New campaign to let out disused space for flats (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
New campaign to let out disused space for flats
9:37am Tuesday 16th October 2012 in News
By Julie Hayes, Business editor
THE disused upstairs floors of shops and other business in the centre of York could be turned into flats to tackle the city’s housing crisis.
City of York Council has set aside £30,000 to carry out a review of disused upper floors and to assess how they could be brought back into use.
Tracey Simpson-Laing, the deputy council leader, said many shops in the centre had upstairs rooms, which were included in their rent and business rates bills.
“If you go down Coney Street, there’s a building that has been empty for 12 months now,” she said.
“The rent is over £80,000 a year, then you’d have to pay business rates on top. The square footage of the shop is far too small for a national chain, but the rent is too high for somebody wanting to start a business because it is over four floors.
“Even when there have been people in that building, they never or very rarely used three out of the four floors.”
The council is working with Newcastle Civic Trust, which has successfully implemented city centre living in its Grange Town scheme, and has also received funding from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Coun Simpson-Laing said: “It would bring vibrancy back to the city centre and use property that’s already there. A lot of people do want to live in the city centre.”
She said the council needed to work with the buildings’ owners, who were not necessarily based in York.
She said while previously commercial yields had been more attractive to landlords, the need to bring disused floors back into use was recognised by landlords, and businesses such as solicitors’ firms, which may in the past have occupied such spaces, were tending to find new higher-profile premises.
A planning application went through last year for the owners of the Pizza Hut building, in Pavement, to create six two-bedroom flats in the upper floors, which used to be a 20-bedroom hotel.
Ron Cooke, chairman of Reinvigorate York, said the idea had been around since the 1960s when it was recommended in a report by Lord Esher, president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, on the city’s future.
He said there followed a push in the 1980s and 1990s and Reinvigorate York had now brought the issue back to the table. The £30,000 for the study will come from the council’s delivery and innovation fund, which supports schemes that boost York’s economy.
Comments(40)
york_chap
says...
9:53am Tue 16 Oct 12
Newton1
says...
10:03am Tue 16 Oct 12
I hope something comes of it.
Ignatius Lumpopo
says...
10:07am Tue 16 Oct 12
roskoboskovic wrote:You're right. It was called LOTS - Living Over The Shop - and it was a good idea.
i remember this being suggested many years ago and nothing came of it then.seems a bit too sensible for ycc.
www.yorkstories.co.uk
says...
10:21am Tue 16 Oct 12
http://www.insidehou
sing.co.uk/closing-t
ime-for-living-over-
the-shop-project/144
6809.article
May be best suited to those who don't mind being woken up regularly through the night ... city centre a bit more 'lively' at night than it used to be?
old_geezer
says...
10:28am Tue 16 Oct 12
sounds weird but
says...
10:48am Tue 16 Oct 12
york_chap wrote:Yes would like to know who these flats would be marketed to!
If they're for decent, hard working folk at a fair price then it's a very good idea. Or is it going to be like they did with The Shambles - put in a load of flats in beautiful old buildings and give priority to ex-cons, drug addicts and scroungers? That may be very un-p.c. but it's what happened.
PinzaC55
says...
10:59am Tue 16 Oct 12
roskoboskovic wrote:Very true. It is like the background in a Hanna Barbera cartoon, or proposals to remove "street clutter" or reopen Strensall station.
i remember this being suggested many years ago and nothing came of it then.seems a bit too sensible for ycc.
Meanwhile the pigeons will still be able to roost in the top floor of O'Neills bar.
bob the builder
says...
12:25pm Tue 16 Oct 12
york_chap wrote:I'd rather have them living in the centre above shops where their activities and inconveniences will attract swift attention as it might affect tourism and the image the council want to project. Rather that than put them in residential areas where they cause a reduction in the house prices because no one else wants to live there.
If they're for decent, hard working folk at a fair price then it's a very good idea. Or is it going to be like they did with The Shambles - put in a load of flats in beautiful old buildings and give priority to ex-cons, drug addicts and scroungers? That may be very un-p.c. but it's what happened.
bob the builder
says...
