across the road to the theatre............. can even whip home for a G & T in the interval ! nearlyman
  • Score: 40

8:46am Wed 20 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

Gordon Cheapcastle will be ecstatic, so much smoke to blow up so many target areas.

No link between the not available to comment Ambiance Hotels and the failed attempt to close Lendal bridge. I think you can pull the other one, it looks like it was all a sad sham.

Hotel companies don't want the complexity of a sensitive project and maybe they are unavailable for comment because they want to avoid damaging their reputation.
Gordon Cheapcastle will be ecstatic, so much smoke to blow up so many target areas. No link between the not available to comment Ambiance Hotels and the failed attempt to close Lendal bridge. I think you can pull the other one, it looks like it was all a sad sham. Hotel companies don't want the complexity of a sensitive project and maybe they are unavailable for comment because they want to avoid damaging their reputation. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -42

8:46am Wed 20 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Surely that street has to be one of the most polluted in York? Wouldn't leave your window open if you're living there!

The LibDems signed this one off, would be interesting to go back and see if this was considered?
Surely that street has to be one of the most polluted in York? Wouldn't leave your window open if you're living there! The LibDems signed this one off, would be interesting to go back and see if this was considered? York2000
  • Score: 37

8:49am Wed 20 Aug 14

piaggio1 says...

And these so called affordable houses/ flats..?
Now it will be interesting to see who actually gets one...............
If you know what i mean.!!!!!!!!!!
And these so called affordable houses/ flats..? Now it will be interesting to see who actually gets one............... If you know what i mean.!!!!!!!!!! piaggio1
  • Score: 13

8:55am Wed 20 Aug 14

oldgoat says...

Jack Ham wrote:
So let me get this right...

City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of.

Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments.

Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments.

With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.
No. The council sold the buildings years ago to part fund the new offices. They are wonderful town houses but completely unfit as offices.

Whatever the current owners choose to do with the buildings is their business.

Another hotel was never going to work there. Returning them to their original use was the only sensible solution.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: So let me get this right... City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of. Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments. Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments. With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.[/p][/quote]No. The council sold the buildings years ago to part fund the new offices. They are wonderful town houses but completely unfit as offices. Whatever the current owners choose to do with the buildings is their business. Another hotel was never going to work there. Returning them to their original use was the only sensible solution. oldgoat
  • Score: 41

9:06am Wed 20 Aug 14

goatman says...

One has to ask where the occupants will park their cars. And I'm sure they will love the cycle cage - bikes were always getting pinched from there!
One has to ask where the occupants will park their cars. And I'm sure they will love the cycle cage - bikes were always getting pinched from there! goatman
  • Score: 24

9:24am Wed 20 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

Wait until they start digging for the underground carpark. What archaeology will be under there, I believe it could be awesome.
Wait until they start digging for the underground carpark. What archaeology will be under there, I believe it could be awesome. eeoodares
  • Score: 29

9:25am Wed 20 Aug 14

Oaklands Resident says...

This is good news and confirms really that the plans for multiple additional hotels on various sites in the City are not viable. It would be nice though to see the one scheduled to be built next to the Barbican get started as this will help the conference trade and make a real difference to the local economy and jobs.

The Council have got this one right. They needed fro efficiency reasons to centralise staff into one building from the 13 or so separate offices that they ran in the City Centre. They brought an empty building - West Offices - back into use which is also good.

St Leonards Place was spectacularly unsuitable as office accommodation and it appears it will now be restored to its original intended use. That is too be welcomed and is a direct consequence of the economic recovery.

As far as pollution is concerned, you don't have to ban traffic altogether to achieve that. Low emission zones elsewhere have proved that. But St Leonards is not one of the worst areas - nearby Gillygate is because of the canyon effects of the high terraces.

Anyway if people are prepared apparently to live above the bus shelters on Rougier Street there is clearly a demand for City centre living and people are prepared to accept some compromises.

I really doubt whether you could provide affordable housing "on site" unless the new back yard apartments are intended for this purpose. Much better to take cash in lieu of buildings and buy empty property which has been on the market for several years.

Let's wait to see how things turn out before being to judgemental.
This is good news and confirms really that the plans for multiple additional hotels on various sites in the City are not viable. It would be nice though to see the one scheduled to be built next to the Barbican get started as this will help the conference trade and make a real difference to the local economy and jobs. The Council have got this one right. They needed fro efficiency reasons to centralise staff into one building from the 13 or so separate offices that they ran in the City Centre. They brought an empty building - West Offices - back into use which is also good. St Leonards Place was spectacularly unsuitable as office accommodation and it appears it will now be restored to its original intended use. That is too be welcomed and is a direct consequence of the economic recovery. As far as pollution is concerned, you don't have to ban traffic altogether to achieve that. Low emission zones elsewhere have proved that. But St Leonards is not one of the worst areas - nearby Gillygate is because of the canyon effects of the high terraces. Anyway if people are prepared apparently to live above the bus shelters on Rougier Street there is clearly a demand for City centre living and people are prepared to accept some compromises. I really doubt whether you could provide affordable housing "on site" unless the new back yard apartments are intended for this purpose. Much better to take cash in lieu of buildings and buy empty property which has been on the market for several years. Let's wait to see how things turn out before being to judgemental. Oaklands Resident
  • Score: 34

9:28am Wed 20 Aug 14

mjgyork says...

piaggio1 wrote:
And these so called affordable houses/ flats..?
Now it will be interesting to see who actually gets one...............
If you know what i mean.!!!!!!!!!!
They will certainly be affordable to some people. Probably more so than a house in Helmsley or the Cotswolds. And why would they need a car park if they do live there? In the end, of course it is just business. Or don't the Toryvoters believe in the "Law of supply and demand" and the "free Market" any more?
[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: And these so called affordable houses/ flats..? Now it will be interesting to see who actually gets one............... If you know what i mean.!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]They will certainly be affordable to some people. Probably more so than a house in Helmsley or the Cotswolds. And why would they need a car park if they do live there? In the end, of course it is just business. Or don't the Toryvoters believe in the "Law of supply and demand" and the "free Market" any more? mjgyork
  • Score: 14

9:49am Wed 20 Aug 14

York2000 says...

eeoodares -You're right. Will be great to see what the unearth!
eeoodares -You're right. Will be great to see what the unearth! York2000
  • Score: 19

9:53am Wed 20 Aug 14

meme says...

Now lets see how Council policy actually works when they have sold a site
Present policy will want 50% affordable on site pepper potted throughout the development. This will be subject to a viability study which may reduce the percentage to circa 20/25% pepper potted throughout the development. Lets see how the developer can cope with selling Million pound homes with social rented next door?
This is going to be an important test for CoYC as if they back down they will never get affordable elsewhere in 'posh' devlopments but if they hold their ground the development wont happen
It shows what a shambles their policies are!
Now lets see how Council policy actually works when they have sold a site Present policy will want 50% affordable on site pepper potted throughout the development. This will be subject to a viability study which may reduce the percentage to circa 20/25% pepper potted throughout the development. Lets see how the developer can cope with selling Million pound homes with social rented next door? This is going to be an important test for CoYC as if they back down they will never get affordable elsewhere in 'posh' devlopments but if they hold their ground the development wont happen It shows what a shambles their policies are! meme
  • Score: -7

10:04am Wed 20 Aug 14

Knavesmire view says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around.
The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge.
New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life.
Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.
Nothing sceptical about it.

