Bats scupper big wheel plan (From York Press)

Hammerton Hamster wrote:
When tourist numbers dwindle as we fall behind against our competitors because we've no new attractions, we can perhaps spend some of our dole on bat food.
This isn't a museum we live in, its a living city from which many of us take our living. Those who celebrate this decision are either being selfish (retired already are we, or a good job in Leeds?) or incredibly stupid.

Biggles Breaks his Silence wrote:
So who played the bat card? This proposal has been on going for months and it only gets brought up now??

maybejustmaybe wrote:
Pretty much all our projects on old and historic buildings require a bat scoping survey. Why did someone not think about this at the feasibility stage? What a waste of the museums trusts valuable time and money!

Soothsayer17 wrote:

Biggles Breaks his Silence wrote: So who played the bat card? This proposal has been on going for months and it only gets brought up now??

I know but I'm bound to secrecy - and almost bursting to tell. . Clue (which will never help) - you all know her. . Ha ha ha - well done lass, hope yr celebrating in the manner I imagine you will be! XXXXXX

Woody Mellor wrote:

Hammerton Hamster wrote:
When tourist numbers dwindle as we fall behind against our competitors because we've no new attractions, we can perhaps spend some of our dole on bat food.
This isn't a museum we live in, its a living city from which many of us take our living. Those who celebrate this decision are either being selfish (retired already are we, or a good job in Leeds?) or incredibly stupid.

So you think that if York does not have the wheel then tourist numbers will dwindle?!???!!
.
I think I can guess who the "incredibly stupid" one is here.

Hammerton Hamster wrote:
When tourist numbers dwindle as we fall behind against our competitors because we've no new attractions, we can perhaps spend some of our dole on bat food.
This isn't a museum we live in, its a living city from which many of us take our living. Those who celebrate this decision are either being selfish (retired already are we, or a good job in Leeds?) or incredibly stupid.

Hammerton Hamster wrote:
When tourist numbers dwindle as we fall behind against our competitors because we've no new attractions, we can perhaps spend some of our dole on bat food. This isn't a museum we live in, its a living city from which many of us take our living. Those who celebrate this decision are either being selfish (retired already are we, or a good job in Leeds?) or incredibly stupid.

GBTYZ wrote:
but mark my words it will be back somewhere else maybe but it will be back world wide attractions doesn't understand WE DONT WANT YOUR WHEEL

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
It'll be back. Somewhere else, sometime soon...

Hammerton Hamster wrote:
When tourist numbers dwindle as we fall behind against our competitors because we've no new attractions, we can perhaps spend some of our dole on bat food. This isn't a museum we live in, its a living city from which many of us take our living. Those who celebrate this decision are either being selfish (retired already are we, or a good job in Leeds?) or incredibly stupid.

Stroppiness wrote:

Soothsayer17 wrote:

Biggles Breaks his Silence wrote: So who played the bat card? This proposal has been on going for months and it only gets brought up now??

I know but I'm bound to secrecy - and almost bursting to tell. . Clue (which will never help) - you all know her. . Ha ha ha - well done lass, hope yr celebrating in the manner I imagine you will be! XXXXXX

Oh ye of little faith!!!! I will defo be celebrating in the pub tomorrow!! **** Common sense, and the law prevails!!

YUalwayswhinging? wrote:
Before everyone starts celebrating shall we ponder what the city has lost - a brand new city square behind the art gallery and placing a £6 million refurb of the library in jeopardy. And what was the cost of this? To tolerate a 53m wheel for 2 years that even cities such as London and Paris can permanently situate adjacent to far more significant historical buildings. Hollow victory indeed. Seems once again York is telling the world we're closed.

YUalwayswhinging? wrote:
Before everyone starts celebrating shall we ponder what the city has lost - a brand new city square behind the art gallery and placing a £6 million refurb of the library in jeopardy. And what was the cost of this? To tolerate a 53m wheel for 2 years that even cities such as London and Paris can permanently situate adjacent to far more significant historical buildings. Hollow victory indeed. Seems once again York is telling the world we're closed.

