of the Castle Area Campaign
can I do to stop Shoppergate?
Castle Area Campaign
massacre of Jews in 1190
ideas for Coppergate
of Clifford's Tower
City of York Council report
in York is guilty?
against Coppergate II
in January 2001, an anonymous tip-off to the Press alleged malpractice
in the City of York Council relating to the Coppergate II proposal. Specifically,
that the Planning Committee had been shielded from a report which was
critical of Land Securities' proposal to build on the land next to Clifford's
credit, the Council launched an internal investigation and have produced
the report which Council Members never got to see as part of the decision-making
process. However, attempts made to justify the suppression of the document
now make the issue seem more embarrassing for the Council. We would invite
you to read it for yourself to see if you can reconcile its content with
the Assistant Director's report to the Planning Committee:-
the full report here.
Read below some of
the observations of the Conservation Architect and the way in which they
are contradicted or ignored by her boss in his report to the Planning
Committee. How can Councillors make the right decision if their senior
officers are hiding the facts from them?
Architect's Report (withheld from Committee).
Director's Report to Committee.
10 is unhappily juxtaposed with the female prison. The 'jump' forward
of the building line does not respect the public importance of this
building and it obliterates its existence on approach from Castlegate.
The original intention of creating enclosure for this building grouping
(Esher 1968) is not achieved."
do not agree that the buildings should be set back so as to achieve
a complete view of the Women's Prison from the current end of Castlegate.
Indeed, officers would concur with the Developer's Architect's opinion
and the principles in the Esher Report that the buildings proposed
begin to create a fourth side to the Eye of York square, thus enclosing
the space and benefiting the setting of this group of buildings."
increase in height of the residential component of the longer building
on Castlegate makes the building look top heavy. This quality is
exaggerated by the overhang which is too pronounced."
The Castlegate elevations are ponderous and too big in scale over
their entire length. "
proposed development, in its revised form, does affect the setting
of the nearby listed buildings but not adversely in officers' opinions.
By amending the datelined elevations and reducing the height and bulk
of the roof treatment the revised scheme is no longer considered to
have an adverse impact on the setting of these buildings around the
Eye of York."
location of service bays in front of Clifford's Tower in unfortunate.
However the amplification of their significance by the introduction
of a public space here is highly inappropriate and possible dangerous.
The design of this space detracts from the strength of the form of
the extended base of the mound."
development is considered appropriate to its location in respect of
Clifford's Tower and the Eye of York in terms of its scale, proportions,
height, overall design and materials. The provision of an area of
open space at the base of Clifford's Tower will improve the setting
of Clifford's Tower."