It was an open secret to those in the know in the property industry that a deal had been done re Lendal Bridge and the developers of the hotel.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around. The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge. New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life. Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.[/p][/quote]Nothing sceptical about it. It was an open secret to those in the know in the property industry that a deal had been done re Lendal Bridge and the developers of the hotel. Knavesmire view
  • Score: -52

10:05am Wed 20 Aug 14

Scented Soulmate says...

eeoodares wrote:
Wait until they start digging for the underground carpark. What archaeology will be under there, I believe it could be awesome.
The remains of James Alexander's policies.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Wait until they start digging for the underground carpark. What archaeology will be under there, I believe it could be awesome.[/p][/quote]The remains of James Alexander's policies. Scented Soulmate
  • Score: -40

10:13am Wed 20 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

Jack Ham wrote:
So let me get this right...

City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of.

Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments.

Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments.

With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.
Lib Dems were in charge when new Council Palace was nodded through. Had you forgotten that? Hmmm.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: So let me get this right... City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of. Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments. Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments. With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.[/p][/quote]Lib Dems were in charge when new Council Palace was nodded through. Had you forgotten that? Hmmm. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 25

10:13am Wed 20 Aug 14

nearlyman says...

eeoodares wrote:
Wait until they start digging for the underground carpark. What archaeology will be under there, I believe it could be awesome.
.....not to mention the fan-tailed urban newts !...........
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Wait until they start digging for the underground carpark. What archaeology will be under there, I believe it could be awesome.[/p][/quote].....not to mention the fan-tailed urban newts !........... nearlyman
  • Score: 12

10:21am Wed 20 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

Developer Rushbond says it aims to create a "stunning, high-quality residential development", on a par with the Royal Crescent in Bath.

No comparison, the Royal Crescent in Bath looks out over a magnificent parkland. St Leonard's Place, on a key part of the inner ring road with a view not to die for.
Developer Rushbond says it aims to create a "stunning, high-quality residential development", on a par with the Royal Crescent in Bath. No comparison, the Royal Crescent in Bath looks out over a magnificent parkland. St Leonard's Place, on a key part of the inner ring road with a view not to die for. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -25

10:27am Wed 20 Aug 14

Yttrium says...

Abisman wrote:
Omega Point wrote:
Do buses run outside the Royal Crescent in Bath and Grosvenor Square in London’s Belgravia. Just asking
Yes. Those open top tourist buses do. And they used to come out of the upper windows and throw buckets of water on them, cos they were sick of hearing the commentary on the bus every 5 minutes! Might just happen here too.... Anyway, it's not Royal Crescent in the picture anyway, it's the Circus.
Buses do not run past the Royal Crescent, as the western end is now bollarded shut. In addition, the picture is of the Crescent and not the Circus, on which the building frontages have three 'tiers' of differing Orders.
[quote][p][bold]Abisman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Omega Point[/bold] wrote: Do buses run outside the Royal Crescent in Bath and Grosvenor Square in London’s Belgravia. Just asking[/p][/quote]Yes. Those open top tourist buses do. And they used to come out of the upper windows and throw buckets of water on them, cos they were sick of hearing the commentary on the bus every 5 minutes! Might just happen here too.... Anyway, it's not Royal Crescent in the picture anyway, it's the Circus.[/p][/quote]Buses do not run past the Royal Crescent, as the western end is now bollarded shut. In addition, the picture is of the Crescent and not the Circus, on which the building frontages have three 'tiers' of differing Orders. Yttrium
  • Score: 17

10:32am Wed 20 Aug 14

smudge2 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around.
The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge.
New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life.
Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.
Your comments have no credibility any more after we gave seen you on that bike with your trousers tucked in your socks and a brown anorak....how can anybody take you seriously ???
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around. The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge. New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life. Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.[/p][/quote]Your comments have no credibility any more after we gave seen you on that bike with your trousers tucked in your socks and a brown anorak....how can anybody take you seriously ??? smudge2
  • Score: -20

10:34am Wed 20 Aug 14

courier46 says...

RoseD wrote:
By 'affordable' they mean only £3 million. It is, after all, within the walls....
I`m sorry but if there forcing affordable housing on every development, then this HAS to have the allocated amount (there rules not what I agree with) on this .
[quote][p][bold]RoseD[/bold] wrote: By 'affordable' they mean only £3 million. It is, after all, within the walls....[/p][/quote]I`m sorry but if there forcing affordable housing on every development, then this HAS to have the allocated amount (there rules not what I agree with) on this . courier46
  • Score: 2

10:36am Wed 20 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

oldgoat wrote:
Jack Ham wrote:
So let me get this right...

City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of.

Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments.

Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments.

With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.
No. The council sold the buildings years ago to part fund the new offices. They are wonderful town houses but completely unfit as offices.

Whatever the current owners choose to do with the buildings is their business.

Another hotel was never going to work there. Returning them to their original use was the only sensible solution.
Correct. Have also been inside that building and it was so unfit for office purpose. But then have been in new building too and that isn't much better - glad I do not have to work there!
[quote][p][bold]oldgoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: So let me get this right... City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of. Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments. Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments. With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.[/p][/quote]No. The council sold the buildings years ago to part fund the new offices. They are wonderful town houses but completely unfit as offices. Whatever the current owners choose to do with the buildings is their business. Another hotel was never going to work there. Returning them to their original use was the only sensible solution.[/p][/quote]Correct. Have also been inside that building and it was so unfit for office purpose. But then have been in new building too and that isn't much better - glad I do not have to work there! CaroleBaines
  • Score: 25

10:42am Wed 20 Aug 14

courier46 says...

meme wrote:
Now lets see how Council policy actually works when they have sold a site
Present policy will want 50% affordable on site pepper potted throughout the development. This will be subject to a viability study which may reduce the percentage to circa 20/25% pepper potted throughout the development. Lets see how the developer can cope with selling Million pound homes with social rented next door?
This is going to be an important test for CoYC as if they back down they will never get affordable elsewhere in 'posh' devlopments but if they hold their ground the development wont happen
It shows what a shambles their policies are!
Agreed!
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: Now lets see how Council policy actually works when they have sold a site Present policy will want 50% affordable on site pepper potted throughout the development. This will be subject to a viability study which may reduce the percentage to circa 20/25% pepper potted throughout the development. Lets see how the developer can cope with selling Million pound homes with social rented next door? This is going to be an important test for CoYC as if they back down they will never get affordable elsewhere in 'posh' devlopments but if they hold their ground the development wont happen It shows what a shambles their policies are![/p][/quote]Agreed! courier46
  • Score: -4

10:55am Wed 20 Aug 14

RingoStarr says...

When I first logged into this story, about ten minutes ago, I got a Norton anti-virus warning saying that this page was being 'hacked'.....Hmm, all those minus votes too. Pure coincidence?
When I first logged into this story, about ten minutes ago, I got a Norton anti-virus warning saying that this page was being 'hacked'.....Hmm, all those minus votes too. Pure coincidence? RingoStarr
  • Score: -18

11:18am Wed 20 Aug 14

Dave Ruddock says...

Well looking at the place and seeing it decay even quicker. The doorways used as urinals, all kind on shopping litter, the basements starting to small, damp dank smell. The Old Council building at the rear (Roof used by Board Skaters) . Oh and wait for the road blocked off for building wagons.
and Lastly the sounds of Emergency vehicles.
Well looking at the place and seeing it decay even quicker. The doorways used as urinals, all kind on shopping litter, the basements starting to small, damp dank smell. The Old Council building at the rear (Roof used by Board Skaters) . Oh and wait for the road blocked off for building wagons. and Lastly the sounds of Emergency vehicles. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -4

11:31am Wed 20 Aug 14

YorkTraveller says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
Developer Rushbond says it aims to create a "stunning, high-quality residential development", on a par with the Royal Crescent in Bath.

