Monday 30th April 2018, 6:15pm – 8:00pm
York Explore, Museum Street Book your free place
“Good design should seek to add to the city’s overall cultural qualities as a place, and also enhance its cultural capacity — its ability to create opportunities for cultural creation, expression, learning, sharing, and enjoyment….”
So says York’s draft Local Plan. But why is it important to consider and plan for the arts and culture in a development like York Central, and in a city like York? And if it’s important, how can we make it happen?
Facilitated by Hazel Colquhoun and Robert Powell, this event will include presentations and discussion, and help lay the groundwork for further activities and action in the future.
Robert Powell is a York-based writer and poet with over 30 years experience in the arts and place-making. From 1997-2015 he was Director of Beam, a company dedicated to promoting the role of artists and communities in designing and improving public spaces and places.
Hazel Colquhoun has worked throughout the UK as a consultant on arts and cultural projects for over 20 years, with a particular interest in working outside formal arts spaces, public art and place-making. Based in York, she has recently co-curated “Look Up” the major temporary commissioning programme for Hull 2017, UK City of Culture.
Tuesday 10th April, 4pm – 6pm / National Railway Museum Gallery
The current emerging masterplan proposals aim to “encourage sustainable transport” and show networks for the various current modes of transport – walking, cycling, busses and cars. But how will future changes – especially those in public transport – change the way we move around cities and how do cities need to respond in order to benefit from them? In this collaboration between by York Bus Forum Chair Graham Collett and York Environment Forum Chair Phil Bixby, we asked:
Can we look to successful projects elsewhere and can we overcome the cry that “York is different”?
How far into the future is it wise to plan when future technologies are so uncertain?
Graham Collett kicked off the discussions with a few questions for the movement plan on York Central:
“While it could potentially be good for Park and Ride buses, where is the proposal here for local buses? York Central is a long-term project – we should think out of the box. We should be thinking a bit more radically, it should be more than just a few buses. No other transport type seems to have been considered – apart from cars.”
With this in mind Graham talked us through a few of the more radical options – and this is accompanied below by an account of the discussion they provoked:
Light rail or tram:-
“We could start the tram in York Central and use it as a springboard to extend. People say it is too expensive, but we heard from David Rudlin about a scheme where plots for development had been sold in order to fund a tram connection.
They are putting in trams in Preston, and working on Very Light Rail (VLR) proposals in Dudley and Coventry, which are cheaper than trams. Frieburg / Grenoble (similar size cities to York have trams). Bath, Cambridge and Oxford are all discussing trams.”
Discussion on the benefits of light rail and trams:-
‘Trams are very popular. There is a strange psychological dimension, people who won’t go on buses will go on trams. You go on the tram because it is an outing. You also feel safer’
‘It feels like you are in control when you are on tram. Trams are ace’
‘We need to make public transport sufficiently attractive, people get out of their cars by choice. Trams are a way of doing this, as the experience in Nottingham shows’.
‘Not as many people will switch from cars to buses as they do to trams (although in London TFL doubled the ridership of buses while nationally it halved)’.
‘Having experienced trams Edinburgh, Sheffield – they’re great when they work, but if they break down the whole system breaks down, while buses have flexibility’. And from Prague ‘a tram broke down at least once a day, and it would paralyse the whole network”.
‘Tram routes can drive up the value of development land – sites near routes – and especially near stops – have higher value as the guaranteed transport makes them attractive.’
Then we discussed the positives of buses:-
‘Tram systems might be an answer in some cases but there is an argument that buses do the job better, can go where you want them to do, and are more flexible. Once you build a tram system you’re stuck and you can only expand it’
‘Buses are flexible and routes can respond to changing circumstances and demands…. but that’s a down side too, routes get changed and individual neighbourhoods can lose services’
‘Buses could be so flexible that they could pick you up at the door. But there is the management issue, at the moment in York they are only run by profit seeking firms’.
There was a general point about perception of public transport:-
‘Public transport involves learning – people need to feel they know how to use it. Older people feel they are trapped when they give up their car. If they learn to use public transport before this happens, then they cope much better.’’
Driverless vehicles (especially buses):-
There is an example from Didcot, Oxfordshire. ‘Small and frequent buses beat large and less regular ones every time’. Driverless buses are being used in La Rochelle, where ‘…they are free to travel through pedestrian areas. The problem is keeping pedestrians safe, so therefore they’re not much faster than 5mph and therefore limited use for a public transport system’.
The discussion flagged up the human issues involved in relation to driverless vehicles:-
‘I don’t always feel safe at night on trains, so having people about is important’
‘you have to think about people in the equation, people matter still and they need to be taken into account’
‘a lot of people might not want to get on a driverless vehicle, so it’s not a way of increasing use’
‘what about disabled people? you need people around to make it accessible’
‘it is a classic example of pursuit of new technology without thinking through the human element’.
‘It is important not to think of the time staff spending supporting people as a waste of time. Could jobs be combined so people are doing other jobs but also still offering support on public transport?’.
We discussed guided buses:-
‘Guided buses are a way of avoiding congestion, as they can use the central reservation to jump the queue’
‘It is the bit between settlements where guided buses matter’
‘You can have guided lines going into town in the morning and out at night, so you only need one bus lane’
The human factor:-
There was discussion about broader issues of human experience and the (relatively) simple things that made transport work well:-
‘Buses in London are painless – use a swipe card or a contactless debit card’.
‘One ticket for everything, so there is no concern that one’s return doesn’t work on another’s service’
‘The technology really helps, you now don’t have to worry how much it’ll be because it’ll never be more that £5’
‘In York now, you can but a day or week ticket… …but you still have to plan whether you’ll get full use from it. Contactless allows that flexibility’
‘In London, bus use doubled – that was because of the oyster card, real time information, investment and increased frequency. It was about a political willingness to subsidise that service rather than give profits to private operators. The problem was deregulation:- there used to be the possibility of cross subsidizing between successful and less successful routes. But now private operated just cream off profit from successful routes and the less popular ones vanish. But:- the Buses Act gives you opportunity to manage buses locally again’.
And some fundamentals:- vehicles need to be attractive – ‘you still won’t get on a tram if it is dirty’.
We discussed the issues around cycling:-
‘I want to talk about cycling. York claims it wants to be a top cycling city and it is falling short’.
‘Cycling can solve a lot of problems. We should see cycling is one the main forms of transport’.
‘Cycling routes are often so tortuous in new developments’.
‘An agenda we struggle with at the moment is ‘shared use’ – we can’t even cycle through York because of pedestrians. Alongside planning for all sorts of new technology, we need to find ways of respecting each other with the modes of transport we have now’.
‘Does anyone have any information about how disabled people feel about Amsterdam?’