12:26pm Tue 16 Oct 12
sounds weird but wrote:If it's like Leeds, young professionals who worked there - only problem is we haven't got any, only neets!
york_chap wrote:Yes would like to know who these flats would be marketed to!
If they're for decent, hard working folk at a fair price then it's a very good idea. Or is it going to be like they did with The Shambles - put in a load of flats in beautiful old buildings and give priority to ex-cons, drug addicts and scroungers? That may be very un-p.c. but it's what happened.
bob the builder
says...
12:26pm Tue 16 Oct 12
sounds weird but wrote:If it's like Leeds, young professionals who worked there - only problem is we haven't got any, only neets!
york_chap wrote:Yes would like to know who these flats would be marketed to!
If they're for decent, hard working folk at a fair price then it's a very good idea. Or is it going to be like they did with The Shambles - put in a load of flats in beautiful old buildings and give priority to ex-cons, drug addicts and scroungers? That may be very un-p.c. but it's what happened.
sounds weird but
says...
2:01pm Tue 16 Oct 12
bob the builder wrote:Maybe a reduction in the house prices would be good, then people would be able to afford them?
york_chap wrote: If they're for decent, hard working folk at a fair price then it's a very good idea. Or is it going to be like they did with The Shambles - put in a load of flats in beautiful old buildings and give priority to ex-cons, drug addicts and scroungers? That may be very un-p.c. but it's what happened.I'd rather have them living in the centre above shops where their activities and inconveniences will attract swift attention as it might affect tourism and the image the council want to project. Rather that than put them in residential areas where they cause a reduction in the house prices because no one else wants to live there.
Buzz Light-year
says...
7:27pm Tue 16 Oct 12
It would surely be more productive than filling up the council's spam filter with cranky emails?
Back and Beyond
says...
7:38pm Tue 16 Oct 12
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
9:32pm Tue 16 Oct 12
Newton1 wrote:But it won't, will it ?
If we've existing space in the City that's empty and doing nothing, but people desperately wanting homes then this seems like a very sensible idea.
I hope something comes of it.
It's another unworkable idea by the cabinet member for housing which will waste £30,000 on consultants fees whilst legions of council officers employed in planning and housing have nothing to do because planning applications for housing have dried up and very few are being built.
Ron Cooke explains that the idea is not new, and has never yielded anything, so why are they wasting more time and money on it ? Because, they have run out of ideas so are going round in ever decreasing circles before they disappear up their own ****holes ? !!!
The truth is, whilst there is a Con-Dem coalition in power, this Labour run council will do all they can to stop housebuilding so they can blame the government. They know that they have done a great job of killing housebuilding with the 50% affordable housing policy, leaving only their pals at JRHT able to build thanks to a multi-million pound land subsidy at Derwenthorpe, at the expense taxpayers by giving away the land at a fraction of its market value. They have been told that the current AH targets of 25%/35% are unworkable and the evidence is there with Germany Beck, Terrys, Nestle, Hungate, Barbican and Grain Stores all being stalled.
James Alexander's election manifesto to increase housing in York has failed, depriving York of the obvious growth to the economy that it would bring.
Keep wishing Newton1, some will think you mean well, others will see your post for what it is - an excuse from someone who knows exactly what and who are causing the housing crisis in York to worsen ? !!!
It's a good job that certain anonymous individuals cannot block posts on this website, like they can emails ;-)
CRWPROJ
says...
9:55pm Tue 16 Oct 12
The practicalities are a bit more involved when assessing these properties, the majority of which are higher than two stories, for this type of occupation. Modern fire regulations and sound proofing are very demanding. Not withstanding the practicalities...
Imagine your retail premises being evacuated at peak time due to burnt toast in a flat above. Or perhaps thousands of pounds of stock ruined due to an overflowing bath. Or not being to sleep for 5 nights in a row due to an out-of-hours shop refit to minimise down time....
Rather than council employees making decisions about other peoples properties perhaps they could build affordable rental property on the land the council have purchased in the city centre. This could be the alternative to yet another 'umpteen' bed hotel. Incidently which will compete against 'home grown' hotel and Guest House businesses.
Some original, inspiring thought please.
meme
says...