No comparison, the Royal Crescent in Bath looks out over a magnificent parkland. St Leonard's Place, on a key part of the inner ring road with a view not to die for.
St Leonard's Place has views to the front of the Minster and Bootham Bar to the rear The Kings Manor, city walls and Museum Gardens.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: Developer Rushbond says it aims to create a "stunning, high-quality residential development", on a par with the Royal Crescent in Bath. No comparison, the Royal Crescent in Bath looks out over a magnificent parkland. St Leonard's Place, on a key part of the inner ring road with a view not to die for.[/p][/quote]St Leonard's Place has views to the front of the Minster and Bootham Bar to the rear The Kings Manor, city walls and Museum Gardens. YorkTraveller
  • Score: 17

11:44am Wed 20 Aug 14

citydweller says...

Good luck to the new residents with McDonalds around the corner and the noise from the regular near riots and fights that take place between 3 and 5 am most mornings. Perhaps the extra residents will be able to put some pressure on York Council to manage the streets effectively and issue business licences in a more responsible manner.
Good luck to the new residents with McDonalds around the corner and the noise from the regular near riots and fights that take place between 3 and 5 am most mornings. Perhaps the extra residents will be able to put some pressure on York Council to manage the streets effectively and issue business licences in a more responsible manner. citydweller
  • Score: 10

11:57am Wed 20 Aug 14

yokshirepudding says...

Suprised CYC are not turning them into HMOs seeing as theyve run out of places down Haxby/Wigginton Rd,Tang Hall.etc and are now branching out into residential streets in Huntington, ruining the area!!! wonder if the planning will be adhered to in this instance. unlike down our street?
Suprised CYC are not turning them into HMOs seeing as theyve run out of places down Haxby/Wigginton Rd,Tang Hall.etc and are now branching out into residential streets in Huntington, ruining the area!!! wonder if the planning will be adhered to in this instance. unlike down our street? yokshirepudding
  • Score: -1

12:31pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Clementhorpe says...

JA states that the developers are "keen" to meet affordable housing commitments. Really? Labour's ridiculous social engineering policy means that several of these "world class" properties will have to be allocated to affordable housing, sprinkled out within the development. That will make the marketing and selling of the full price ones to the stated target audience of national and international business leaders impossible.
JA states that the developers are "keen" to meet affordable housing commitments. Really? Labour's ridiculous social engineering policy means that several of these "world class" properties will have to be allocated to affordable housing, sprinkled out within the development. That will make the marketing and selling of the full price ones to the stated target audience of national and international business leaders impossible. Clementhorpe
  • Score: 6

12:58pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

YorkTraveller wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
Developer Rushbond says it aims to create a "stunning, high-quality residential development", on a par with the Royal Crescent in Bath.

No comparison, the Royal Crescent in Bath looks out over a magnificent parkland. St Leonard's Place, on a key part of the inner ring road with a view not to die for.
St Leonard's Place has views to the front of the Minster and Bootham Bar to the rear The Kings Manor, city walls and Museum Gardens.
For most a nice view of the theatre and passing busses, still no comparison in my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]YorkTraveller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: Developer Rushbond says it aims to create a "stunning, high-quality residential development", on a par with the Royal Crescent in Bath. No comparison, the Royal Crescent in Bath looks out over a magnificent parkland. St Leonard's Place, on a key part of the inner ring road with a view not to die for.[/p][/quote]St Leonard's Place has views to the front of the Minster and Bootham Bar to the rear The Kings Manor, city walls and Museum Gardens.[/p][/quote]For most a nice view of the theatre and passing busses, still no comparison in my opinion. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -35

1:08pm Wed 20 Aug 14

meme says...

I think the word 'keen' regarding the affordables may be a figment of JA's imagination.
I suspect there is huge negotiation about this and the developers want the affordables to be minimal! Perhaps the words 'forced' or 'blackmailed' or 'driven' may be better in the circumstances as I cannot see why anyone would want affordables here except of course CoYC who are politically driven
Dying to see what the final percentage is and how they will be sited! Its going to be v interesting and many developers will watch this with great interest. Or will it be one rule for one and one for the councils old property?
Lots of scenarios here to play out yet!! archaeology/bats/ newts/environmental/
educational andpublic open space payments /conservation vs building regs......the possibilities for the council teams to drag this out for ages are boundless and by the time the Development Prevention Team et their teeth into this I would not like to be the owner!
I think the word 'keen' regarding the affordables may be a figment of JA's imagination. I suspect there is huge negotiation about this and the developers want the affordables to be minimal! Perhaps the words 'forced' or 'blackmailed' or 'driven' may be better in the circumstances as I cannot see why anyone would want affordables here except of course CoYC who are politically driven Dying to see what the final percentage is and how they will be sited! Its going to be v interesting and many developers will watch this with great interest. Or will it be one rule for one and one for the councils old property? Lots of scenarios here to play out yet!! archaeology/bats/ newts/environmental/ educational andpublic open space payments /conservation vs building regs......the possibilities for the council teams to drag this out for ages are boundless and by the time the Development Prevention Team et their teeth into this I would not like to be the owner! meme
  • Score: -34

1:33pm Wed 20 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Now i hate this council but i have to say i do like the idea of these houses...... The building its self from an architecture view looks ace. Bit of modern refurb and i'd love to have one... Someone mentioned about pollution if you open your window? Trust me smugness is far more potent then traffic fumes from dirty busses...
Now i hate this council but i have to say i do like the idea of these houses...... The building its self from an architecture view looks ace. Bit of modern refurb and i'd love to have one... Someone mentioned about pollution if you open your window? Trust me smugness is far more potent then traffic fumes from dirty busses... archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 14

1:39pm Wed 20 Aug 14

piemagico says...

The affordable housing commitment does not have to be fulfilled on the development site. The homes can be built elsewhere.
The affordable housing commitment does not have to be fulfilled on the development site. The homes can be built elsewhere. piemagico
  • Score: 11

2:10pm Wed 20 Aug 14

meme says...

piemagico

sorry you are incorrect. Council policy is for all affordable to be on site. No more commuted payments That's what's so bloody stupid about it!!
there are no exceptions
piemagico sorry you are incorrect. Council policy is for all affordable to be on site. No more commuted payments That's what's so bloody stupid about it!! there are no exceptions meme
  • Score: -25

2:16pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Clementhorpe says...

piemagico wrote:
The affordable housing commitment does not have to be fulfilled on the development site. The homes can be built elsewhere.
The social engineering diktat is that the units are accommodated within the development and furthermore that they are interwoven so that you get private/social rented/private. They believe that this form of coercion leads to social harmony with people of varying classes living next door to each other and all getting along. The self sufficient do not mind that they are living in the same size property as somebody who gets their rent paid. And those that work 72 hour weeks to be self sufficeint are not disturbed by neighbours who might be unemployed.