‘Need to have workplace showers after cycling to work’.
Bringing it all together with better integration:-
Examples of integration between different forms of transport…
‘I live in Pickering and work in York. I can Park & Ride but this costs £3 and I have to walk back out from the city centre to my office, or I can drive in and park in a local residential street. So I tend to drive in’.
A taxi almost fuel efficient as a half full bus, so we need to really think about taxis, especially as new technology makes ride-sharing more possible’.
‘Who is responsible for a joined up transport policy? Who designs the system?’
‘We can use the Park and Ride as hubs for parking and cycling as well as parking and busing’
Air quality:-
‘We need to get traffic out the city centre. Congestion can drive a move from cars to other modes of transport, but congestion reduces air quality. By reducing congestion, we are also improving air quality’.
The Freiburg Vauban experience – you can have a car but it is parked in a multistorey car park and you pay the real cost of providing this. If you agree to be car-free you don’t have to pay that money. This has reduced car ownership (but there is good public transport as an alternative). We perhaps need to be more clever – not just deciding to make developments “car free”.
…and some York Central specific discussion:-
‘The site needs access but it shouldn’t be a through route or a main road’
‘If Marble Arch is open to through traffic then it will end up the same as Holgate Road and Bootham. It should be public transport only’.
‘A bus gate at Marble Arch could help the Park and Ride to get into town more quickly and leave the rest of the traffic on Water End’.
‘They seem to have planned for a multi-storey car park near the station – this is simply going to bring traffic in’.
‘Except for visitors with disability, NRM should not have its own parking’.
Possible opportunities:-
We then talked about possible opportunities to make some of the ideas happen:-
Yorkshire devolution financing: how might this be tapped into?
How do we work with elected members? It was felt that officers are always coming up with great ideas, solutions and thoughts but they get knocked back at the Cllrs level.
An old city with limited space, how do we understand and respect each other across different modes of transport? Maybe via a Transport For York (or a wider area) – like Transport for London, an integrated agency?
How can we show all the private operators that integration will be financial positive for all of them by driving up usage?
Post-it notes contributed during the Living and Working Creatively on York Central event.
Work
Week 3 of the Festival of York Central was focused on ‘work’, asking what kind of work and ways of working might York Central enable. Getting engagement with the mainstream business community was problematic – “commercial confidentiality” seemed to prevent a lot of possible avenues for discussion on what was wanted on York Central. However, we still had useful discussions and some very creative input. Special thanks to York@Large and the Guild of Media Arts. Our open briefing document is based on the following:-
A meeting with Heather Niven, Science City York, who has been leading on a piece of work in collaboration with local creative, digital and science and technology businesses looking the work space needs in York.
We are also currently developing an event: ‘How can York Central enable careers and businesses in the railway industry?’ details to be announced soon.
Accessible infrastructure
A key theme – which stretches across all of the Festival of York Central themes – is that York Central has the opportunity to create an underpinning accessible infrastructure that enables gender equality and is not a disabling space. This includes easy to access crèches, accessible buildings, child care facilities, spaces where you can be with your children, gender neutral and accessible toilets. The definition of “work” was also questioned during conversations – much work is unpaid but contributes to economic activity, and this should be considered too.
Hubs of similar businesses
‘A hub of people doing the same things helps everyone thrive’
York was seen to be doing okay in terms of creating space for very small business and is becoming a well-established centre of excellence in media industries, although the “low profile” of these businesses mean that this would probably be a surprise to many in the city.
Rather than see each other as competitors, the existing community of creative and digital agencies was seen as positive and York Central was seen as an opportunity for this to grow and develop.
Middle-sized businesses
There is a missing “middle band” of size of business and premises for them. An example given was that of architects with staff of ten in an office which fits seven with no space to expand beyond that. If middle-sized businesses do want to stay in York they are forced out to Clifton Moor. ‘If you bring a client to the centre of York, that’s great – Clifton Moor… not so much’. This issue of the wider setting of the workplace was mentioned many times; bringing a client on foot from their train through a buzzy neighbourhood to a workplace with good cafes/restaurants/meeting places nearby was seen as massively positive.
Freelancers, flexible and networking space
‘In the future, there will be much fewer paid salary jobs. A lot of people will be forced back onto their own devices’
There was support for the idea of co-working hub spaces where freelancers could share facilities (printers or craft materials), book affordable meeting space for clients and network. An example given was Melting Pot in Edinburgh, which has been operating successfully for over a decade.
Living and working in an integrated way
An interesting dimension of the discussions was the sense that there was no need to zone or separate living and working strictly. Many small-ish creative businesses are both good neighbours to each other (as they often collaborate) and also good neighbours to other uses – including residential – as they create little nuisance. In fact there were benefits in having the kind of activity throughout the day and night that happens when work and homes are linked. Furthermore as many of the types of jobs that York is seeking to cultivate are not strictly of the 9-to-5 variety that life-work proximity enables child care and might also enable the new 21st century version of work-life balance where work time is not zoned into certain temporal parts of your life.
Open Source Planning: being able to change use of your home easily
A popular idea from David Rudlin’s talk on Grow Your Own Garden City was open source planning where a planning authority could pre-approve a variety of possible uses for people’s homes so they could turn them easily into small scale workspaces (open a hairdresser / set up an office). This is an issue which leads immediately to consideration of Neighbourhood Planning – what will be the status of York Central (will it simply be part of one or more existing wards? How will neighbourhood planning issues be dealt with as the community – residential and business – develops?
Affordable places to live are essential to keeping graduates and York’s young people
Keeping graduates is seen as crucial to growing York’s own talent. But this was seen as intimately connected to housing costs, as graduates can’t afford to take risks because housing costs are so high. Graduates have to work so many hours to cover living costs, so there is a greater hurdle to jump in terms of getting starts ups happening. Affordable housing is not just a “housing” issue, but has an impact on economic activity.
Unpaid work and enabling contributing and taking part
It was noted that many people the future will simply not have jobs and they will be looking for creative ways of spending time and contributing. Some will be doing unpaid work of various kinds, including caring for children or older relatives. The design of the city should facilitate this, again pointing towards a mixed environment rather than one where work and homes are strictly zoned. This was already touched upon during our “homes” discussions, flagging up the possibility of older residents wishing to have the option of inclusion within economic life, with the option to “invest” capital or time (or both) in nearby economic activity which contributes to their immediate environment.
The cultural hub: Draw creative contributions (paid and unpaid) together
‘Having a variety of spaces which allow different uses is powerful’.
