Hiscox Insurance boss responds to concerns over proposed new offices (From York Press)

It was reported some years ago that the cost to the Council of acquiring the former ambulance station site (in 2007) was around £2.4 million.

The valuation on the site as a whole was reported to be £3.7 million with an "target" sale price of £5 million.
So it appears that the Council have fallen over badly when they should have been negotiating hard on behalf of taxpayers.

....and the site isn't "derelict". The Haymarket car park brings in £150,000 a year from charges for the Council. That could quite easilly double if it was increased in size by surfacing the ambulance station part of the site.

James Alexander has been fleeced by property professionals who stand to make a big killing on, at least, the hotel part of the development. There is absolutely no justification for a state subsidy for that part of the project.

A case for intervention by the District Auditor I think.


A matter for uinvestigation by the Disrict Auditor i think?

‘Oaklands Resident says... 9:24am Mon 15 Oct 12
It was reported some years ago that the cost to the Council of acquiring the former ambulance station site (in 2007) was around £2.4 million.

The valuation on the site as a whole was reported to be £3.7 million with an "target" sale price of £5 million.
So it appears that the Council have fallen over badly when they should have been negotiating hard on behalf of taxpayers.

....and the site isn't "derelict". The Haymarket car park brings in £150,000 a year from charges for the Council. That could quite easilly double if it was increased in size by surfacing the ambulance station part of the site.

James Alexander has been fleeced by property professionals who stand to make a big killing on, at least, the hotel part of the development. There is absolutely no justification for a state subsidy for that part of the project.

A case for intervention by the District Auditor I think.


A matter for uinvestigation by the Disrict Auditor i think?’


At the very least a robust internal inquiry!

Also in lieu of inquiry/Auditor recommendations – The relevant council leaders should be suspended!

James Alexander should resign over this.

The buildings really isn't that bad.

With all the recent job losses in and around the York area, a company giving the city a 500 jobs boost is a massive wecolmed bonus.

I really don't think we should be trying to present the image we are a bunch of NIMBY, squabbling old **** stuck in yester-year arguing over really pointless stuff.

It's just as easy for this company to relocate to Leeds with less than half the issues or stress, lets not make that choice more easy for them.

Of course, if you knock down the Black Swan, you can make the new building as ugly as you like because there won't be anything of intrinsic value to compare it with. The building in the illustration looks awful: ill-proportioned, unimaginative and totally incongruous. That's why places like Clifton Moor are such terrible places: no architect has ever needed to match existing standards.

Clifton Moor is a collection of big sheds. Do you need an architect to design big sheds?

Somehow, I doubt if anyone calling themselves an 'architect' designed the Black Swan 600 years ago. They were probably a multi-skilled craftsman who could do the dirty work as well as the designing.

akuma wrote:
With all the recent job losses in and around the York area, a company giving the city a 500 jobs boost is a massive wecolmed bonus.

I really don't think we should be trying to present the image we are a bunch of NIMBY, squabbling old **** stuck in yester-year arguing over really pointless stuff.

It's just as easy for this company to relocate to Leeds with less than half the issues or stress, lets not make that choice more easy for them.

People who use the acronym NIMBY are stuck in yesteryear.

I was hoping to see at least one passing cyclist on the artist's impression!

There are some serious issues to be answered, at least about the hotel part of the development (which it appears will take up most of the site).

If that part of the site has been sold at 50% of its - potential - value then that would represent unfair discrimination against other hoteliers in the City who will be paying commercial rates for the provision and modernisation of their capital assets.

They would be undercut by a new hotel which - far from creating additional jobs - could be the final nail in the coffin for some existing businesses.

The Council could have considered retaining an equity share in the site as a way of safeguarding taxpayer’s interests.

Apparently the Council will now incur an additional £140,000 in debt charges each year to which should be added the loss of £150,000 in car park charges income. That is a lot of money to take away from the provision of public services in the City which are already declining in standard.

I’m not generally in favour of the European Commission getting involved in local decisions but, unless the Council can satisfy an internal scrutiny review, then they or the District Auditor do indeed need to look closely at this deal before it reaches the point of no return.