The policy wonks who conceived this idea probably live in a gated community, but believe themselves to be morally superior for imposing their high and mighty world views on everybody else.
[quote][p][bold]piemagico[/bold] wrote: The affordable housing commitment does not have to be fulfilled on the development site. The homes can be built elsewhere.[/p][/quote]The social engineering diktat is that the units are accommodated within the development and furthermore that they are interwoven so that you get private/social rented/private. They believe that this form of coercion leads to social harmony with people of varying classes living next door to each other and all getting along. The self sufficient do not mind that they are living in the same size property as somebody who gets their rent paid. And those that work 72 hour weeks to be self sufficeint are not disturbed by neighbours who might be unemployed. The policy wonks who conceived this idea probably live in a gated community, but believe themselves to be morally superior for imposing their high and mighty world views on everybody else. Clementhorpe
  • Score: -3

2:17pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around.
The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge.
New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life.
Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.
I could not believe it, I actually ran-out of Marmite at breakfast this morning.

Sorry, what was you waffling about PP.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around. The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge. New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life. Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.[/p][/quote]I could not believe it, I actually ran-out of Marmite at breakfast this morning. Sorry, what was you waffling about PP. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -11

2:52pm Wed 20 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Fanny Free House - Dear God, you ran out of Marmite?

He's concerned about where to park his bike by the looks of things.
Fanny Free House - Dear God, you ran out of Marmite? He's concerned about where to park his bike by the looks of things. York2000
  • Score: 16

2:53pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Pedro says...

Good to see that York is finally going to give toilet facilities to the stag and hen nights.
Good to see that York is finally going to give toilet facilities to the stag and hen nights. Pedro
  • Score: -11

3:03pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

York2000 wrote:
Fanny Free House - Dear God, you ran out of Marmite?

He's concerned about where to park his bike by the looks of things.
Unfortunately true, I'm Marmiteless.

My comment is as pointless to most people as the existence of PP is to the world of reality.

I'll stop now sufficiently satisfied in the knowledge that there are a number of backsides currently occupieing council chairs that could be converted to luxury bike racks next year when they are shown the door.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Fanny Free House - Dear God, you ran out of Marmite? He's concerned about where to park his bike by the looks of things.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately true, I'm Marmiteless. My comment is as pointless to most people as the existence of PP is to the world of reality. I'll stop now sufficiently satisfied in the knowledge that there are a number of backsides currently occupieing council chairs that could be converted to luxury bike racks next year when they are shown the door. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -24

3:20pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Fat Harry says...

Yes how DARE they find a use for an empty building.

My face has gone purple at they very thought of it.

Bloody Labour council.

etc etc
Yes how DARE they find a use for an empty building. My face has gone purple at they very thought of it. Bloody Labour council. etc etc Fat Harry
  • Score: 55

4:09pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Clementhorpe says...

Fat Harry wrote:
Yes how DARE they find a use for an empty building.

My face has gone purple at they very thought of it.

Bloody Labour council.

etc etc
The owners (from 2006) didn't need to find a use for it as it was being rented by COYC until recently. (Don't you remember all of the old furniture being dumped in skips - sorry, recycled in skips - because there was no way anything second hand was going to grace West Offices? But I digress.)

Now the owner has realised that there is a demand for £1 million plus houses in York and so the Hotel idea has bitten the dust (and with it the much lauded employment). But we are instructed by JA that it is all great news like everything else that has occurred.

The only difficulty now is to find a way out of the affordable housing social tenure mix obligation, but JA says that the developer is "keen" on this.............
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: Yes how DARE they find a use for an empty building. My face has gone purple at they very thought of it. Bloody Labour council. etc etc[/p][/quote]The owners (from 2006) didn't need to find a use for it as it was being rented by COYC until recently. (Don't you remember all of the old furniture being dumped in skips - sorry, recycled in skips - because there was no way anything second hand was going to grace West Offices? But I digress.) Now the owner has realised that there is a demand for £1 million plus houses in York and so the Hotel idea has bitten the dust (and with it the much lauded employment). But we are instructed by JA that it is all great news like everything else that has occurred. The only difficulty now is to find a way out of the affordable housing social tenure mix obligation, but JA says that the developer is "keen" on this............. Clementhorpe
  • Score: -8

4:11pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Y.I.P. says...

oi oi savaloy wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around.
The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge.
New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life.
Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.
the people buying these properties won't have pushbikes you tool! they will bring high powered cars like Ferraris and lamborghinis , it will be millionaire playboy weekend pads for like'S of Euan Blair and Wayne Rooney etc.
I have a bike and may buy one of the houses if they can keep the price around £3million,cant afford much more !!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around. The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge. New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life. Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.[/p][/quote]the people buying these properties won't have pushbikes you tool! they will bring high powered cars like Ferraris and lamborghinis , it will be millionaire playboy weekend pads for like'S of Euan Blair and Wayne Rooney etc.[/p][/quote]I have a bike and may buy one of the houses if they can keep the price around £3million,cant afford much more !!!!!!!!!! Y.I.P.
  • Score: -13

4:22pm Wed 20 Aug 14

bolero says...

Not worth commenting on, except to say that this is one of the Lib Dem inheritances along with many more shambolic decisions; thank you Mr Galloway; coupled with the crackpot ideas put forward by Alexander and his ragtime band. Oh! dear where do we go next May? More allowance and expense hungry vultures waiting in the wings? Working for the betterment of York? I don't think so.
Not worth commenting on, except to say that this is one of the Lib Dem inheritances along with many more shambolic decisions; thank you Mr Galloway; coupled with the crackpot ideas put forward by Alexander and his ragtime band. Oh! dear where do we go next May? More allowance and expense hungry vultures waiting in the wings? Working for the betterment of York? I don't think so. bolero
  • Score: -11

4:26pm Wed 20 Aug 14

TheTruthHurts says...

You have to admire the council at the moment. All this positive spin that they are putting on everything when in reality they are just painting themselves into corner after corner. It would be funny if it wasnt so serious.
You have to admire the council at the moment. All this positive spin that they are putting on everything when in reality they are just painting themselves into corner after corner. It would be funny if it wasnt so serious. TheTruthHurts
  • Score: -26

5:02pm Wed 20 Aug 14

deckhanddave says...

Hmmmm! I seem to remember posting on here that there was a link to the offices been developed into a luxury hotel and the closure of Lendal Bridge. Per Se the deal was 'The offices would be converted to a 5* hotel on condition Lendal Bridge was closed to reduce traffic. Now the bridge is open and the Hotel developement was no longer viable. Seems like my info was correct. Wish I could remember who told me but in fairness it was back when the bridge was closed and the council wanted to move offices. A person with a more corrupt mind than mine might wonder on this.
Hmmmm! I seem to remember posting on here that there was a link to the offices been developed into a luxury hotel and the closure of Lendal Bridge. Per Se the deal was 'The offices would be converted to a 5* hotel on condition Lendal Bridge was closed to reduce traffic. Now the bridge is open and the Hotel developement was no longer viable. Seems like my info was correct. Wish I could remember who told me but in fairness it was back when the bridge was closed and the council wanted to move offices. A person with a more corrupt mind than mine might wonder on this. deckhanddave
  • Score: -9

5:04pm Wed 20 Aug 14

meme says...

Has anyone tried to get decisions out of our council recently
Other than a few of the dedicated staff in Planning and building control, who soldier on regardless and do their best the place is imploding!
decsions are kicked down the road, nobody accepts responsibility, loads of on long term sick loads of staff on very flexible and short term hours...its chaos there... Low morale generally and people just serving time. Its such a shame and I have no idea what the answer is? Just changing regimes wont solve this crisis which is sown so deep as to need total uprooting, not just a trim!.
Has anyone tried to get decisions out of our council recently Other than a few of the dedicated staff in Planning and building control, who soldier on regardless and do their best the place is imploding! decsions are kicked down the road, nobody accepts responsibility, loads of on long term sick [funny that it happens when there are bank holidays] loads of staff on very flexible and short term hours...its chaos there... Low morale generally and people just serving time. Its such a shame and I have no idea what the answer is? Just changing regimes wont solve this crisis which is sown so deep as to need total uprooting, not just a trim!. meme
  • Score: -12

5:34pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

So 40 dwellings in total.

