The swimming facilities are about 25 years old and the sports hall and auditorium
were built 16 years ago. All facilities were well loved by the people who
used them. Many local sports clubs and schools used York Barbican Centre,
as did many individuals who wished to keep fit.
The
auditorium is York's largest concert hall with a capacity of 1,500. It hosted
many famous entertainers and musicians and was home to York's excellent Guildhall
Orchestra. The noble British Legion also held the yearly remembrance service
there and the UK Snooker Championship is held there.
York Barbican sporting and recreational facilities were set in a city centre
residential area. Residents who live locally are not of high income and local
citizens depended on the Barbican for swimming and exercise programmes to
keep healthy.
As in common with a lot of inner city areas, there is a distinct lack of
facilities generally, especially for teenagers.
If the proposed development goes ahead there will be less!
York Barbican participated in the NHS 'Exercise by Prescription' scheme,
and thus many people with failing health were able to use the facilities.
Many people needed the Barbican programmes to combat severe health problems.
Disabled swimmers were welcomed at the Barbican, with special sessions timetabled
exclusively for them. Disabled people also made use of other sporting and
leisure sessions.
Special programmes were held for elderly people, and there was an exercise
club specifically for the over-50s.
Children, many from lower-income families, were also catered for and local
schools had specially-designated sessions with tuition.
York is a small city with the two rivers, Ouse and Foss, meeting in the city
centre close to the site of York Barbican. York is low-lying with many ponds,
lakes and a severe flooding problem and so it is vital that every child learns
to swim.
Special rates were available for unemployed and disadvantaged persons; low-income
groups were welcome at York Barbican. The Barbican was also very popular with
students of the University of York and the new University of York St John.
Crèche facilities and children's play clubs were available and the
bowling club was very popular.
The Barbican was, and could be again, a truly excellent asset to the citizens
who actually are the owners. It will be lost for ever if the developers and
Council have their way.
The argument for change
The Barbican as we knew and loved it, is being destroyed so that a developer
and nightclub/casino operator can make millions, and so that the Council can
cover its financial embarrassment. Buildings don't lose money, bad management
does.
York Barbican Centre, when run by the City of York Council, consistently
made large financial losses year upon year.
The amount of local taxpayers subsidy required was in excess of £500,000pa.
The case for action on this is irrefutable.
Many council tax payers could not understand why private management companies
were not brought in years ago and one school of thought is that senior Council
officers opposed this because, if private management succeeded, the council
managers would be shown to be inefficient. Whatever the truth, the City of
York Council, in the year 2000, chose to place the Barbican site and the two
other Council owned and operated swimming pools, Yearsley Grove and Edmund
Wilson, on the market as a "major leisure opportunity".
In particular the Council described the Barbican as offering "the potential
for substantial development".
It should be noted that all three pools had suffered years of neglect and
needed substantial investment and repair.
Not surprisingly, there was no suitable interest and in 2001 the Council
decided to market the Barbican site alone, with the intention of raising enough
money to repair or rebuild the Barbican swimming facility and refurbish the
two other pools in York - Yearsley and Edmund Wilson.
This produced a number of bids including, we believe, one of over £12
million, which was not considered as meeting "Council requirements".
During the selection process, some bidders were rejected and others dropped
out. This left one firm which became the "preferred bidder".
Barbican Venture York Ltd and "Consultation".
The firm to emerge as the preferred bidder was "Barbican Venture York
Ltd ".
In Feb/March 2003 the Council circulated a consultation questionnaire, on
the Barbican Venture proposals.
However, the nearest residents to the Barbican did not receive copies of
this consultation document, which was so important to the area and their quality
of life.
This undoubtedly sowed the first seeds of distrust, especially when York
Council spokespeople denied that there had been a problem.
Later we were able to prove the facts - we carried out our own survey and
talked to local residents. We found that the occupants of the streets nearest
to the site (and therefore the ones most likely to be affected) were not consulted.
Of the 93 residents who were at home when we called, 90 signed statements
confirming they had not received the consultation document.
The City of York Council maintains that they carried out a "city wide"
survey. However, investigation shows they only received 2,726 replies in a
city of 181,000 people. This further suggested to us that the consultation
was anything but adequate.
When informed of the lack of consultation with the residents who lived close
to the site, Charlie Croft [Assistant Director Life Long Learning and Leisure]
was quoted as saying "there had been a problem with distribution".
He went on to say that this had been dealt with at the time. Charlie Croft's
statement enraged local opinion, as locals knew it was inaccurate and to them,
it belied an emerging pattern of misleading statement, propaganda and spin.
In order to understand the various proposals and plans which followed, it
is necessary to understand that two separate and distinct developments are
proposed.
Early redevelopment proposals for York Barbican
In
order to understand this I find it useful to use the descriptive terms coined
by the excellent staff that used to work at the Barbican, (as opposed to some
of the not very good Senior Managers who occasionally told them what to do!)
The 25-year-old swimming pools and ancillary buildings were referred to as
"wet side" and the rest of the buildings on the site, known as the
Barbican Centre, was described as the "dry side".
The Barbican Centre "dry side" buildings are 16 years old and constructed,
at 1989 prices, for approximately £15 million.
Barbican Venture's 2002/03 scheme was concerned with developing the "wet
side" of the buildings, together with the car park, bowling green and
the ancillary land and gardens. Some development activity also seemed to be
planned for the adjacent Kent Street car and coach parks.
Barbican Venture proposed to build and sell 158 apartments, on three floors,
together with two small hotels.