8:45am Wed 17 Oct 12
Landlords consider this all the time but apart from the physical and health and safety issues there are two fundamental problems At present
Big pension funds who own the bigger properties do not want mixed tenure and the management issues with residential
Smaller properties tend to be owned by private pension funds and they are not allowed by pension fund law from owning residential even if sold on a long lease
So saved council £ 30k!
Micklegate
says...
9:41am Wed 17 Oct 12
Newton1 wrote:It does indeed sound sensible and the idea of getting more people in homes sounds good as well as the possibility of increasing a true residential prescence in the city centre.
If we've existing space in the City that's empty and doing nothing, but people desperately wanting homes then this seems like a very sensible idea. I hope something comes of it.
However it's unlikely to come to fruition, aside from the noise problems, who really thinks the solution to housing problems is more involvement from Tracey Simpson-Laing and a need to pay more money to consultants? It is surely letting the market actually work that matters so proper homes can be built and enabled. Still Tracey Simpson-Laing has got her headline so I suppose she's happy.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
1:35pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Time and time again, we hear the council making the right noises; claiming they are dedicated to helping developers get housebuilding moving in York. What good do these 'interventions' do ? Answer : no good whatsoever. The council speak to developers to look for excuses to use in their defence. They aint interested in the truth, that it's the council's affordable housing policy that is stalling developments - instead they use the default excuse - it's lack of lending and mortgages that is the problem.
The council's interventions with their unreasonable affordable housing requirements are the problem, and if they truly want to get housebuilding moving, then they need to reduce the target to 10% with a threshold of no less than 10 dwellings.
Coun Simpson-Laing isn't a problem solver, she's a problem causer, with her wedded position to a policy that isn't working, just like the many builders are not working, because she has helped put them out of business.
It's time she resigned, as she is a failure.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
1:42pm Wed 17 Oct 12
I wonder how many York housebuilders are there ? They will not be there as employers taking on staff, that's for sure........., they will be out of work employees looking for work, because there is none in housebuilding thanks to James Alexander's, Tracety Simpson-Laing's and Dave Merrett's crackpot housing policies.
Shame on them all !
Even AndyD
says...
4:51pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Now, I don't agree with the 50% AH policy, but at the same time, I don't see why trained QS, builders etc should be unemployed because houses are not being built in York.
Surely people could work elsewhere?
Not a dig, I'm just interested. If I'd insisted on working in York all my life, I'd be sitting on a pile of debts, probably in a tent somewhere!
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
5:45pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Even AndyD wrote:I have worked in York or for York building companies since 1976, apart from working for a Bridlington-based contractor in 1988/9, and since 1997 have worked for myself. Whilst working for York companies I worked on projects in Hull, Leeds and the north-east.
From 1986 until just last month I have never worked in York, despite living here all my life. There were never any jobs in my industry, so I've worked in Leeds (twice), Hull (twice), Harrogate Wakefield and Ripon. Now, I don't agree with the 50% AH policy, but at the same time, I don't see why trained QS, builders etc should be unemployed because houses are not being built in York. Surely people could work elsewhere? Not a dig, I'm just interested. If I'd insisted on working in York all my life, I'd be sitting on a pile of debts, probably in a tent somewhere!
In 2008, owing to the credit crunch, my workload/earned income reduced to 20% of the average of the previous 11 years. The following year it halved again down to 10% of my 11 year average, then fell slightly more in 2010, and picked up slightly in 2011 to where it was in 2009 and then this year it has almost dried up altogether.
Housebuilding has fallen from it's peak by 40%, and that means 40% of the workforce hasn't got work in that industry, and I am part of that 40%. In York housebuilding has fallen by 70% from 2005 to 2012, so theoretically there are 70% in this situation in York, but some may have found work elsewhere to join the 60% nationally still in work in the sector.
BTW, I live on savings and do not receive any benefits whatsoever. I have not had a holiday since 2008, have cut my expenditure to the bone, and my car is nine years old.
My gripe is that York Council have killed off housebuilding to a greater extent in York than elsewhere, and they started that process in 2005 when they doubled their affordable housing target from 25% to 50% ! The damage this has done will malke any recovery in York very slow, and the council are not doing enough to stimulate growth/recovery. They need to reduce the target to 10%, but should also have never set the 50% target in the first place !