Affordable (social) housing requirement: 20% x 40 = 8 No
These will probably be 1/2 bed flats be sold to a Housing Association for around £50-60,000/ea.
I expect these will be in the end building on Lendal, next to the Library.

The other 32 private/market dwellings, based on the developers estimated GDV of £25m, will have an average selling price of around £750,000.

Presumably Rushbond noted the success of the nearby Purey Cust development, which achieved higher selling prices, but is in a better (quieter) location (next to Minster) and has parking.

I wish Rushbond good luck with this brave development.
So 40 dwellings in total. Affordable (social) housing requirement: 20% x 40 = 8 No These will probably be 1/2 bed flats be sold to a Housing Association for around £50-60,000/ea. I expect these will be in the end building on Lendal, next to the Library. The other 32 private/market dwellings, based on the developers estimated GDV of £25m, will have an average selling price of around £750,000. Presumably Rushbond noted the success of the nearby Purey Cust development, which achieved higher selling prices, but is in a better (quieter) location (next to Minster) and has parking. I wish Rushbond good luck with this brave development. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -37

6:03pm Wed 20 Aug 14

anth!! says...

oi oi savaloy wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around.
The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge.
New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life.
Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.
the people buying these properties won't have pushbikes you tool! they will bring high powered cars like Ferraris and lamborghinis , it will be millionaire playboy weekend pads for like'S of Euan Blair and Wayne Rooney etc.
No they wont.
[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around. The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge. New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life. Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.[/p][/quote]the people buying these properties won't have pushbikes you tool! they will bring high powered cars like Ferraris and lamborghinis , it will be millionaire playboy weekend pads for like'S of Euan Blair and Wayne Rooney etc.[/p][/quote]No they wont. anth!!
  • Score: -10

6:08pm Wed 20 Aug 14

non pedalling pete says...

Wish them luck getting rid of all the rats that infest the former council offices (just as it ever was).
The furry critters kept us entertained all night whilst in the queue for panto tickets.How long will the project be delayed due to the archaeological dig that MUST be undertaken before the underground parking is started.
Wish them luck getting rid of all the rats that infest the former council offices (just as it ever was). The furry critters kept us entertained all night whilst in the queue for panto tickets.How long will the project be delayed due to the archaeological dig that MUST be undertaken before the underground parking is started. non pedalling pete
  • Score: -10

6:10pm Wed 20 Aug 14

bolero says...

meme wrote:
Has anyone tried to get decisions out of our council recently
Other than a few of the dedicated staff in Planning and building control, who soldier on regardless and do their best the place is imploding!
decsions are kicked down the road, nobody accepts responsibility, loads of on long term sick loads of staff on very flexible and short term hours...its chaos there... Low morale generally and people just serving time. Its such a shame and I have no idea what the answer is? Just changing regimes wont solve this crisis which is sown so deep as to need total uprooting, not just a trim!.
Is this because local labour council employees are ruled by the Trade Unions I wonder?
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: Has anyone tried to get decisions out of our council recently Other than a few of the dedicated staff in Planning and building control, who soldier on regardless and do their best the place is imploding! decsions are kicked down the road, nobody accepts responsibility, loads of on long term sick [funny that it happens when there are bank holidays] loads of staff on very flexible and short term hours...its chaos there... Low morale generally and people just serving time. Its such a shame and I have no idea what the answer is? Just changing regimes wont solve this crisis which is sown so deep as to need total uprooting, not just a trim!.[/p][/quote]Is this because local labour council employees are ruled by the Trade Unions I wonder? bolero
  • Score: -19

6:22pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Pinza-C55 says...

I KNEW this would happen. Having said that I think it makes far more sense as housing.
I KNEW this would happen. Having said that I think it makes far more sense as housing. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 7

6:25pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Jack Ham wrote:
So let me get this right...

City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of.

Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments.

Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments.

With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.
Sorry to intrude with the facts Jack but the building was sold by the Liberal council.
I'm sure the Daily Mail can confirm this.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: So let me get this right... City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of. Then the old offices are refurbished, by a developer who will make a nice profit and turned into desirable, luxury apartments. Developer leaves tine with hefty profit. Residents of York left with large interest payments. With economics like that it's no surprise Labour left the government in a mess in 2010 and York Labour will do the same to us here.[/p][/quote]Sorry to intrude with the facts Jack but the building was sold by the Liberal council. I'm sure the Daily Mail can confirm this. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 28

6:25pm Wed 20 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around.
The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge.
New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life.
Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.
No Mr Hepworth, anyone who might be able to afford one of the properties will not be a bike rider that's for sure, bet those bus stops are moved, as always Mr Hepworth you live another world, I often wish Dr Who was real and he could whisk you away to your utopian dream.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The premises were totally unsuitable for modern office use. I have been inside it for meetings and with masses of stairs, different floor levels along each landing it was very difficult for mobility restricted visitors ( and presumably staff) to get around. The decision to switch from hotel to residential is stated to be a purely commercial decision, so no point in sceptics trying to read between the lines and link it back to Lendal Bridge. New residents will doubtless accept noise levels from eg the nighttime economy., as the price for the convenience of city centre life. Hope the developers retain the former CYC staff cycle parking cage at the end of the building, for use of new residents.[/p][/quote]No Mr Hepworth, anyone who might be able to afford one of the properties will not be a bike rider that's for sure, bet those bus stops are moved, as always Mr Hepworth you live another world, I often wish Dr Who was real and he could whisk you away to your utopian dream. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -18

6:33pm Wed 20 Aug 14

bloodaxe says...

johnnyzim wrote:
what do you expect from elected people who wouldn't last 5 minutes in private industry?

you get what you vote for

lets close other bridges to cars and charge a fee for car ferries, it would reduce road accidents

John Zimnoch
Do you mean private industry like, erm, banking ?
[quote][p][bold]johnnyzim[/bold] wrote: what do you expect from elected people who wouldn't last 5 minutes in private industry? you get what you vote for lets close other bridges to cars and charge a fee for car ferries, it would reduce road accidents John Zimnoch[/p][/quote]Do you mean private industry like, erm, banking ? bloodaxe
  • Score: 14

6:36pm Wed 20 Aug 14

bloodaxe says...

Abisman wrote:
The picture of Bath is actually The Circus, not Royal Crescent. Perhaps try reading the page you're lifting a picture from next time
Well it certainly looks like the Royal Crescent.
[quote][p][bold]Abisman[/bold] wrote: The picture of Bath is actually The Circus, not Royal Crescent. Perhaps try reading the page you're lifting a picture from next time[/p][/quote]Well it certainly looks like the Royal Crescent. bloodaxe
  • Score: 16

7:44pm Wed 20 Aug 14

sam2712 says...

citydweller wrote:
Good luck to the new residents with McDonalds around the corner and the noise from the regular near riots and fights that take place between 3 and 5 am most mornings. Perhaps the extra residents will be able to put some pressure on York Council to manage the streets effectively and issue business licences in a more responsible manner.
are you one off these that hang aroud maccy d's to know this ha ha
[quote][p][bold]citydweller[/bold] wrote: Good luck to the new residents with McDonalds around the corner and the noise from the regular near riots and fights that take place between 3 and 5 am most mornings. Perhaps the extra residents will be able to put some pressure on York Council to manage the streets effectively and issue business licences in a more responsible manner.[/p][/quote]are you one off these that hang aroud maccy d's to know this ha ha sam2712
  • Score: -12

8:48pm Wed 20 Aug 14

ouseswimmer says...