YUalwayswhinging? wrote:
Before everyone starts celebrating shall we ponder what the city has lost - a brand new city square behind the art gallery and placing a £6 million refurb of the library in jeopardy. And what was the cost of this? To tolerate a 53m wheel for 2 years that even cities such as London and Paris can permanently situate adjacent to far more significant historical buildings. Hollow victory indeed. Seems once again York is telling the world we're closed.

YUalwayswhinging? wrote:
Before everyone starts celebrating shall we ponder what the city has lost - a brand new city square behind the art gallery and placing a £6 million refurb of the library in jeopardy. And what was the cost of this? To tolerate a 53m wheel for 2 years that even cities such as London and Paris can permanently situate adjacent to far more significant historical buildings. Hollow victory indeed. Seems once again York is telling the world we're closed.

PC29 wrote:
Meme,
The world is in the mess it is because of homo sapiens sapiens. Bats aren't wrecking the worl - it is our species who are doing that.
Your post shows exactly why conservation legislation is needed.

Also, I don't think that the presence of a wheel would exactly help York's application for World Heritage status and those applications are getting harder and harder to get.

meme wrote:
We should all be concerned about this whether you were in support or against the wheel. It was important and the fact that bats could defer/cancel a decison on something so important is very concerning
What's more important? the future of york and the wealth of its citizens or bats who have been around for millions of year and wil be around for millions more
What next no new cycle terminal at The hub' becuse there are bats there No new HQ because there are bats there, No York central becuse there are bats there? Where does common sense overide conservation nonsense?
I begin to despir. This may suit the people who dont want this to happen now but its a hollow victory as when they wnat something to happen and a few bats stop it they wil be up in arms

melted wrote:

YUalwayswhinging? wrote: Before everyone starts celebrating shall we ponder what the city has lost - a brand new city square behind the art gallery and placing a £6 million refurb of the library in jeopardy. And what was the cost of this? To tolerate a 53m wheel for 2 years that even cities such as London and Paris can permanently situate adjacent to far more significant historical buildings. Hollow victory indeed. Seems once again York is telling the world we're closed.

In case any body doesn’t know the above poster is non other than Lib Dem Councillor Nigel Ayre and is comment proves to me that the siting of the wheel behind the Library was a Lib Dem council initiative all along! Roll on the election! Enough is enough!

Stroppiness wrote:
Actually, I raised the impact of the proposal on wildlife and the lack of impact assesments within my letter of objection that was lodged on 10 Jan. I then specifically raised the issue of bats and the fact that they were a European Protected Species within my further objection letter dated 14 January, the same day that I raised the issue directly with Mr Michael Woodward (Commercial Director of YMY) during my meeting with him. The Council's own Countryside Officer notified the Planning Dept on 20 Jan that bat studies had to be done, as did the North Yorks Bat Group. Everyone agreed that there were a number of roosts very close by, if not on the site itself. Unfortunately, it was not until the report of mr Michael Slater was circulated last week that it became apparent that very little consideration had been given to this very important issue - BY LAW, these studies have to be done PRIOR TO any application being determined. This is because if the impact studies show that the impact is high, only in very limited circumstances can a licence be granted to destroy a roost or habitat and the Wheel does not fit into those circumstances. When it appeared that the meeting was going ahead in respect of deciding the application this Thursday, I mailed the Chair of the Planning Committee and Janet Looker and Brian Watson the Guildhall Councillors to say that in my opinion any decision made this week would be unlawful and subject to attack by way of an application for Judicial Review following a 2009 High Court case where planning permission was quashed because of lack of compliance with the legislation. Whether or not my mail had anything to do with this decision, I do not know, but the fact is that the law is the law, and just because we want tourists/YMT want funds does not mean that it can be ignored.

York, with it's greedy and unreasonable affordable housing policy, and the growing amounts of planning hurdles and regulations, is becoming a BANANA city - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything !
This is a serious problem which is damaging the future of the city and it's residents. The inability to grow and change will result in stagnation and deterioration, and developers will go elsewhere.

spiritofyork wrote:
But why did nobody kick off about it for the first time it was here? seem to remember news stories quoting locals as 'excited' and 'wanting to take a ride on it'. 3 Years later and the residents of this backwards village are up in arms. Bats, eh? Surely that's a new code word for 'going to get this one refused if it's the last thing I do'. As for a new square creating anti-social behaviour, I can't even dignify that with a decent reponse.