Even AndyD
says...
6:02pm Wed 17 Oct 12
It is a long time since I studied Economics, but it always seemed to me quite an easy subject to grasp. Demand and supply ruled most things, unemployment and inflation were opposite forces, balance of trade was the key variable in terms of national wealth and everything else revolved around those simple tenets.
But the older I get the more I think that those who rule don't even grasp this. You lower house prices by building more houses. You build a mansion and everyone moves one step up the ladder freeing a one bedroomed flat at the bottom. Increase supply = lower price. Simplistic, but the principle is sound. Similarly, you can't cut your way out of a slump. Slumps are caused intrinsically by a blockage in the flow of money. You cut everything, you take a shed load of money out of the economy. You also influence those who worry about their jobs and they stop spending. And it spirals - unemployment, low growth, more national debt.
Not that Labour are blameless. On their watch credit was too easy for too long and resulted in false booms on borrowed money. Lending was ridiculous - you could borrow £25k over the phone. Did various chancellors not see this? Now we have the gears jammed hard into reverse just to keep the rating agencies happy and its a total mess.
I despair - sack the lot of them! Hey - am starting to sound like you, Mr SP!:-)
Buzz Light-year
says...
6:41pm Wed 17 Oct 12
They don't waste hours spamming the council about quotas.
They know why and they know it's not just in Whitby.
Even AndyD
says...
7:05pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Although I agree - spamming the Council doesn't seem the way to go to me. But then in fairness, maybe I've not been pushed to the end of my tether.
Even AndyD
says...
7:18pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
8:53pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Even AndyD wrote:No, you haven't been pushed like myself and others have.
Not the most apposite of comparisons - less fish is the see hardly equates with not enough houses. Fishing quota makes sense - we all find stuff easier to take if there is a logical reason behind it.
Although I agree - spamming the Council doesn't seem the way to go to me. But then in fairness, maybe I've not been pushed to the end of my tether.
I wrote my first letter predicting that the 50% policy would not work in 2002, just after Coun Merrett proposed it.
I have continued to write letters, attend council meetings/workshops, lobby councillors and MP's, read endless AH policies, AHVS's, and SHLAA's and produce comments and analysis, all at my own expense. After all this time and effort what has it achieved ? Nothing. We have been fobbed off, discredited and our requests ignored. Is there any wonder that we resort to slagging the council off on these threads ?
Even AndyD
says...
9:41pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:21pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Even AndyD wrote:With respect, and with sympathy, you are pushed by those who cannot help their condition, whereas those who push us should know better !
Just had a 'tether' discussion with Lady Andy D. which she found amusing. I think it is fair to say that ours gets tested on a daily basis. To tethering testing point and then some, I'd say. But whatever, we all have crosses etc etc.
Those who test our patience are well-paid public servants, who behave in ways that children would struggle to match in terms of the levels of intentional dishonesty, manipulation and ignorance !
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:25pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Even AndyD wrote:If our approach is wrong, what would you suggest ?
Not the most apposite of comparisons - less fish is the see hardly equates with not enough houses. Fishing quota makes sense - we all find stuff easier to take if there is a logical reason behind it.
Although I agree - spamming the Council doesn't seem the way to go to me. But then in fairness, maybe I've not been pushed to the end of my tether.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:34pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Newton1 wrote:We have sites stood empty, doing nothing, waiting for homes to be built.
If we've existing space in the City that's empty and doing nothing, but people desperately wanting homes then this seems like a very sensible idea.
I hope something comes of it.
Does 'Newton1' not think it is a sensible idea for the council to reduce their affordable housing target to make these sites viable, so that housebuilders can get on with building them ?
He obviously doesn't hope anything will come of these sites, because he is doing nothing to make this happen !
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:34pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Newton1 wrote:We have sites stood empty, doing nothing, waiting for homes to be built.
If we've existing space in the City that's empty and doing nothing, but people desperately wanting homes then this seems like a very sensible idea.
I hope something comes of it.
Does 'Newton1' not think it is a sensible idea for the council to reduce their affordable housing target to make these sites viable, so that housebuilders can get on with building them ?