Mixed uses has been a theme of the Festival of York Central discussions, and has been driven by many of the examples from The Life Sized City film series, where community initiatives have made use of unused or under-used urban space to bring activities that would otherwise be excluded by strict zoning. The idea of York Central as a place where there are always exciting and creative things going on was discussed. How to make this happen was debated and the idea of spaces where things could happen was a key idea. This would include places which could provide venues for lunchtime talks and films, places for broader thinking and debate open to all. Libraries were often seen as “anchors” for this type of activity but it has a breadth which goes well beyond the conventional definition.
Shouting about what is already going on
There was a strong sense that York needs to make more of what is already going on as a way of attracting more interest and activity. Could York Central offer an exhibition space that showcases innovative work going on in York? Can we explore ideas both short-term and long-term – “meanwhile” and permanent – where a “gateway” between station and the rest of the city provides a showcase for the talent, energy and creativity which powers the city but is otherwise hidden?
An illustration of the Garden City ‘snowflake approach’ where development creates new large and very well connected urban extensions in order to grow a city.
5th April, 7-8.30pm
David Rudlin joined us as part of the Festival of York Central to share work he did with Nicholas Falk on a new generation of Garden Cities (the recipient of the 2014 Wolfson Economic Prize). In this write up of the event, we post links to the report and a number of useful summary articles as well as some of the current work influenced by the Garden City report that David and his group URBED are involved in. This work was based on a fictional historic city called Uxcester, but to give them a base to work with, David and Nicholas choose York (twisted it a bit on the map). So while their work is of enormous relevance to many small cities in the UK, it is of relevance to York in particular.
We then have written up the Q&A. We were very interested in the questions that came from the York audience as they point to ways in which we might locally work with David’s analysis of the issues (not least with the planning system itself) and with the Garden City ideas.
To give a flavour of the David’s overall analysis of the issues, here is an extract:
The country that gave the world the Garden City is now building around 100,000 fewer homes each year than it needs to. What is more, the quality of the housing that is built, while better than it used to be, is still poor compared to other Northern European countries, in terms of space standards, environmental performance, layout and infrastructure. For many years URBED’s Nicholas Falk has led study tours to cities like Freiburg, a German city near Basel of a little over 200,000 people that has built two large urban extensions at Vauban and Rieselfeld in the last twenty years. Walking through these new neighbourhoods with UK politicians, professionals and community activists, past the shining trams, high-quality housing and generous green space, the question asked is always; why can’t we do this? The answer is not that we in the UK lack the talent or commitment, but rather that our system makes it if not impossible then at least very difficult.
Then the report – set out by David’s talk – sets out series of responses to the systemic issues, which you can read in summary and in full here. Here are some of the key elements:
Vision: not to build new towns and cities but to graft new growth onto existing places. The report looks at doubling the size of a city the size of York.
‘The Garden City extensions are based upon some simple geometry; tram stops that are within 20 minutes of the city centre, neighbourhoods that are within 10 minutes walk of these tram stops, each of which supports a secondary school and its feeder primary schools, and urban extensions made up of five neighbourhoods that have sufficient scale to support a district centre and employment use’ (pp. 2-3)
Popularity: development is not always popular to say the least, the report sets out a way forward that poses a deal and underpins a social contract:
‘We propose a ‘deal’ by which we lift the threat of development around all of the
city’s existing suburbs and villages by concentrating growth in a few large urban extensions. […[ This deal will be backed up with a ‘Social Contract’ which undertakes that the Garden City extensions will be built in areas where their impact is minimised. This contract will also cover the creation of 3,000 HA of accessible public open space and investment in new transport infrastructure and city centre facilities to benefit the whole of the community. Our aim is to reframe the argument by making the Garden City an attractive solution to a set of problems that the city cannot solve on its own’ (p. 3)
Economic Viability and Governance: based on the analysis of the current problems set up by the planning system, David’s presentation and the report outlines a response.
‘In the final part of the essay we describe the process by which Uxcester Garden City
would be built through its seven ages. This starts with a Garden City Act being passed by the new Parliament as enabling legislation to create the planning and compulsory purchase powers that each Garden City would need. Cities would then be invited to bid to be designated as a Garden City in order to get access to these powers. The successful places like Uxcester would establish a Garden City Foundation as a partnership between the local authorities, the Local Economic Partnership, the community and other partners. This would be vested with the Garden City powers and would be responsible for masterplanning, acquiring the land and acting as planning authority. The land would be vested in a Garden City Land Company, the majority shareholder of which would be the Foundation but a minority shareholding sold to investors’. (p. 4)
After David’s talk there was a Q&A with questions and contributions from the floor:
Q: What about employment?
The first thing to say is that homes create jobs (e.g. schools, shops). One issues for cities is how to retain graduates. Here public transport links are crucial (as often professional couples work in different places). In the Garden City, the tram takes you into town and to the train station. We are also interested in Open Source Planning where people can turn houses into workplaces flexibly.
Q: What are the benefits of trams? How many new houses make a tram system viable?
Trams are more effective than buses, everyone is prepared to use a tram but not everyone is prepared to use a bus, in large part because travelling off road is quicker. There is something about the permanence of the tram infrastructure, knowing there will be public transport long term, whereas bus routes can just disappear. While trams are especially effective, you can get 50/60% of the benefits from bus rapid transit. 5000 homes would not be enough to fund a tram. It’s not possible to give a specific answer as financial modelling would need to be done, but I would assume you need 20,000+ to make a tram sustainable. Trams are mark of civilization, it is just about whether we choose to spend our money on it.
Q: In the centre of Ebenezer Howard’s diagram was a question: ‘where will all the people go? We are in a period where some cities are in a fight for ‘winner takes all growth’, can we think of the Garden City model as making cities of optimum size that will become something closer to a steady state (of growth)?
There is work going on about where young educated qualified people are choosing to live. Business parks are struggling to attract people out in the sticks because young people are more attracted to living in cities of a certain size. York might be big enough to count. The purpose of the Garden Cities approach was that we were expanding places where young people wanted to live because cities give them access to what they want.
Q: Your housing market diagrams shows the demise of the local authority house building and the rise of the market. Larger cities than York seem to be able to make the decision to create infrastructure, is it more difficult for somewhere like York?
In London, Crossrail has created a 15% uplift in value generated for property owners near the new stations. All that uplift was created by that public investment – those householders benefit, but none of that benefit went back into public infrastructures. What we need is a way of capturing that uplift to invest back into infrastructure. The public sector has become disempowered – we need to change that.
Q: What about build out rates? People don’t want to be living on a permanent building site.
Build out rates are the great mystery of our time, a developer takes a site, builds 50-100 a year and sells 1-2 a week. People say to them, ‘you are restricting supply’. They say, ‘we spent £20m bring the site to market, why would we not want this back as soon as possible’? But they all have their own brickies, and it is very slow. We will never build 300,000 homes (the Homes England target) that way. We need to get over the build out rate constraints. In France 60% of housing is self-build, people buy a plot and commission a builder to put the housing up. A completely different model.