Its very clear that 20 affordable homes have to be created by this developer. The next problem is who wants to spend £1m on a home right next to so much traffic or bus stops. What's the betting the bus stops will now be moved?
Its very clear that 20 affordable homes have to be created by this developer. The next problem is who wants to spend £1m on a home right next to so much traffic or bus stops. What's the betting the bus stops will now be moved? ouseswimmer
  • Score: -10

8:52pm Wed 20 Aug 14

janice gray says...

Just how many years did CYC deny that this would happen?
At least 12 years to my knowledge! No doubt the bus stops will be moved
As it's one of the most polluted streets in York at the moment.
Just how many years did CYC deny that this would happen? At least 12 years to my knowledge! No doubt the bus stops will be moved As it's one of the most polluted streets in York at the moment. janice gray
  • Score: -22

9:04pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Pinza-C55 says...

janice gray wrote:
Just how many years did CYC deny that this would happen?
At least 12 years to my knowledge! No doubt the bus stops will be moved
As it's one of the most polluted streets in York at the moment.
Can you produce proof that it is "one of the most polluted streets" or that just your opinion ?
How could COYC deny it 12 years ago when the offices were only sold in 2008 ?
[quote][p][bold]janice gray[/bold] wrote: Just how many years did CYC deny that this would happen? At least 12 years to my knowledge! No doubt the bus stops will be moved As it's one of the most polluted streets in York at the moment.[/p][/quote]Can you produce proof that it is "one of the most polluted streets" or that just your opinion ? How could COYC deny it 12 years ago when the offices were only sold in 2008 ? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 24

9:06pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Pinza-C55 says...

And by the way what the hell is "world class housing" ?
And by the way what the hell is "world class housing" ? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -11

9:20pm Wed 20 Aug 14

AdrianlovesYorkMinster says...

Despite having what I thought was a passable local knowledge I didn't realise that the buildings in question weren't residential properties. Obviously I have some learning to do yet!
Despite having what I thought was a passable local knowledge I didn't realise that the buildings in question weren't residential properties. Obviously I have some learning to do yet! AdrianlovesYorkMinster
  • Score: 10

11:04pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Now i hate this council but i have to say i do like the idea of these houses...... The building its self from an architecture view looks ace. Bit of modern refurb and i'd love to have one... Someone mentioned about pollution if you open your window? Trust me smugness is far more potent then traffic fumes from dirty busses...
knowing the rate building anything big in York seems to go at, by time these have become occupied houses then all of York's bus fleet will most likely be fully electric anyway...
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: Now i hate this council but i have to say i do like the idea of these houses...... The building its self from an architecture view looks ace. Bit of modern refurb and i'd love to have one... Someone mentioned about pollution if you open your window? Trust me smugness is far more potent then traffic fumes from dirty busses...[/p][/quote]knowing the rate building anything big in York seems to go at, by time these have become occupied houses then all of York's bus fleet will most likely be fully electric anyway... Magicman!
  • Score: 12

12:27am Thu 21 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

meme wrote:
piemagico sorry you are incorrect. Council policy is for all affordable to be on site. No more commuted payments That's what's so bloody stupid about it!! there are no exceptions
The punitive, discriminatory extortion of affordable (social) housing from private housebuilders using S106 is more than stupid?!!

The system imposes excessive taxation on an industry which has been structurally damaged by over-regulation.

Yet more stupidity is the inequality of the system...

Rushbond are only able to meet the affordable requirements because of the high selling prices. The 32 private dwellings with a GDV of c.£24.5m gives average seling prices of c.£750k/ea, with 8 affordable units which will yield no more than c.£500k in total. If the 32 dwellings were much needed small 2/3bed family homes selling for say £175k, that would give a GDV of £5.6m, with the same affordable yield of c.£500k. The point here being that smaller value schemes suffer a dis-proportionate burden, which makes them unviable. Hence, the housing most needed is made unworkable - absolutely BONKERS!

Politicians are blind to this madness, that is ewhy we have a worsening housing crisis.

The solution is obvious - scrap S106 affordable requirements!
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: piemagico sorry you are incorrect. Council policy is for all affordable to be on site. No more commuted payments That's what's so bloody stupid about it!! there are no exceptions[/p][/quote]The punitive, discriminatory extortion of affordable (social) housing from private housebuilders using S106 is more than stupid?!! The system imposes excessive taxation on an industry which has been structurally damaged by over-regulation. Yet more stupidity is the inequality of the system... Rushbond are only able to meet the affordable requirements because of the high selling prices. The 32 private dwellings with a GDV of c.£24.5m gives average seling prices of c.£750k/ea, with 8 affordable units which will yield no more than c.£500k in total. If the 32 dwellings were much needed small 2/3bed family homes selling for say £175k, that would give a GDV of £5.6m, with the same affordable yield of c.£500k. The point here being that smaller value schemes suffer a dis-proportionate burden, which makes them unviable. Hence, the housing most needed is made unworkable - absolutely BONKERS! Politicians are blind to this madness, that is ewhy we have a worsening housing crisis. The solution is obvious - scrap S106 affordable requirements! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -48

12:34am Thu 21 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

meme wrote:
Has anyone tried to get decisions out of our council recently Other than a few of the dedicated staff in Planning and building control, who soldier on regardless and do their best the place is imploding! decsions are kicked down the road, nobody accepts responsibility, loads of on long term sick loads of staff on very flexible and short term hours...its chaos there... Low morale generally and people just serving time. Its such a shame and I have no idea what the answer is? Just changing regimes wont solve this crisis which is sown so deep as to need total uprooting, not just a trim!.
The answer is get rid of the hierarchy and all the highly-paid interims who are chosen because they are politically aligned with the chief executive, and Common Purpose graduates.

They are wasting tens of millions on the 'transformation' agenda, which has a sinister objective.
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: Has anyone tried to get decisions out of our council recently Other than a few of the dedicated staff in Planning and building control, who soldier on regardless and do their best the place is imploding! decsions are kicked down the road, nobody accepts responsibility, loads of on long term sick [funny that it happens when there are bank holidays] loads of staff on very flexible and short term hours...its chaos there... Low morale generally and people just serving time. Its such a shame and I have no idea what the answer is? Just changing regimes wont solve this crisis which is sown so deep as to need total uprooting, not just a trim!.[/p][/quote]The answer is get rid of the hierarchy and all the highly-paid interims who are chosen because they are politically aligned with the chief executive, and Common Purpose graduates. They are wasting tens of millions on the 'transformation' agenda, which has a sinister objective. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -35

10:41am Thu 21 Aug 14

Clementhorpe says...

The Purey Cust development produced 12 housing units which obviated the need to include affordable housing there, because it was below the current threshold of 15.

No doubt the developers would have liked to have provided more units than the 12 that they did, but if they had gone to 16 units they would have had to allocate at least 4 to social rent, resulting in 12 smaller units for private sale. It is not politically correct to say this, but the sale of these 12 units which would have been impeded by the presence of social tenants. So that was never going to happen. Purey Cust houses units were meant for millionaires. They don't "want" social tenants living next door. Deal with this fact rather than pretending that tenant mixes work.