Don't you just love Councilors - point scoring when we should be moving things forward. I'm always dubious when alleged savings or benefits are projected forward years (2026!) - but at the same time, Nigel Ayre obviously cares more about point scoring than he does facts (see the usual ifs and maybes).

akuma wrote:
With all the recent job losses in and around the York area, a company giving the city a 500 jobs boost is a massive wecolmed bonus.

I really don't think we should be trying to present the image we are a bunch of NIMBY, squabbling old **** stuck in yester-year arguing over really pointless stuff.

It's just as easy for this company to relocate to Leeds with less than half the issues or stress, lets not make that choice more easy for them.

Exactly - it is done now, it is also how things are done in today's world - lets make it work!! Welcome Hiscox, thanks for the confidence and input into our city's economy.

if this is not going to be the final design why waste money on an architects impression ...lies all the time ....

It looks almost identical to the junction of Piccadilly and Walmgate.

‘pedalling paul says... 11:34am Mon 15 Oct 12
I was hoping to see at least one passing cyclist on the artist's impression!’

Two options here:
Option 1:
There is!
The cyclist is under the Mercedes as he changed position/moved over in the road without a rearward glance over his shoulder and has suffered the consequences for his choice of communist transport and irresponsible behavior for getting in the way.
The Mercedes driver is completely blameless as everybody knows that Mercedes drivers own the road!

Option 2:
The architect did not want the sight of a LS Lowry inspired urban landscape with matchstick men on matchstick pushbikes that make York actually look like the ancient city that it is.
They did not want anybody at the planning stage to realize that the proposed new building in a modern style would actually blight the york landscape for future generations to come!
This new proposed building will be the Stonebow House after 20 years!

Maybe that’s the point?
Put up a horrible building now, get some use/income from it and in 20 years the site will be worth even more and everyone will be very happy to see the building go so it can be replaced with something else that makes even more money.

PS. The is nothing wrong with Stonebow House that 100 kg of C4 cannot fix!

Gary Gilmores Eyes wrote:
‘pedalling paul says... 11:34am Mon 15 Oct 12
I was hoping to see at least one passing cyclist on the artist's impression!’

Two options here:
Option 1:
There is!
The cyclist is under the Mercedes as he changed position/moved over in the road without a rearward glance over his shoulder and has suffered the consequences for his choice of communist transport and irresponsible behavior for getting in the way.
The Mercedes driver is completely blameless as everybody knows that Mercedes drivers own the road!

Option 2:
The architect did not want the sight of a LS Lowry inspired urban landscape with matchstick men on matchstick pushbikes that make York actually look like the ancient city that it is.
They did not want anybody at the planning stage to realize that the proposed new building in a modern style would actually blight the york landscape for future generations to come!
This new proposed building will be the Stonebow House after 20 years!

Maybe that’s the point?
Put up a horrible building now, get some use/income from it and in 20 years the site will be worth even more and everyone will be very happy to see the building go so it can be replaced with something else that makes even more money.

PS. The is nothing wrong with Stonebow House that 100 kg of C4 cannot fix!

Gary Gilmores Eyes says...

PS. The is nothing wrong with Stonebow House that 100 kg of C4 cannot fix!

Yorks answer to a modern day bonfire night ! love to see it go booooooom

Only one bite so far...tch..tch...tch
!!

The dinky little building with the Hiscox logo on it looks fine, albeit a little too close to the Black Swan. The bit that concerns me is the huge concrete slab just creeping into the right of the picture. It looks at least double the height of the other building and potentially worse than some of the new st john's uni buildings. Is this the new hotel?

Even AndyD wrote:
Don't you just love Councilors - point scoring when we should be moving things forward. I'm always dubious when alleged savings or benefits are projected forward years (2026!) - but at the same time, Nigel Ayre obviously cares more about point scoring than he does facts (see the usual ifs and maybes).

Well they only care about one upmanship and doing nothing useful

Gary Gilmores Eyes wrote:
‘pedalling paul says... 11:34am Mon 15 Oct 12
I was hoping to see at least one passing cyclist on the artist's impression!’

Two options here:
Option 1:
There is!
The cyclist is under the Mercedes as he changed position/moved over in the road without a rearward glance over his shoulder and has suffered the consequences for his choice of communist transport and irresponsible behavior for getting in the way.
The Mercedes driver is completely blameless as everybody knows that Mercedes drivers own the road!