Q: There is something fundamental here: is anybody in the country thinking this through and ready to act on it? Is there interest in Labour Party, anyone ready to make this change? The conclusion from your talk is that something fundamental needs to shift.
The Lyons Housing Review says all the right things including about land value capture (commissioned under Ed Milliband) but Labour baulked and took out the land value capture.
Lord Taylor, a Liberal Democratic Peer, who wrote the National Planning Policy Framework is working on this. There is a sense that the Government is nervous about the politics, they will change things behind the scenes and try not to draw attention to themselves. The bad news is that doesn’t suggest radical change quickly. But people do get the argument at least.
Q: What about the wiki house concept where people can design and manufacture their own houses?
That is part of Open Source planning idea. We’ve been working with Igloo on custom build, one version of which is the wiki house.
Q: What about the aesthetic of custom build?
You can set the size of the lots, so you have already pre-constrained it. Then you can give a plot passport, you can set footprint, where on plot the house can go and what height. But in places where this has been done (for example Almere in the Netherlands) the experimental people are drawn together and the more conservative people are drawn to the more conservative bits. The planning office can pre-approve the housing types, can see them all in advance, but you do need to let go a bit and trust people. All villages were built like that.
Q: You’ve painted a very clear picture of the what the future of somewhere like York can be and I think there is a fair amount of buy-in here. But if the world doesn’t change it ain’t going to happen. What are the barriers that need to be demolished?
1)The government has already changed the local government finances. From 2022 local authorities will be depending entirely on their tax base, so they need to grow in order to add to the tax base.
2) The planning process is unworkable. It is based upon an adversarial system. It becomes a feeding fest for planning consultants. They do very well out of it. In Holland, they say ‘why do you consult all the time, we consult on the plan and then we do it’. The system itself is not working, planners need to be given more power not less, so they can be more decisive.
One of the key issues that has emerged from conversations within the Festival of York Central has been connections between the new development and existing surrounding communities. It’s recognised that the existing footbridge across the goods line which connects Cinder Path and Wilton Rise is not ideal, and the masterplanning team are exploring options to improve this connection. These include replacing the existing bridge with something better in the same location, providing an improved connecting route, replacing the bridge in a new location, or doing nothing.
What would work best for you? Come and take a look at the options and walk the routes with us at 6pm on Friday 13th April. We’ll meet at the footbridge on the Wilton Rise side, and there will be an opportunity to discuss the proposals and to feed back into the masterplanning process.
As part of the ‘Work’ week of the Festival of York Central we collaborated with York@Large to develop a discussion about living and working creatively in York Central. Some new themes emerged, such as how to connect across scales of economic activity and how to make the city’s generational and class wealth gap work for York. We were also able to deepen and extend our discussions about some key themes – such as affordability and mix of uses – that have shot through many of the Festival of York Central discussions so far.
‘It is easy to build homes, office and hotels. You can’t build community. To get community you need to invest in people. We need to bind York Central to the city and bind York Central to the people of the city’.
Hubs of similar businesses
‘A hub of people doing the same things helps everyone thrive’
In Swinegate there are a small creative businesses above almost every shop. Rather than see each other as competitors, this hub and community was seen as positive and something to consider for York Central.
Creative industries were seen as ‘making good neighbours’…
With each other (for networking)
With other uses (they’re low impact)
They are often “first floor” businesses.
There is a shortage of flexible space – Hiscox local hub was oversubscribed by factor of four.
What makes for good work space?
York was seen to be doing ok in terms of creating space for very small business. The benefits of above the shop workspaces were seen as being ‘cheap and centrally located’. Clients often travel by train, so being in the centre or closer, as York Central would be, to the station was seen as positive. First floor work spaces was acknowledged as cheaper because there was no street frontages, yet it was suggested that ‘giving up the ground floor might be a mistake’ as lively inviting shop frontage might give a chance to show and showcase the work going on in York.
Middle sized businesses
‘We used to have industry, the carriage works and chocolate, but nothing replaced it’.
‘Retail and tourism has soaked up a lot of that… but there is that missing middle layer of better paying jobs’.
There is a missing “middle band” of size of business and premises for them SCY Creative strategy discussions suggest this is true for creative industries, where there are start-ups and some global mature businesses, but trading conditions are less ideal for medium sized (ie small) creative businesses. This conclusion is supported by the demographic analysis in Cities Outlook 2018 from Centre for Cities (Population Aged 30-44, percentage point change 2012–2016)
‘This is not about trapping businesses in York but we need to recognise that those middle band businesses are not thinking of coming to York’
An example given was that of architects with staff of ten in an office which fits seven with no space to expand beyond that. If middle-sized businesses do want to stay in York they are forced out to Clifton Moor. ‘If you bring a client to the centre of York, that’s great – Clifton Moor… not so much’.
If we’re building 3/4/5/ storey buildings adding “a floor for business” is a relatively cheap addition – just four extra walls since foundations/infrastructure and upper parts/roof would be built anyway.
More on mix of uses
‘Having a variety of spaces which allow different uses is powerful’.
Mixed uses has been a theme of the Festival of York Central discussions. The idea of York Central as a place where there is always exciting and creative things going on was discussed. How to make this happen was debated, the idea of spaces where things could happen was a key idea.
Ecosystem of economic activity (how it works across different scales)
‘We need to grow our own talent. Grow our own base’.
‘York is a relatively small city, we’re not about to become Manchester. We need to stay the right size city, which needs the right grain of development and link up with other cities of a similar size’.
‘Do we need to attract a couple of big employers?’
There was a lot of discussion about the wider economic ecosystem for York. The issue with the middle band of business was not simply seen as being about space but that there just isn’t the economic activity to sustain businesses once they get beyond start-ups. This was noted not just as a York issue but is region-wide issue. ‘Economic growth in York needs to “ripple out”’.
‘York Central needs to bring something to the broader table’. It was suggested that we need big economic drivers in York to create demand for smaller services. Ideally companies which make stuff and have big supply chains. We also need co-dependent businesses.
‘Media City in Salford has lifted the whole region but took time and required big investment’.
Generations and Class: York’s young people, keeping the city’s graduates and older people retiring to York
‘Young people feel York is for tourism and students’
‘I said to someone under 30 you need to be involved in York Central – this is the future of city – and there was this blankness’
‘You look at those pictures and you can’t place yourself there’.
‘People under 30 don’t believe they’ll ever buy a house or have a pension – so York Central feels very much like it is for someone else, someone older and more affluent’
We discussed the issue of how York can keep its graduates. This is seen as crucial to growing York’s own talent. It was seen as intimately connected to housing costs, graduates can’t afford to take risks because housing costs are so high. Graduates have to work so many hours to cover living costs, so there is a greater hurdle to jump in terms of getting starts ups happening.