So even in a tiny development like that, the perverse effect of Labour's social engineering policy is to actually REDUCE the amount of units built. No wonder large scale developments, with far more onerous requirements of 25% - 50%, did not progress.

You will hear York Labour party cronies emoting about the lack of building and wringing their hands about the cost of rents. Now in a panic - and to be seen to be doing something themselves - they have allocated local authority land to housing which is entirely inappropriate and which will create even more problems.

But sat in their palatial air conditioned West Offices, Labour cronies will no doubt look at those expensive art works and pretend to themselves that ratcheting up S106 requirements to as much as 50% of a development was a resounding success.
The Purey Cust development produced 12 housing units which obviated the need to include affordable housing there, because it was below the current threshold of 15. No doubt the developers would have liked to have provided more units than the 12 that they did, but if they had gone to 16 units they would have had to allocate at least 4 to social rent, resulting in 12 smaller units for private sale. It is not politically correct to say this, but the sale of these 12 units which would have been impeded by the presence of social tenants. So that was never going to happen. Purey Cust houses units were meant for millionaires. They don't "want" social tenants living next door. Deal with this fact rather than pretending that tenant mixes work. So even in a tiny development like that, the perverse effect of Labour's social engineering policy is to actually REDUCE the amount of units built. No wonder large scale developments, with far more onerous requirements of 25% - 50%, did not progress. You will hear York Labour party cronies emoting about the lack of building and wringing their hands about the cost of rents. Now in a panic - and to be seen to be doing something themselves - they have allocated local authority land to housing which is entirely inappropriate and which will create even more problems. But sat in their palatial air conditioned West Offices, Labour cronies will no doubt look at those expensive art works and pretend to themselves that ratcheting up S106 requirements to as much as 50% of a development was a resounding success. Clementhorpe
  • Score: -11

11:48am Thu 21 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

I don't really understand what this has to do with the council. The council sold the building to a developer ages ago.

I think it is better used as houses rather than as a hotel. York has many hotels already. We are in short supply of houses. Of course there must be a mix of affordable smaller houses and larger luxory ones - I don't want the arts quarter turning into a rich ghetto! It would be lovely to live there but I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to do so. Might have to ask daddy for a christmas present next year... ;)
I don't really understand what this has to do with the council. The council sold the building to a developer ages ago. I think it is better used as houses rather than as a hotel. York has many hotels already. We are in short supply of houses. Of course there must be a mix of affordable smaller houses and larger luxory ones - I don't want the arts quarter turning into a rich ghetto! It would be lovely to live there but I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to do so. Might have to ask daddy for a christmas present next year... ;) BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 13

12:43pm Thu 21 Aug 14

courier46 says...

Clementhorpe wrote:
The Purey Cust development produced 12 housing units which obviated the need to include affordable housing there, because it was below the current threshold of 15.

No doubt the developers would have liked to have provided more units than the 12 that they did, but if they had gone to 16 units they would have had to allocate at least 4 to social rent, resulting in 12 smaller units for private sale. It is not politically correct to say this, but the sale of these 12 units which would have been impeded by the presence of social tenants. So that was never going to happen. Purey Cust houses units were meant for millionaires. They don't "want" social tenants living next door. Deal with this fact rather than pretending that tenant mixes work.

So even in a tiny development like that, the perverse effect of Labour's social engineering policy is to actually REDUCE the amount of units built. No wonder large scale developments, with far more onerous requirements of 25% - 50%, did not progress.

You will hear York Labour party cronies emoting about the lack of building and wringing their hands about the cost of rents. Now in a panic - and to be seen to be doing something themselves - they have allocated local authority land to housing which is entirely inappropriate and which will create even more problems.

But sat in their palatial air conditioned West Offices, Labour cronies will no doubt look at those expensive art works and pretend to themselves that ratcheting up S106 requirements to as much as 50% of a development was a resounding success.
I wish i could write as well as this,i 100% agree with you.
Social housing DOES not mix with private housing end of story.
They tried mixing young people in with elderly tennants quite a few years back in the flats on the street where i lived ,and all this caused was misery for the older people.
The problem is ,that the council take so long to evict problem tenants (up to 4 years) instead of a 2 strike and your out.
[quote][p][bold]Clementhorpe[/bold] wrote: The Purey Cust development produced 12 housing units which obviated the need to include affordable housing there, because it was below the current threshold of 15. No doubt the developers would have liked to have provided more units than the 12 that they did, but if they had gone to 16 units they would have had to allocate at least 4 to social rent, resulting in 12 smaller units for private sale. It is not politically correct to say this, but the sale of these 12 units which would have been impeded by the presence of social tenants. So that was never going to happen. Purey Cust houses units were meant for millionaires. They don't "want" social tenants living next door. Deal with this fact rather than pretending that tenant mixes work. So even in a tiny development like that, the perverse effect of Labour's social engineering policy is to actually REDUCE the amount of units built. No wonder large scale developments, with far more onerous requirements of 25% - 50%, did not progress. You will hear York Labour party cronies emoting about the lack of building and wringing their hands about the cost of rents. Now in a panic - and to be seen to be doing something themselves - they have allocated local authority land to housing which is entirely inappropriate and which will create even more problems. But sat in their palatial air conditioned West Offices, Labour cronies will no doubt look at those expensive art works and pretend to themselves that ratcheting up S106 requirements to as much as 50% of a development was a resounding success.[/p][/quote]I wish i could write as well as this,i 100% agree with you. Social housing DOES not mix with private housing end of story. They tried mixing young people in with elderly tennants quite a few years back in the flats on the street where i lived ,and all this caused was misery for the older people. The problem is ,that the council take so long to evict problem tenants (up to 4 years) instead of a 2 strike and your out. courier46
  • Score: -8

1:29pm Thu 21 Aug 14

blottie says...

Mr Alexander is delighted the St Leonards Boulevard is going to be put to the use it was originally intended,he's probably the only person who could afford to live there.Good on ya Jimmy
Mr Alexander is delighted the St Leonards Boulevard is going to be put to the use it was originally intended,he's probably the only person who could afford to live there.Good on ya Jimmy blottie
  • Score: -12

2:19pm Thu 21 Aug 14

yorklover says...

What a whiny cynical lot some of these commentators are. Fantastic that these beautiful Georgian houses will be restored. I'm sure I will never afford one, but that doesn't mean I don't want 'my' lovely city to look as beautiful as it can.
What a whiny cynical lot some of these commentators are. Fantastic that these beautiful Georgian houses will be restored. I'm sure I will never afford one, but that doesn't mean I don't want 'my' lovely city to look as beautiful as it can. yorklover
  • Score: 13

7:18pm Thu 21 Aug 14

oi oi savaloy says...

blottie wrote:
Mr Alexander is delighted the St Leonards Boulevard is going to be put to the use it was originally intended,he's probably the only person who could afford to live there.Good on ya Jimmy
lol .... The only way JA will be able to live there, is in one of the 'affordable' homes and that will be when he gets the boot next year and IF he can fiddle his way onto the waiting list to get a social house/flat, the man is a clown who had to beg for an advance when he was lucky enough to get his current position!
[quote][p][bold]blottie[/bold] wrote: Mr Alexander is delighted the St Leonards Boulevard is going to be put to the use it was originally intended,he's probably the only person who could afford to live there.Good on ya Jimmy[/p][/quote]lol .... The only way JA will be able to live there, is in one of the 'affordable' homes and that will be when he gets the boot next year and IF he can fiddle his way onto the waiting list to get a social house/flat, the man is a clown who had to beg for an advance when he was lucky enough to get his current position! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -113

7:21pm Thu 21 Aug 14

allijew says...