PinzaC55 wrote:
Incidentally it just occurred to me that that there is a nice patch of hardcore next to the Barbican Centre where the taxpayer funded and needlessly demolished swimming pool used to stand?

Pete the Brickie wrote:
Makes you wonder how Batman ever got anything built in Gotham city, there's a serious case to consider here, that cave was full of bats before he started using it as a garage for his fume belching black car. At least he won't be relocating here in a hurry with his nuisance crime solving habits. Can you imagine the number of objections citing noise and damage to wildlife his application to build a garage extension for his base in somewhere like Escrick would cause. In the mean time we'll have to make do with Raliegh man, the mysterious black clad avenging cylist who only rides after dark.

BL2 wrote:

York, with it's greedy and unreasonable affordable housing policy, and the growing amounts of planning hurdles and regulations, is becoming a BANANA city - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything ! This is a serious problem which is damaging the future of the city and it's residents. The inability to grow and change will result in stagnation and deterioration, and developers will go elsewhere.

Good! There is far too much over development as it is!

Yorkborneinbse wrote:
For those of you wanting the wheel In York to encourage visitors and the Local economy, should we not our energy into pushing for the improvements of what we already have first ? Like: Good,Clean,& Serviced public toilets. Good City Centre , unusual and affordable to run shops. Well maintained city centre buildings to photograph. Like The White Swan Hotel ! Bright and well kept council buildings like those opposite the Theatre. Taking a turd out of the Ganges wont make it mountain fresh, and placing a vertical roundabout in York wont pull in the crowds !!

Jazzper wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote:

Hammerton Hamster wrote:
When tourist numbers dwindle as we fall behind against our competitors because we've no new attractions, we can perhaps spend some of our dole on bat food.
This isn't a museum we live in, its a living city from which many of us take our living. Those who celebrate this decision are either being selfish (retired already are we, or a good job in Leeds?) or incredibly stupid.

So you think that if York does not have the wheel then tourist numbers will dwindle?!???!!
.
I think I can guess who the "incredibly stupid" one is here.

I agree Woody, York is a "Tourist City" already, maybe Hammy has his/her head buried in the sawdust at the bottom of the cage sulking....now that it won't be possible to play on a bigger wheel!

blahblah wrote:
As meme says above - whilst it might be good in this case that bats have 'halted' this application, a massive issue here is the impact bat surveys now have on planning. Bat emergance surveys can only be undertaken in a window between May - September, to all intents and purposes closing down planning for the other six months of the year if bats are involved. Despite all the celebrating, pulling this application likely means very little to the wheel except a delay of a few months. It will cost nothing to resubmit in May (with emergence survey in place) + give the applicant a decent length of time to formulate a more robust planning case to objections received.

Stroppiness wrote:

blahblah wrote:
As meme says above - whilst it might be good in this case that bats have 'halted' this application, a massive issue here is the impact bat surveys now have on planning. Bat emergance surveys can only be undertaken in a window between May - September, to all intents and purposes closing down planning for the other six months of the year if bats are involved. Despite all the celebrating, pulling this application likely means very little to the wheel except a delay of a few months. It will cost nothing to resubmit in May (with emergence survey in place) + give the applicant a decent length of time to formulate a more robust planning case to objections received.

Typical comment from someone who doesn't appreciate the strength of the law when dealing with planning applications. If the bat impact studies come back that there is no disruption to the bats (which is unlikely, because all you have to do is speak to us residents in the area and we'll tell you how many bats are around in the summer) you have a point. However, if there are roosts in the area (which is suspected by the Bat Groups and Council alike) and the impact is high, then Natural England cannot grant a licence to disturb the roost or habitat until a statutory 3 part test is satisfied. One of the tests is that there is no alternative to the development - there are clearly several sites around York where this Wheel could be sited and hence this limb of the test fails. In those circumstances, it is difficult to see how YMT would be able to obtain the licence.