But there is also an issue for York’s young people who do not go to University. How do we create pathways from school and college. ‘We need to have a layering of the skills base – how do we develop this?
It was noted that there is a trend of people wanting to retire to York. As is often noted in UK-wide policy debate, the ‘baby boomer’ retirees can be comparatively wealthy and capital rich. This trend to retire to York is one dimension driving York’s housing costs and making it harder for young people from York and graduates to stay. As a positive response to this, we discuss what a ‘circular economy’ – cross-generation – might look like. This could include learning from each other – (this brought to mind Ivan Illich’s classic Deschooling Society) – sharing skills across generations and making the most of the professional skills and networks of York’s new retirees. It also linked to ideas emerging from the Forever Affordable event about co-operative, mutual approaches to development, where funds for community-led development are raised though a community shares issues (see Headingly Development Trust for an example). This could also be a way of asking those that benefit from the tourist economy to give back to create facilities and housing for local communities (second homes owners / holiday home owners / big hotels).
Making the most of what is already going on
‘York doesn’t celebrate these things’
‘York Science park needs to be part of the city’.
There was a feeling that so much amazing work is going on in York but York doesn’t shout enough about it. ‘The Universities tend to keep stuff to themselves’. Church Fenton was given as an example – ‘can we create a York post-production hub? ‘Or a centre for the interpretative arts – how good would that be?”.
The York Psyche! How to ‘break the spell’
‘York needs to pull its socks up a bit’
‘York has somehow got to sell itself, it has to be audacious’.
‘Sometimes feel like we ned permission for things to happen in this city’
‘Can we make a bold move in one area to “break the spell” – medical robotics?’
‘York’s reputation has allowed muddy thinking to persist’.
Throughout the conversation comments like this were made… with the positive flipside being some of the ideas around the idea of a development trust and ‘making it happen ourselves’.
Narratives for York Central
It was felt that narratives for York Central were needed. Could local businesses be involved in developing York Central. For example, like the example give at the Forever Affordable event, could a factory be onside to build the buildings (e.g. passivhaus). Then ‘how the site is developed becomes part of the ongoing story of the site’.
Areas to follow up:
How do we get the Universities involved in York Central?
Can we have an experimental Planning Order to enable flexibility of use/activity?
Can we create a development trust for York? Can this make the most of the circular generational economy?
Post its from our Affordable Housing tag asking for an alternative approach to housing – we set up the Forever Affordable event to explore what the alternatives might be.
28th March 2018, National Railway Museum
Without question one of the most common issues raised so far during the My York Central process is that of ‘affordable housing’ and particular what it means and how can York Central avoid further investment, buy-to-let and holiday properties.
As part of our Homes week of the Festival of York Central we invited Sue Bird and James Newton from YorSpace and Jimm Reed from Leeds Community Homes to share the different models that can be used of ensure homes build to be affordable remain affordable.
Sue and James kicked off to introduce YorSpace and their model of governance and investment. Here are the key points and some quotes to give a flavour of their presentations:
Introduction to YorSpace
YorSpace was set up because we genuinely think homes should be forever affordable. We want to create homes that put community inclusion and housing at the heart of housing. We wanted to help ourselves and help others.
Organisational model of YorSpace
YorSpace is a community benefit society and Lowfield Green development will be co-operatively owned. This approach to ownership and decision making is so that:
YorSpace can be for the community and run by the community
Ensure the homes stay long-term affordable
YorSpace will use a co-operative structure to keep these homes affordable
Mutual home ownership, by developing individual neighbourhoods of people, each their own community co-operative. There will be an ‘asset lock’ – which will help keep the homes affordable in perpetuity. In practice this means that the Co-operative owns all the home, but everyone that lives there will own the company. This stops the houses being sold on the open market.
Because we are not-for-profit, we can cut out developer profit. We can build houses more cheaply. Therefore the deposit people need to come up with is less. We then ask for a monthly contribution (to pay off the collective mortgage of the whole co-operative). YorSpace aim for this to be lower than ‘affordable rents’ (as definition 80% market rents).
Communal area / Shared laundry ‘in order to create sense of community’
Car free shared space and lots of shared space in between
15 car parking space for 19 homes
It is developed under One Planet living principles
YorSpace are looking for new members. The homes on Lowfield Green are not yet full and there are looking for people to invest. YorSpace will be offering opportunities to buy shares in the community benefit society – this will be launched in July with a target of £500 000 being raised.
We then opened up to questions from the floor:
Q: Will you only do new build or take on existing buildings?
Yes, we’ll look at old buildings (started by looking at Oliver House, Bishophill), great to reuse buildings and bring them to back to life.
Q: Will £500,000 complete the develop?
The £500,000 when combined with residents’ deposits, will act as the deposit to borrow the remaining money to complete the development.
Q: Who are the people involved and how does it link to the social housing list?
YorSpace is not a social housing provider. We can’t meet the same prices as a Housing Association because we don’t have access the same funding. So we offer ‘affordable’ but not social housing.
Q: Do the members contribute to the capital or more of a co-operative rental model?
All people moving in will need to put down some kind of deposit because we need to borrow the development loan money. We are trying to make that as small as possible, so the more community shares we sell the smaller deposit necessary. We need to find that balance we can be 100% one way or the other, we can’t just give spaces to people who can afford or who can’t afford it, we want a mixed community can stabilize the community.
Q: What has been the community response in Acomb?
While there is always concern about the wider Lowfield Green development (our scheme is part of a much larger redevelopment of the former Lowfield School site, everyone who has heard about what our portion represents has been really positive. When they have spoke to us, they are interested in the approach.
Q: Could this work on York Central?
Yes, we want to replicate this, we’ve learnt so much, we don’t want to do this just once, we want more people that just one development, so this could work for York Central.
We then moved onto introduce Jimm form Leeds Community Homes
Introduction to Leeds Community Homes
Leeds Community Homes set up two years ago as a Community Benefit Society. We are also a Community Land Trust, with the whole of Leeds as our community. Leeds Community Homes are also a “Power to Change” funded community housing regional hub/enabler (as a pathfinder). The aims of the hub is to enable new community led housing, working across Yorkshire.
The hubs will facilitate communities to get together and produce more of this housing.
There will soon be news of a new community housing fund. We’re waiting for the details but are expecting it to be £60m per year for three years directed specifically at community housing. The hubs will be working to get that money out the groups and helping them with the process.
