Andy D'Agorne

Flashback to 2004: Sacrifice on altar of urban development

For the residents account of this dubious incident see http://www.fulfordfriends.co.uk/articles/4/the-felling-of-two-beautiful-copper-beech-trees

This week saw the climax of four years of campaigning to protect parkland between Fulford and the City of York. The RMBI (care home for retired Masons) want to develop the site to provide a modern care home and build a new access road and housing to raise the funds. Nearly four years ago, independent of the planning application, two grand beech trees were felled as being 'dangerous', sparking protests and a long running opposition to the planned development (See link to 'Fulford Friends' website).

Although not reported in the press, I was one of the objectors who spoke at the public inquiry and the text of my presentation is given below. As the application was refused, the council we represented 'on the same side' as the protesters ( a novel experience!!) but sadly everyone including council officers was embarrassed at the barrister that the council had employed - asking inappropriate questions and singularly failing to challenge on key aspects of the case. He even managed to get off to a bad start to the inquiry by suggesting his practice was to stand when asking questions (when the inspector advised him that the code of practice was clear that he should remain seated when questioning witnesses)

Response from Councillor Andy D'Agorne,

Green Party Councillor Fishergate Ward

 Fishergate ward has its boundary along the line of St Oswalds Rd, so I represent residents living on the North side and on Fulford Rd directly opposite the Sir John Hunt Homes down to almost opposite the Eastern boundary of the site.  My qualifications include BA Hon Geography and member the Local Development Framework Working Group and of City of York Planning committee, although not a member sitting on the day this was determined on account of my having a prejudicial interest through public support for the residents opposition to this application. My evidence relates primarily to the question of impact on historic landscape, open space (as defined in the emerging LDF policy) and impact on the Conservation Areas and draft Green Belt.

I have been involved with response to the applications from the outset, being first elected as councillor in May 2003. In September of 2004 I supported residents in their hard fought attempts to prevent the destruction of two mature beech trees on the site. While there removal was eventually approved by the authority following further tests advised by the applicant's representative Mr Caruthers to evidence their possible instability, this was strongly opposed by local residents and myself to the point of direct action on Sept 28^th 2004  with people willing to risk arrest to attempt to save the 150 year old parkland trees.

Once the trees were felled, there was in fact very little evidence of decay. I cite this to underline our scepticism of authoritative arboricultural reports and statements by the RMBI on the need to remove more mature trees such as the Walnut tree that was referred to in relation to the revised plan for the emergency access route. I refer to this experience to emphasis to the inquiry the strength of local feeling about the importance of this parkland and the role it plays in setting the context for the landscape and Conservation areas.

Moving on to look at the Planning context, I would firstly like to stress that PPG2 states that ‘visual amenities should not injured by proposals for development conspicuous from the Green Belt' ( P29 of committee report) The authority does have a draft Green belt (map dated Mar 2008) that was accepted as being relevant in the city the Secretary of State's ruling on the Germany Beck Inquiry. If anything, approval for that development due to ‘very special circumstances' makes this natural separation of Fulford from the main urban area even more significant in planning terms. I hope that the Inspector will be able to visit the Ings area to appreciate the prominent location of this site in relation to the adjacent green belt /SSSI land and the role it plays for those on the river or riverside path in providing a natural break maintaining the historic separation of Fulford from York. In this respect the Green Party did not accept the officers view in the committee report at 4.3.4. and said as such in our submission to the committee. We stressed that the existing buildings along this line are mostly screened by mature trees and thus have far less impact on the Green Belt than the proposed development. This was in part acknowledged by the planning officer in para 4.3.3 "The site does however have significant visual amenity value ....providing a green edge to Fulford from the Ings."and later " It is important that such characteristics are reasonably maintained as part of any development of the site."

In the context of the impact of the development on St Oswald's Rd, as stated (page 30 of committee report) PPG15 states the desirability of preserving or enhancing a conservation area when considering proposals outside a conservation area that affect its setting or views in or out of the conservation area. While the area near the entrance to Connaught Court will be screened by the retention of trees, the new care home will have a significant impact on the outlook from the ‘Fulford Rd Conservation area', changing it from one with very much a rural fringe to one where the single storey Alms Houses in a parkland setting are overshadowed by a modern two storey building. Again I hope you will be able to appreciate this concern on the site visit.

Moving to the impact on the Fulford Conservation area, and its proposed northerly extension to take in the Sir John Hunt Homes, this extension is something that we have been pressing for for five years, frustrated only by the lack of staffing to carry out the work. While only at the consultation stage, I would urge that some weight be given to the independent character appraisal of the area: Para 5.9 of this document states that ‘20^th century development within the park has left still left significant large areas of open space, including some fine mature trees and a margin of parkland between Main St and the Fulford Ings which helps to preserve the distinction between Fulford Village and the city suburbs and the open space that encircles the settlement. Para 5.11 states that the present Connaught Court while modern, is ‘spaciously planned and well landscaped such that it does not destroy the general appearance of being within the park.'  It is my contention that the siting and scale of the new care home combined with the new access road and parking areas near the proposed bowling green will destroy that appearance.

In terms of the issue of the appearance of the site from the conservation area covering Fulford Rd and the Fulford church the continuous wall and parkland behind can be seen particularly by pedestrians, cyclists and bus users, as well as by those attending weddings, baptisms and funerals at the church opposite. This creates a significant sense of a parkland setting, despite the intervening road. The insertion of the access road will not only visually pollute the current vista from the conservation area, it will also create displacement parking further away and probably into the site on the new roadway when such ceremonies are taking place, creating a much more urban feel to the whole area.

Finally I would like to address the question of ‘open space'. The emerging policy as part of the LDF for the city, taking over from the Local Development Plan adopted for development control purposes by the city in 2005.In response to PPG17 the city commissioned an independent study of open space including extensive public consultation. ‘Parks and gardens were perceived as particularly important to local residents' I wont go into the detailed findings, but I would like to draw particular attention to Section 12 of the study published by the council in Dec 2007 (copy provided) para12.10 which relates well to the application site and the question of pubic access: ‘The significance and value of areas of green and open space across the city extends well beyond that of merely providing an accessible recreational and amenity resource to inhabitants. In particular large areas of green space can have a collective contribution to make defining the character of the local environment. ...Their strategic contribution can include: contributing to defining the local landscape character, helping to achieve a soft interface between urban and rural environments, supporting habitats and local wildlife.

While the planning context for the city is obviously in transition, I would suggest that whether you rely on PPG national policy, the old Local Plan or emerging LDF policy documents and the draft extension to the conservation areas, the proposed development is unacceptable in planning terms and hugely detrimental to the Historic character of Fulford and the City of York. 

Presented to public enquiry 25th Jun 2008