A previous poster has mentioned the NRM and why wasn't it raised as an issue. It may be because there was no recorded bat activity in the area. What is worthy of note is that on the grapevine, people living near to the river have noticed a drop in the bat levels since the wheel went up. Brown long eared bats are particularly sensitive to light so I do wonder if the two are linked.

If the application does come back, then there are other major holes in the application that haven't been addressed yet.

As I said in my interviews today - call me NIMBY if you want. The fact is, the law is the law so don't blame me if YMT and their advisors don't comply with it and eventually come a cropper. Had they been bothered to deal with the pertinent legislation (and lets face it, given the the high level of recorded bat activity in the Museum Gardens which THEY manage, they should have been aware that bats were an issue) then they wouldn't be in this situation.

Sawday2 wrote:
About time we decided whether we wanted tourists or bats. I don't see bats bringing in a lot of income. Besides there are plenty of other places where bats can be found-they are not exactly an endangered species now.

Top Ten Teaser wrote:

PinzaC55 wrote: Incidentally it just occurred to me that that there is a nice patch of hardcore next to the Barbican Centre where the taxpayer funded and needlessly demolished swimming pool used to stand?

I agree, what a load of Crepello.........

YUalwayswhinging? wrote:
Before everyone starts celebrating shall we ponder what the city has lost - a brand new city square behind the art gallery and placing a £6 million refurb of the library in jeopardy. And what was the cost of this? To tolerate a 53m wheel for 2 years that even cities such as London and Paris can permanently situate adjacent to far more significant historical buildings. Hollow victory indeed. Seems once again York is telling the world we're closed.

Stroppiness wrote:

blahblah wrote:
As meme says above - whilst it might be good in this case that bats have 'halted' this application, a massive issue here is the impact bat surveys now have on planning. Bat emergance surveys can only be undertaken in a window between May - September, to all intents and purposes closing down planning for the other six months of the year if bats are involved. Despite all the celebrating, pulling this application likely means very little to the wheel except a delay of a few months. It will cost nothing to resubmit in May (with emergence survey in place) + give the applicant a decent length of time to formulate a more robust planning case to objections received.

Typical comment from someone who doesn't appreciate the strength of the law when dealing with planning applications. If the bat impact studies come back that there is no disruption to the bats (which is unlikely, because all you have to do is speak to us residents in the area and we'll tell you how many bats are around in the summer) you have a point. However, if there are roosts in the area (which is suspected by the Bat Groups and Council alike) and the impact is high, then Natural England cannot grant a licence to disturb the roost or habitat until a statutory 3 part test is satisfied. One of the tests is that there is no alternative to the development - there are clearly several sites around York where this Wheel could be sited and hence this limb of the test fails. In those circumstances, it is difficult to see how YMT would be able to obtain the licence.

A previous poster has mentioned the NRM and why wasn't it raised as an issue. It may be because there was no recorded bat activity in the area. What is worthy of note is that on the grapevine, people living near to the river have noticed a drop in the bat levels since the wheel went up. Brown long eared bats are particularly sensitive to light so I do wonder if the two are linked.

If the application does come back, then there are other major holes in the application that haven't been addressed yet.

As I said in my interviews today - call me NIMBY if you want. The fact is, the law is the law so don't blame me if YMT and their advisors don't comply with it and eventually come a cropper. Had they been bothered to deal with the pertinent legislation (and lets face it, given the the high level of recorded bat activity in the Museum Gardens which THEY manage, they should have been aware that bats were an issue) then they wouldn't be in this situation.

Yorkborneinbse wrote:
Hammerton Hamster, you still miss the point. Tourists will continue to come to York to visit our Museums, the Yorvik, but only if we treat them well whilst they are here. I suggest those tourists who have had to endure taking a p*** without the aid of Breathing Apparatus may nor come back, wheel or no wheel. I have formally complained to the YCC about the toilets York presents to Visitors at the Castle Car Park, and apparently they are under review ?? Thats how the Council treats our visitors, we have to have a review meeting as to how to clean a toilet !!!