The problem with community housing is that it is very capital poor. If we all came together as a group today we couldn’t necessarily have a lot of money to say buy a site or commit to a building contract, so we’re looking to build our ability as a sector to borrow and raise capital.
We’re working directly with developers, some aren’t that bad, they are sometimes interested in this type of housing.
There is an issue (as raised above with YorSpace in terms of social housing) that most community-led housing is not able to get direct funding for rented housing without being a ‘registered provider ‘of social housing. So Leeds Community Homes are currently developing relations with existing registered providers, like Local Authorities and Housing Associations, as they are in the business of development affordable housing, we are natural allies.
Leeds Community Homes is keen to look for replicability, blueprints and roadmaps for how projects can take place and be delivered. We want to help groups avoid reinventing the wheel. The different factors are:
Legal
Financial
Land
Governance (how to ae decisions)
Procurement
Design
Jimm then talked through a number of different current projects. Few to check out with links:
300 passivhaus panelised timber-framed homes being built in a factory on the site.
Energy CIC, all have renewal energy and solar panel, everyone lives there will be a member of the company, so they will own and manage their own energy supply.
16 affordable homes generating under Section 106 (link), discounted sale and for rent.
Funded that through a community share offer, local people, local co-ops as an investment.
Q: What was in it for the developers?
It’s quite a community-minded developer, Citu, and they are innovative and interested in different approaches to building a housing scheme.
But it also makes the story better for the council, as well as regenerate the area, it is win, win, win all around. Not all developers would go for it.
Q: Have you come across an issues of social houses but can’t find a social landlord to take it on?
A: Housing Associations don’t want to take them because they can’t deal with the service charges and then the danger is that the developer gets away without doing any social housing.
29 co-housing units, common house.
Housing Association partnership building older person flats, self-build flats.
Share communal space, rather than gardens
Controlled parking only 50% flats
Q: Had Chaco been around the a while?
Yes, two or three sites before we were able to move ahead with this one.
LILAC was how I got into community-led housing in 2009 as a project manager for this group. The group had been looking for a site for years and found a council site, but to the council they were not credible purchasers on their own. So the group found me to act as project manager. All homes owned by Lilac co-op and they all together pay off big mortgage they all jointly have.
The build was with this completely brand new straw system. (Modcell)
All houses looking inwards into communal shared space
Community building, office, crèche, social area
Community-led housing is more relevant than ever before. There has obviously been the co-op movement for years, so it is not brand new. But with the impact of Grenfell, localism and neighbour planning, there is more interest than there has ever been. People are taking control of how housing is working. This possibility is enshrined in law through the Custom and Self-Build Act which is a planning requirement for Local Authorities to take into account local people wanting to do their own building.
There is also the new Community Housing Fund (as mentioned above, more here from Homes England).
Q: Is the £60m for loans or grants?
It will be for capital grants.
Q: Why is Leeds different to York?
Difficult to pin it to any one thing. What we are now able to do is to use Lilac as a shining example and now trade on it. That’s helped. Leeds has a of history of co-co-operatives. Local authority has taken the community/ self build thing seriously and has put resource and political capital into supporting organisations like LCH, and schemes like Chaco.
Q: What worries me slightly is the more fundamental question about who is making decisions on York Central. There is always this line everything has ‘to be viable’, we need more transparency about what that means. I am concerned by ‘community-wash. I do want community-led approach but I also want big numbers too. How can we make sure we are looking at the big picture and the kind of community we want?
Q: I want a mixed community on York Central (and I live near by). I want some who works in a restaurant in town, someone who is a nurse and someone who is one teacher, not just people who can afford a market rent.
Q: What do you mean by affordable?
Sue: ‘Community washing’ is something we sometimes worry about. There is an important speed issue. If the process goes too fast then you lose the ability for the community to have impact. Pacing is important. In terms of ‘affordable’, what we usually say is ‘low cost’. James and I are the squeezed middle, we’re young professionals but this town is very expensive. The market has become so skewed.
Q: What we would like to see is low cost and different definitions of ‘affordability’ for different groups, York Central has been too much what are they are going to do for us or really too us …not what can we can do.
Q: Could we develop a locally specific definition of affordability that is tailor to specific people?
James and Jimm responded – and others also contributed in:
% of income – 35% of income
JRF and Shelter, 1/3 – there are different benchmark
Perhaps need to be pegged to household income / bearing in mind the number of dependent children.
Could it be done on household income?
Q: Could we develop pen portraits of people different types of people and what affordable might mean to them. What are your housing challenges?
Sue: We know that there are people who have grown up in an area can’t stay. They are moving to Selby or Market Weighton and then commuting in.
James: Which has the knock on effect of the environment impact of the travel into the city and the contribution to poor air quality.
Q: What is the size of the deposit need. The deposit could still be a big barrier, does your model get over that?
Because we will have to initially cover the loan it will, but as we complete developments we can start borrowing against our assets and then our model starts to become more viable. Lowfield Green is very much a pilot.
Q: Are there any other ways?
Government policy has tended to be focused on help-to-buy and shared ownership, tending toward giving access to the market but not making it cheaper.
Q: Council has a housing company, but it is very small numbers. Can we find out more about that?
Next steps:
York Central community? Initiate a big discussion about what we mean by a community – with the aim of a brief that can then be used to identify the types of housing that might enable that community. We started this in the event, with these thoughts: link
Housing Challenges? Ask people for the issues they are facing to help with the York Central Homes brief.
Follow up the discussion with Homes England so we can understand where the funding and policy levers are.
Find out more about the council housing company.
Explore more different ways of creating community ownership and a stake in decision making.
An image from the Hungate archive, used as part of Housing Histories, Housing Futures workshop.
Housing Histories, Housing Futures: What can we learn from looking back at York’s so called ‘slum clearances’?
Saturday 24 March, 1.30pm-3pm
York Explore Libraries and Archives
The Housing Histories, Housing Futures event in collaboration with York Past and Present and York Explore Libraries and Archives was based on work done in 2015 and 2016 on the histories of housing in York and especially looking at the Hungate inspections and clearances.
We opened with Introduction to York Central. A key focus for York Central is homes, with both the Council and Homes England as members of the York Central Partnership which have a specific policy interest in house building. Throughout the session – as we looked back – we kept returning to this question: what principles can we draw out for how government and communities should work together?
We looked back two key moments in the Hungate clearance. Catherine Sotheran had explored the 1911 Census, revealing a wide diversity of occupations not quite what might be expected from a ‘slum’:
The majority of adults are in work, the most common occupations being in the Chocolate industries, general labouring jobs, laundry and other domestic type jobs, trades like painters, joiners, wheelwrights etc. but also a few more skilled jobs like a hairdresser, midwife, auctioneer, book binder, dressmaker, druggist and antique dealer. There also seemed to be quite a few people involved with fish, either as dealers or fish fryers.
