Jonathan Bonner (Letters, March 19) can attack me as much as he likes, but it doesn’t alter the fact that Spark is fundamentally wrong and should never have been granted planning permission let alone taxpayer subsidies.

I’ve got fifty years’ professional experience lodging planning applications and fighting appeals.

Planning applications are supposed to be determined in accordance with planning policies. Decisions are supposed to be fair and consistent. All applicants are supposed to be treated equally. The mere existence of strong support (or opposition) is not justification to over-rule policy.

Temporary permission at Spark turns out to be not temporary but a series of endless extensions. More importantly, others have been told that temporary use ‘does not overcome policy objections’ but funnily enough for Spark it does.

Unrelenting council support for Spark is extraordinary and needs to be independently investigated. That investigation needs to go right back to 2015 when the Reynards garage building was hurriedly torn down on the false premise of public safety.

Matthew Laverack, Architect Lord Mayors Walk, York

 

Will it be ‘Goodbye Piccadilly’ for Spark?

I’m glad Spark has helped small businesses, many of them start-up ventures, and has generated some employment and attracted custom. It is a shame, though, about the late-night noise spin-off for nearby local residents.

I doubt that Mr Laverack’s position is an ‘extremely minority view’ as claimed by your correspondent Mr Bonner (Letters, March 19). Passing the ‘encampment’ in a bus the other day did give me an ‘Oh crikey!’ moment. Not a pretty sight...or indeed, site. Even the ‘improved version’ looked a mess and not a bit attractive to my perhaps jaundiced eye.

Now the word on the street speaks of the possibility of a new York Central location for this long-running temporary bazaar in a hard-to-pin-down number of years time.

Will it be ‘Goodbye Piccadilly’?

Derek Reed, Middlethorpe Drive, York