Sixteen sites - 15 chosen to be dismissed

One problem the University faced when it decided to push forward its Heslington East plan was that current planning advice to councils demands that they must only allow academic development on Greenbelt land if there is no alternative.

The University’s Outline Planning application presented a 60 page document on the alternatives. Sixteen sites were appraised. However, that document is a transparent attempt to substitute quantity for quality.

The great majority of the alternative sites were never going to make a short list and should have been dismissed within minutes. Rufforth? Strensall? Tadcaster? Selby? Church Fenton? Naburn Hospital? These sites, and indeed the great majority of the 16 were clearly straw men, chosen simply to give the exercise a feeling of thoroughness.

Even one of the three finalists, Elvington, could hardly have been a serious candidate with its poor transport links. York Central was dismissed, for among other things, that building a new campus there would split the campus. Well if that was to be the crucial criterion then 14 of the 16 sites could be excluded immediately.

 

Church Fenton Airfield

Rufforth

Strensall

Selby

Tadcaster

Naburn Hospital

York Central

Imphal Barracks

Heslington East

Distributed sites around York

Poppleton Business Park

 

The in-depth analysis that was lacking

Was the need for a single site for expansion really convincing? Throughout the documents submitted by the University for Outline Planning Permission, rather little attention was given to possibility that academic expansion could occur by using several sites around York. Apparently several small sites around York were identified but because they were small they were dismissed. Of course this is understandable if one recognises that the University needed a large site, not only sufficient for its own academic needs but also large enough to attract a commercial developer. If one takes the three major parts of the proposed “campus” and considers them independently, it becomes clear that they could be located independently on small sites around York. Indeed such dispersal would have some advantages. But because the University had become focussed on the “one big commercial site” solution, there was no incentive to complete an in-depth analysis.

Student Housing - appropriate use for farmland

A few questions and a few answers:

  • Would we build houses on farmland near Heslington? Of course not, so why is student housing different?
  • Do all students need to live on campus? Of course not. Many walk, cycle or take public transport from all over York? Why would it be a problem if some more student housing were built on sites elsewhere? A recent survey of student opinions of housing, a survey kept rather quiet by the University, revealed that students quite like living off campus!
  • Given it is likely that the proposed student residences will be commercially financed, why did the city allow such commercial residential development on greenbelt?

Academic Buildings

A few questions and a few answers:

  • What is the evidence that the current campus could not house the planned academic development? The University chose to build offices for rent at the centre of the current campus, why did it not have the foresight to keep its current campus for academic activity?
  • Several people have pointed out that there are many single storey Clasp buildings on campus that will have to be replaced soon. Why not replace them with 3 storey buildings hence develop a compact single campus?
  • It is stated that the current building footprint on the existing campus could not be exceeded because that limit had been set by the Council planners. Was the possibility of changing that limit discussed fully? Why could that limit not be changed?

Commercial Science City York accommodation

A few questions and a few answers:

  • Why is the University building more commercial offices when it has not even managed to fill its Science Park with genuinely academically related activities? In a recent interview for the student newspaper a spokesperson for the Science Park admitted that there was little demand for space in the Science Park coming from York University spin-out companies. The University’s need for Science City York space in the Heslington East project is a financial decision and not an academic one. Attracting a commercial developer requires some potential rental income and Science City York provides that opportunity hence the University can get a developer to fund the basic infrastructure on the site.
  • Well maybe the University does not have a good case for Science City York offices but the city does need jobs. A not unreasonable argument? Yes but there are other places where one could put the Science City York offices - like the now available Terry’s site. Of course that site was not available when the University was making its plans but it is not too late to change but surely the University and the York City Council are not so inflexible in their thinking? In 2006 alone, further brownfield sites have become available at the old Rowntrees factory ( Nestle are reducing their activities and selling about half the site), the British Sugar Factory (to close soon) and possibly the North Yorkshire Police site adjacent to the University!
  • There is not enough office accommodation planned for York’s expanding Science City companies? Not true because some commercial developers have moved into this market. For example a large development is underway at Monk’s Cross. There is even a planned development directly aimed at spin-offs from the University at Manor Farm in Old Malton (York Evening Press, March 8th 2006).
[The problem] [A failed planning system] [The Inquiry] [Lets find a compromise] [Sustainable?] [The alternatives] [Traffic concerns] [Local resident's concerns] [Contacts] [Press articles] [Latest News] [Improving a bad scheme] [Science City York]