We then went on to look at some examples of health inspections which were used to underpin mandatory improves, leading even to the authorities just making changes and sending a bill through. Even, as Catherine found out, they didn’t know exactly who owned the house in question!
In the 1930s the improvements had led to being clearances as people were moved to new housing in Tang Hall and Clifton. Here were found some personal stories creeping soon, a woman who was forced into an institution, a story found by Sue Hogarth, and as you can read below, a letter from a man who was the last on their street.
‘I am the only one left on the street’ the letter reads.
Reflecting on how we could see the authorities and people interacting – often individuals seemed very much an afterthought in the 1930s – we skipped forward to the 1970s where a different mood was in evidence.
1970s in Layerthorpe. Housing in red, slated to be demolished.
In our 2015 project Carmen Byrne had found a series of correspondence between a woman in street due to be demolished in Layerthorpe, we went back and read parts of her blog written at the time:
One tenant from Eastern Parade wrote to the Public Health Inspector in January 1973 requesting further information as she’d “held back a week’s holiday which must be taken before the end of the financial year”, so she was “naturally anxious to know if we are likely to move in the near future”. The resident’s uncertainty stemmed from having no news since she visited the Inspector’s office around one year earlier and her concern about a series of “cleaning and replacement jobs which must be done if we are going to be here longer”. This would suggest that there was little transparency or communication with the residents during the process, and again reinforces the lack of ongoing investment into properties already resigned to demolition.
Buckingham Street in Bishophill was to be demolished and were saved by the activism of local residents as part of the Bishophill Action Group
We then looked briefly at the Bishophill Action Group and there work to save streets which were planned to be demolished to make way for multistorey car park. This activism evoked quite a different relationship with the local government that was visible earlier, as one member of the Bishophill Action Group group put it in a press article: ‘if the corporation had wanted the street, they could have got it a lot more easily than by calling it a slum. This has put our backs up. We feel they are using underhand methods.’ 20th September 1972
We then ended by reflecting on these histories… what principles can we draw out for how government and communities should work together?
Changing expectations of involvement
We noted that in the two major cases of 1911s and 1930s and the the 1970s, that between this period people clearly had come to expect to have more control over their lives.
A post it note from the event
Problem of jargon – and the need for shared language
This lead to a lot of discussion about how to build shared language and respect the expertise that comes from living somewhere, not just professional experitise/
Community is fundamental not just brick and mortar: ‘They treated housing like a problem to be fixed and ignored the problems they created in terms of lack of community’
An interesting insight from the discussion was the way on which the authorities treated housing as a problem that need simply to be fixed with improvements or new housing. This had the effect of ignoring all the other aspects of ‘home’, ‘belonging’ and ‘community’.
Need for government intervention in the market, but with involvement of those affected
There was however a strong feeling that govenrment is not in itself bad – nd that we needed interveiton from the public bodies involed in York Central. But with greater involvement from local people.
Community involvement in designing and building?
This lead to a discussion about how communities could be actively invovled in design and build of housing.
Slum then, affordable now?
We concluded with a very interesting discussion – building on the discussion above about language. It would be rare to hear the word slum now – it is considered a negative and pejorative word as the Bishophill Action Group pointed out above. Yet, it was asked, is is possible that affordable does similar work today in that it categorising certain groups and seperating them off from others?
Post it notes on Homes contributed at the York Central Exhibition
During Week 2 of the Festival of York Central we have focussed on the nature of home and the experience of living on a future York Central, looking at the kind of homes and indeed the kind of community that people want to see.
In addition, tagging of comments from previous events has allowed us to put responses from the week’s events in a broader context of overall comments and questions.
Here are the main issues and comments:-
An overall theme is emerging. This is to say a broadly cautious ‘yes’ to high density housing and commercial uses. But, and it is a big but, a form of ‘social contract’ needs to be set up with the people of York. To put it another way, there is a deal to be negotiated here. One that accepts higher density housing on the condition York Central deals with affordability, builds a mixed and diverse community, is high quality for all and makes the benefits of density really work for future residents. Here are the key briefing ideas.
Affordable – and Forever Affordable
The vast majority of the post it notes contributed at the exhibition relating to homes make this point: they need to be affordable, affordable needs mean actually affordable (not only the policy definition 80% market cost) and they need to not just be affordable to start off with but perpetually. This may well require, as discussed at the Forever Affordable event, a locally specific definition of affordable linked to earnings not the market. Many questioned 20% as a minimum and sought a higher percentage.
The growing ‘community’ tag in our Flickr album.
Community – what is it and how to make it work?
‘Home’ doesn’t end at the front door. There was a desire for home to mean the wider community too. We started to describe what we mean by community, prompted by the discussion with Helen Fielding, Homes England, at the Forever Affordable event and continued the line of discussion through the events. A mixed community was often welcomed – though some warning bells were sounded by others. More work on this is needed (further meetings and discussions are to be held at Derwenthorpe where 40% is affordable, amongst others).
Family homes, Inclusive and lifetime homes
There was a recognition that we too often tend to think of ‘family homes’ as a house with a yard or garden and that maybe we need to look more closely at what makes for good apartment living for families. There are examples of multi-storey family homes in London and elsewhere in the UK (plus a lot more in mainland Europe) so feedback will be sought. Similarly there was an interest that as many as possible of the homes work for disabled people and can be designed as lifetime homes.
Height+Quality (Or, how to encourage downsizers) ‘It can be high, but it needs to be great’
While there is some concern about height and what the proposed total housing number and density might mean, there is a very strong feeling that height can be ok if it is very high quality. That is, the flat is of a good size with high ceilings, is well insulated for noise between flats and has good sized balconies. Good apartment living also requires very serious maintenance and ongoing investment, this would need to be considered in service charges and how this works for the affordable housing would need to be seriously explored. One possible line of inquiry is that very good quality flats might well encourage downsizers and free up family-sized homes elsewhere – but that the quality is key (more on how to achieve this below).
Density+Benefits: Work the social contract
‘We don’t want it to be ghost town like Hungate. If it’s going to be dense, it needs to be alive’
Through the exploration of density, it became clear that a ‘social contract’ issue might be to really make the benefits of high density living clear and real. High density should for example mean: good local shops nearby and walkable; excellent public transport network (such as a tram or similar permanent and reliable system); close to gyms, childcare, schools and other community facilities. The most popular alternative name for York Central so far is ‘New York’: if we’re going to have high densities how do we really ensure the benefits of living in urban areas?
Mixed Uses ‘We need to stop looking at plans and think 3D’
Many have questioned the need to zone commercial development away from housing and have asked whether a vibrant urban area needs mixed uses. One quote was to ‘think 3D’ – suggesting there might be benefits in having shops, social and commercial at ground level, offices at first floor and flats above to avoid the ‘ghost town’ effect and drive life in the public realm.