City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of.

What on earth have we spent a £43 million pound loan on!
City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of. What on earth have we spent a £43 million pound loan on! allijew
  • Score: -11

8:53pm Thu 21 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I don't really understand what this has to do with the council. The council sold the building to a developer ages ago.

I think it is better used as houses rather than as a hotel. York has many hotels already. We are in short supply of houses. Of course there must be a mix of affordable smaller houses and larger luxory ones - I don't want the arts quarter turning into a rich ghetto! It would be lovely to live there but I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to do so. Might have to ask daddy for a christmas present next year... ;)
Disagree, if a few back handers are used to oil the wheels so to speak, they should be able to get rid of the chav hutches that they needlessly have to include, all of the building should be to the same standard as the Purey Cust.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I don't really understand what this has to do with the council. The council sold the building to a developer ages ago. I think it is better used as houses rather than as a hotel. York has many hotels already. We are in short supply of houses. Of course there must be a mix of affordable smaller houses and larger luxory ones - I don't want the arts quarter turning into a rich ghetto! It would be lovely to live there but I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to do so. Might have to ask daddy for a christmas present next year... ;)[/p][/quote]Disagree, if a few back handers are used to oil the wheels so to speak, they should be able to get rid of the chav hutches that they needlessly have to include, all of the building should be to the same standard as the Purey Cust. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -100

11:46pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Abisman says...

Yttrium wrote:
Abisman wrote:
Omega Point wrote:
Do buses run outside the Royal Crescent in Bath and Grosvenor Square in London’s Belgravia. Just asking
Yes. Those open top tourist buses do. And they used to come out of the upper windows and throw buckets of water on them, cos they were sick of hearing the commentary on the bus every 5 minutes! Might just happen here too.... Anyway, it's not Royal Crescent in the picture anyway, it's the Circus.
Buses do not run past the Royal Crescent, as the western end is now bollarded shut. In addition, the picture is of the Crescent and not the Circus, on which the building frontages have three 'tiers' of differing Orders.
Yttrium; I said they used to, ie in the past. It was true then, whether or not they have now bollarded it off. I lived there at the end of the 80s, so I do know the place. Also, I made my comment when the first edition of this story appeared, the picture has been changed from one of the Circus in the first iteration to one of Royal Crescent in this current version. They are quite distinctly different; the Circus has a very distinctive set of carvings decorating the frontage, and as you say the order of columns are very different. I used to live on Russell St, just round the corner. Royal Crescent is a very different place from our poor imitation in York anyway, which is a very tenuous link to make with St Leonard's Place in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]Yttrium[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abisman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Omega Point[/bold] wrote: Do buses run outside the Royal Crescent in Bath and Grosvenor Square in London’s Belgravia. Just asking[/p][/quote]Yes. Those open top tourist buses do. And they used to come out of the upper windows and throw buckets of water on them, cos they were sick of hearing the commentary on the bus every 5 minutes! Might just happen here too.... Anyway, it's not Royal Crescent in the picture anyway, it's the Circus.[/p][/quote]Buses do not run past the Royal Crescent, as the western end is now bollarded shut. In addition, the picture is of the Crescent and not the Circus, on which the building frontages have three 'tiers' of differing Orders.[/p][/quote]Yttrium; I said they used to, ie in the past. It was true then, whether or not they have now bollarded it off. I lived there at the end of the 80s, so I do know the place. Also, I made my comment when the first edition of this story appeared, the picture has been changed from one of the Circus in the first iteration to one of Royal Crescent in this current version. They are quite distinctly different; the Circus has a very distinctive set of carvings decorating the frontage, and as you say the order of columns are very different. I used to live on Russell St, just round the corner. Royal Crescent is a very different place from our poor imitation in York anyway, which is a very tenuous link to make with St Leonard's Place in the first place. Abisman
  • Score: -10

11:52pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Abisman says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Abisman wrote:
The picture of Bath is actually The Circus, not Royal Crescent. Perhaps try reading the page you're lifting a picture from next time
Well it certainly looks like the Royal Crescent.
They've changed the picture, bloodaxe, presumably having had the mistake pointed out to them. It is indeed now Royal Crescent, which differs markedly in terms of the frontage columns and decorative carvings from the Circus. I lived on Russell St, just round the corner from the Circus, while I worked in Bath at the end of the 80s
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abisman[/bold] wrote: The picture of Bath is actually The Circus, not Royal Crescent. Perhaps try reading the page you're lifting a picture from next time[/p][/quote]Well it certainly looks like the Royal Crescent.[/p][/quote]They've changed the picture, bloodaxe, presumably having had the mistake pointed out to them. It is indeed now Royal Crescent, which differs markedly in terms of the frontage columns and decorative carvings from the Circus. I lived on Russell St, just round the corner from the Circus, while I worked in Bath at the end of the 80s Abisman
  • Score: -10

12:40am Fri 22 Aug 14

oldgoat says...

allijew wrote:
City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of.

What on earth have we spent a £43 million pound loan on!
Again, no. The old offices were sold off and part paid for the new ones.
From what I've seen, they have a handful of TVs and some bits of artwork that the local galleries would throw in the bin.

Mind you, if the Tate really fancied them, they could probably flog them and pay off some of the loan.......
[quote][p][bold]allijew[/bold] wrote: City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of. What on earth have we spent a £43 million pound loan on![/p][/quote]Again, no. The old offices were sold off and part paid for the new ones. From what I've seen, they have a handful of TVs and some bits of artwork that the local galleries would throw in the bin. Mind you, if the Tate really fancied them, they could probably flog them and pay off some of the loan....... oldgoat
  • Score: 12

10:12am Mon 25 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

oldgoat wrote:
allijew wrote:
City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of.

What on earth have we spent a £43 million pound loan on!
Again, no. The old offices were sold off and part paid for the new ones.
From what I've seen, they have a handful of TVs and some bits of artwork that the local galleries would throw in the bin.

Mind you, if the Tate really fancied them, they could probably flog them and pay off some of the loan.......
Done a tour of that building - a few TVs as classes are taught and meetings conducted in the outer ring of rooms - presumably TVs used for PowerPoints and the like. As for art, you are kidding? The hospital has more art by far. Just a few prints etc - sort of thing you'd get in a charity shop for £5 a go, if that.
As always, the extremist Council bashers (and we all know who they are) will make up any old rubbish. Which is a shame as there are plenty of real issues to be addressed with this Council leadership!
[quote][p][bold]oldgoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allijew[/bold] wrote: City of York Council says it's offices are unfit for the future so it borrows £43,000,000 that tax payers have to pay back to build a lovely new office with more tv screens than the BBC and expensive art works the Tate would be proud of. What on earth have we spent a £43 million pound loan on![/p][/quote]Again, no. The old offices were sold off and part paid for the new ones. From what I've seen, they have a handful of TVs and some bits of artwork that the local galleries would throw in the bin. Mind you, if the Tate really fancied them, they could probably flog them and pay off some of the loan.......[/p][/quote]Done a tour of that building - a few TVs as classes are taught and meetings conducted in the outer ring of rooms - presumably TVs used for PowerPoints and the like. As for art, you are kidding? The hospital has more art by far. Just a few prints etc - sort of thing you'd get in a charity shop for £5 a go, if that. As always, the extremist Council bashers (and we all know who they are) will make up any old rubbish. Which is a shame as there are plenty of real issues to be addressed with this Council leadership! CaroleBaines
  • Score: 10
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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