Option 2:
The architect did not want the sight of a LS Lowry inspired urban landscape with matchstick men on matchstick pushbikes that make York actually look like the ancient city that it is.
They did not want anybody at the planning stage to realize that the proposed new building in a modern style would actually blight the york landscape for future generations to come!
This new proposed building will be the Stonebow House after 20 years!

Maybe that’s the point?
Put up a horrible building now, get some use/income from it and in 20 years the site will be worth even more and everyone will be very happy to see the building go so it can be replaced with something else that makes even more money.

PS. The is nothing wrong with Stonebow House that 100 kg of C4 cannot fix!

Right on, I thought that by the time this would be actually constructed cyclists would be required to pay for and display a road fund licence, have 3rd party insurance, and forfeit their cycles if stopped and as many would be unable to produce either, no cyclists in the picture as their numbers would be depleted!

Didn't this site get purchased under a LibDem council - so is Ayres scoring an own goal? - or was it Rod Hill's Labour Council which wouldn't be a surprise either? Simple economic forecasting should have shown that the perceived increase in value was unrealistic, they would have got a better return from an Icelandic bank!

It's great that York Council are attracting a company like Hiscox who employ around 1,250 in 27 offices around the world, nine in the UK, and who have made just over £1 billion in profits in the last five and a half years.

Contrast this with Persimmon Homes who have their head office in York since they were founded in 1976, and employ 2,432 plus thousands of subcontractors in the UK, and Barratt Homes who also have an office in York who employ 4,500 plus thousands of subcontractors in the UK. These two companies in the last five and a half years have lost between them probably around £1 billion.

Which of these companies are being given a subsidised land deal for their offices in return for 300 jobs, and which ones have to provide land subsidies for the councils affordable housing requirements which stop them building in York or increasing jobs here ?

One makes a fortune, by insuring high end assets and is rewarded.
The others jointly build over 20,000 homes each year, lose a fortune, and employ ten times as many people as the company being given the concessions.

Is there some misplaced loyalty and discrimination here ?

When will Hiscox be branded as greedy profit-grabbing capitalists by local left-wing labour supporters and officials, and treated in the same way housebuilders loyal to the city are ?

Its only a matter of a couple of months since we read that York was becoming over saturated with hotels, and COYC agreed and decided to launch a "study" into this , just before selling their former offices to be turned into a hotel. Now we are going to have another hotel slap bang in the city centre. Am I missing something? Is somebody still being paid to do the "study" and if so, why?

Yes the 'impression' picture looks out of place but wouldnt get too hung up on that and think of the bigger picture here.

Great we have attracted more business to the area and this will generate a better economic situation with number of people employed in the area.

Looks like the financing was messed up though - how on earth was the £140k/year interest arranged, not good value for money. Is there any commercial savvy in local govt?

LibDem wrote:
There are some serious issues to be answered, at least about the hotel part of the development (which it appears will take up most of the site).

If that part of the site has been sold at 50% of its - potential - value then that would represent unfair discrimination against other hoteliers in the City who will be paying commercial rates for the provision and modernisation of their capital assets.

They would be undercut by a new hotel which - far from creating additional jobs - could be the final nail in the coffin for some existing businesses.

The Council could have considered retaining an equity share in the site as a way of safeguarding taxpayer’s interests.

Apparently the Council will now incur an additional £140,000 in debt charges each year to which should be added the loss of £150,000 in car park charges income. That is a lot of money to take away from the provision of public services in the City which are already declining in standard.

I’m not generally in favour of the European Commission getting involved in local decisions but, unless the Council can satisfy an internal scrutiny review, then they or the District Auditor do indeed need to look closely at this deal before it reaches the point of no return.

Oh pipe down.

The economy runs on profits and losses; this is a material loss over a few years and we have 'invested profit' with employment and valued land in use.

Rather than making your opposition look as bad as we already know you should be actively looking into how you can stop a new hotel being built which WILL have an impact on the ones already starting swamp the city.

I think the building looks integrating to York going forward, when you think of other structures in the area (like new houses next to doley central) it's not too out of place and we need 'bright new buildings' rather than hum drum looking places such as the pub to make a thriving area look positively invested.

Let them build it already and have someone investigate why Alexander has managed to lose out on profits for the city 'again'.