High environmental standards…for all
There have been many comments supporting “highest possible” environmental standards. Going beyond current Building Regulation minimum standards would allow higher standards of comfort (see “it can be high, but it needs to be great” above), higher standards of sound separation from the surrounding railways (triple-glazed windows and mechanical ventilation reducing the need to open windows) and would reduce the likelihood of fuel poverty for those on low incomes. Costs would be raised slightly to cover this investment, but with land ownership being with public bodies, this is seen as a rare opportunity, and would also create a distinctive image for the development.
Make use of roofs
Gardens don’t have to be on the ground – reflecting also the Open Spaces work we did last week, people thought access to roofs, for gardens, for solar panels, made sense. And took advantage of the height for good views.
How to make this happen – the next steps:
• Policy, governance and funding levers: Alongside developing this initial open brief, we were able to start to explore some of the policy, governance and funding possibilities to make this happen. We will be following up with Homes England on affordable and community-led housing, and developing discussion on what is true affordability. The case for a Community Land Trust has also been voiced – where public elements of the proposal, including public realm, community facilities and potentially affordable housing, could be invested into a Community Land Trust, protecting ownership and status.
• Evoking ‘community’: Drawing on discussion started this week, we’ll start developing an open brief for a vibrant York Central community.
• Understanding the housing challenges: Based on an idea that emerged at the Forever Affordable event, we’ll be seeking people who have stories to share about their housing challenges and how York Central might offer an answer.
• Co-design? Clearly there is an argument that to get quality – and to really attract families, disabled people or downsizers for example – the housing could be usefully co-designed. We’ll be looking for people interested in exploring this idea further.
A not especially bright and sunny March day at Derwenthorpe
29th March 2018 Derwenthorpe is a new area of housing between Tang Hall and Osbaldwick which has been developed by the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust. It describes itself as ‘attractive, affordable, eco-friendly family homes in a digitally inclusive, mixed-tenure community’. In other words, in terms of new developments in York and when considering the Rowntree legacy in terms of housing standards generally – Derwenthorpe is an example worth paying attention to in the context of homes on York Central.
Through contacting the Residents Association, we met eight residents, who showed us around, reflected on living there and were even kind enough to invite us in to their homes to see the development from the inside out.
‘A value based on other than the commercial’: motivations for moving to Derwenthorpe
The sense of community was felt to be a major reason to live there, although it has grown slowly (partly to do with the phasing and slow completion of the scheme). It was said that “People care about the place more that they would about a normal street” “People generally care – although not always about the same things”. There is a community room (in the central building which also houses the district heating boilers) but this was felt inadequate. There is a proposal for a community café but this would require the building to be extended.
The fact it was JRHT was significant for many of the people we spoke to: ‘someone we trust’, JHRT are known for ‘good thinking in terms of social issues’ and because they have ‘A value based other than the commercial’.
Many of the houses have external painted brickwork which will need upkeep to maintain appearance – this is written into covenant but is yet to be really tested.
Density is fairly high and there is overlooking, particularly from the three-storey dwellings but no-one mentioned this as problematic – “I wave to the neighbours across there if I see them”. One or two houses ended up with poor outlook (onto parking areas) but this will possibly be improved as planting matures. Views onto green space are much loved, especially where from winter gardens / balconies.
Mixed Tenure
Resident we spoke to liked the social mix and there was no resentment about home ownership being surrounded by rented/social housing. People knew and got on with neighbours from different social backgrounds and a number named this as one of the best features of the development. House size is no indicator of tenure – a number of the large 4/5 bedroom houses are rented.
Heating and Insulation
There are problems with the district heating scheme and with Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) installations (this was reduced to extract-only Mechanical Extract on later phases – “I’ve got a loft but I can’t use it as it’s so full of ductwork”). There is a retired engineer living in the scheme and he seems to be sorting it all out single-handedly. But the MVHR is good where it works – occupant with respiratory problems finds it a big improvement.
Insulation standards and general quality of construction has reduced towards later phases. One resident said “On York Central make sure you maintain quality”. There was horror at the general arrangements on site; the impression was that there were new subcontractors constantly coming in and no learning of lessons from previous completions.
Houses were generally felt to be comfortable.
Main plus points:-
1. Generous space standards with good size rooms and plenty of storage space.
2. Lifetime homes design to allow for installation of stairlift or lift, conversion of WC to wet room, enough space in bathroom to move around etc.
3. High ceilings give very light, airy feel. One residents described the houses as having ‘ a Scandinavian feel’
4. Winter garden feature in some houses gives good daylight and connection with outside while maintaining privacy
5. Houses have small extra room for study
6. They are easy to keep warm and are draught-free. Energy bills suggested as around £500-£600/yr
Transport:
The bus service has not been as promised – “we were promised a half-hourly electric bus, we’ve got an hourly diesel bus” and serves Tang Hall too. Majority of households have a car and many have more than one, which results in higher density of parking than was originally designed for. There is a car club car available (Enterprise CC) but no-one seemed to know if it was ever used (I just checked – it’s got no bookings for the next week). People said residents were “encouraged” to cycle – they received a £150 grant towards a bike when they move in and houses had a “secure” cycle shed (although many people had removed/replaced these as they were very bulky and not particularly secure).
Public Spaces
One resident commented that “errands take ages because you always meet people you know”, although the streets were quiet when we visited (it was cold, though). The small public squares were little-used, although the larger open spaces were very popular. The green space and play area was completed at the start of the development, rather than being left until last.
The two ponds are used for Sustainable Urbans Drainage System (SUDS) and the most open of them has shallow planted margins to make it safe even with children around. The second is fenced off due to greater variation in water level. The system is so effective that water was pumped into it from Osbaldwick village during flooding recently. The green space has managed to retain some existing tree planting and hedging.
All residents pay a service charge based on size of house. JRHT are quite transparent in terms of how the service charge is being used – it pays for a Site Manager and will ultimate cover maintenance of the public space (while the building is still ongoing these public areas ae maintained by David Wilson Homes, the builders). Although the spaces are managed in a public way there is some community “ownership” – one resident has guerrilla-planted daffodils. There have been some issues with community self-organisation – for example, BBQs are not allowed.
Links with Tang Hall/Osbladwick
There was some tension with surrounded area – a sense that the development was not wanted – but this has been getting less and less. As one noted, ‘it had been known from the 60s this piece of land would be built on’. One idea we explored – based on ideas from last week’s public space discussions – was building facilities on the outside (rather than the inside) as a way of helping with links to Osbaldwick/Tang Hall.