He obviously doesn't hope anything will come of these sites, because he is doing nothing to make this happen !
Mrs P123
says...
2:41pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Ichabod76
says...
5:36pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Even AndyD wrote:Because the councillors don't like criticism
Not the most apposite of comparisons - less fish is the see hardly equates with not enough houses. Fishing quota makes sense - we all find stuff easier to take if there is a logical reason behind it.
Although I agree - spamming the Council doesn't seem the way to go to me. But then in fairness, maybe I've not been pushed to the end of my tether.
(Just ask the people who had all their e mails blocked by the council)
they fear the truth getting out !
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
12:58am Sat 20 Oct 12
Ichabod76 wrote:Good point, Ichabod76.
Even AndyD wrote: Not the most apposite of comparisons - less fish is the see hardly equates with not enough houses. Fishing quota makes sense - we all find stuff easier to take if there is a logical reason behind it. Although I agree - spamming the Council doesn't seem the way to go to me. But then in fairness, maybe I've not been pushed to the end of my tether.Because the councillors don't like criticism (Just ask the people who had all their e mails blocked by the council) they fear the truth getting out !
First they (Council's Andrew Docherty) admitted that Paul Cordock had been blocked in August this year, without warning, or notification, and that they had no policy, no guidelines or protocols, which explained the complete disregard of the rights of Mr Cordock (to be treated in a fair and even-handed way)
Next they admit that they blocked another York resident for a full year, and not only failed to notify him, but admitted that the resident should have been blocked to everyone on the @york.gov.uk system.
There will be more revelations on this, as Mr Docherty has refused to answer questions by both of these residents, and is protecting the individual/s who asked for the blocking.
I think that York residents can guess who was behing this ?
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
1:02am Sat 20 Oct 12
Buzz Light-year
says...
7:00pm Sat 20 Oct 12
Mrs P123 wrote:Because some critics may go too far.
Hi, I came on here to comment on Councillor Merrett's response to York being named at the Conservative party conference, for not having an adopted plan for forty years! Please can somebody explain why that article is not open for comment ?
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
9:29pm Sat 20 Oct 12
Buzz Light-year wrote:Yes, and some don't go far enough. The council have got away with not having an adopted local plan for 40 years, which is disgraceful. When some of us show our dissatisfaction at their appalling failures, others come to their defense, and this makes them think they have got support for their rank ineptitude. It's time that York Council bucked their ideas up.
Mrs P123 wrote:Because some critics may go too far.
Hi, I came on here to comment on Councillor Merrett's response to York being named at the Conservative party conference, for not having an adopted plan for forty years! Please can somebody explain why that article is not open for comment ?
deathwatch
says...
3:41pm Sun 21 Oct 12
bob the builder wrote:"...Rather that than put them in residential areas where they cause a reduction in the house prices because no one else wants to live there..."
york_chap wrote:I'd rather have them living in the centre above shops where their activities and inconveniences will attract swift attention as it might affect tourism and the image the council want to project. Rather that than put them in residential areas where they cause a reduction in the house prices because no one else wants to live there.
If they're for decent, hard working folk at a fair price then it's a very good idea. Or is it going to be like they did with The Shambles - put in a load of flats in beautiful old buildings and give priority to ex-cons, drug addicts and scroungers? That may be very un-p.c. but it's what happened.
Or just put them in prison, where they belong!...
Mrs P123
says...
12:06pm Tue 23 Oct 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:Well I think the fact that York was singled out from all the councils in the entire country at the conference and then it was not front page of the press is really terrible reporting. I also think that blocking people commenting on the article is very wrong and makes me very suspicious!!
Buzz Light-year wrote:Yes, and some don't go far enough. The council have got away with not having an adopted local plan for 40 years, which is disgraceful. When some of us show our dissatisfaction at their appalling failures, others come to their defense, and this makes them think they have got support for their rank ineptitude. It's time that York Council bucked their ideas up.
Mrs P123 wrote:Because some critics may go too far.
Hi, I came on here to comment on Councillor Merrett's response to York being named at the Conservative party conference, for not having an adopted plan for forty years! Please can somebody explain why that article is not open for comment ?
roskoboskovic says...
9:45am Tue 16 Oct 12