In exchange for the land, Barbican Venture would provide £3 million
capital to the Council and construct a new 8 lane "County Standard"
pool and a training pool on the adjacent Kent Street coach park as a replacement
for the three Barbican pools.
As large schemes go this did not seem too bad to some people, especially
as the £3m was promised for the refurbishment of both the Yearsley Grove
and Edmund Wilson Pools, which like the Barbican's swimming facilities, had
suffered greatly due to the City of York Council's neglect.
Of major concern to others was the proposed loss of the rest of the Barbican's
sporting facilities.
Swimming, hopefully, would only be lost for 2 or 3 years whilst the new pool
was built. However, it was disturbing that no adequate replacement for the
other sports facilities was proposed.
Many people who lived close to the site were suspicious but most could see
that some good might emerge if promises were kept.
Unfortunately, it has turned out that keeping promises is not the City of
York Council's speciality.
Alarm bells
Alarm bells really started ringing when the consultation announced that the
16 year old, pristine, "dry side" buildings would be:
"PRIVATELY RUN BY AN ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY"
and that there would be:
"A £2.5M REVAMP OF THE BARBICAN AUDITORIUM WITH A CASINO AT THE
BACK" (Meaning the whole of the building including sports hall &
associated rooms)
A "REVAMP"?
(What kind of revamp? and what for?)
Absolute Leisure Ltd
People soon began to realise the "what for" when it became apparent
that the "Private Entertainment Company" was Absolute Leisure Ltd
of Gateshead & Newcastle.
In May 2003 a new Council was elected, and the Council's ever changing Barbican
master-plan took another twist.
Following the surprise election result and concerning the "dry side"
buildings, it soon emerged that Absolute Leisure intended to apply for a massive
extension to the Licensed Area and Licenses for the sale of alcohol until
2am and later.
This was to include the whole of the newer "dry side" buildings
with a new, very large glass atrium drinking area to the front of the main
building and licensed "terraces" on the flat roof area. The proposed
new drinking areas would have a capacity in the thousands.
Attempts to find out the proposed capacity at various Licensing hearings
have proved fruitless. Absolute Leisure seems unwilling divulge its intentions.
Worse still the Council, as Licensing Authority, the Police and the Fire Service
seemed disinterested. People who live close to the site are very upset at
this, not surprisingly as some correspondence from the Police, in answer to
SOB enquiries, appears uncaring and dismissive. There was much concern expressed
in the local press and elsewhere. In response to this very public criticism
of the Absolute Leisure proposals, Steve Galloway, the new leader of the Council,
stated that he had confidence in the proposed operator and was quoted in the
Press as saying "You have got to consider Absolute Leisure's track record".
I
am not sure who carried out Councillor Galloway's research but my enquiries
soon showed that this company was involved in running many night spots in
the north of England, including the notorious floating night club on the River
Tyne.
Absolute Leisure has been much criticised for encouraging "binge drinking"
among young people with promotions such as "all you can drink for £10"
etc.
Absolute Leisure also runs "Lap Dancing" clubs and, in 2005, the
Northumbria Police applied to the Newcastle Magistrates' Court in an attempt
to have some Licences revoked.
The Police had various concerns but seemed to be most worried about alcohol-provoked
disturbance.
Absolute Leisure's drinks promotions had been heavily criticised for causing
drink-fuelled violence.
It was even suggested in the Newcastle Press that Absolute Leisure's binge
drinking promotions had contributed to the tragic deaths of two young men
in separate incidents.
An application was later made and passed, we believe disgracefully, by the
City of York Council, giving Absolute Leisure as proposed operators of the
"dry side" Barbican buildings, every conceivable licence under the
new Licensing Act to include extended hours until 2am for the whole of the
massive building, with even later extensions on some dates.
Local people do not take kindly at losing their leisure centre to what one
dear soul described as "a bunch of lap dancing Geordie booze peddlers".
The
lease offered to Absolute Leisure
Some time later, concern turned to astonishment when the writer of this history
was able to ascertain the terms of the lease offered by the new Council to
Absolute Leisure.
The "dry side" buildings were built approximately 16 years ago
and cost £15 million at 1989 prices. They are in pristine condition.
The City of York Council has offered Absolute Leisure a 250-year "renewable"
lease for a one time payment of £750,000 WITH NO RENT PAYABLE THEREAFTER!
This equates to about £50 a week, at 2004 prices, for the first 250
years!!!!
SOB believes that this is a diabolical scandal. It is an outrage on the taxpayers
of York and the people responsible should one day be brought to account for
it.
SOB has complained to the District Auditor about these terms under the Freedom
of Information Act. We have also requested copies of correspondence between
the Council and the Auditor's Office.
I have been told that the Act does not apply to the District Auditor's Office.
This is also an outrage; citizens should be able to see what is being done
with their property and in their name.
I have recently made the same Freedom of Information request to the Chief
Executive of the Council. Exemption from the Freedom of Information Act does
not apply to Local Councils and the reply is now well overdue! If we ever
receive the information asked for it will be published on this site.
The Absolute Leisure deal. Fair competition
and rules of tendering.
In January 2005 we complained to the District Auditor's Office about the
granting of this lease without any other leisure company having the opportunity
to make a rival bid.
In fact we believe that no other Leisure or Entertainments company were even
aware that such a lease was on offer. We believe that this is against the
competitive tendering rules, if not in law then certainly in spirit.
The written answer to our complaint informed us that, "it was explicit
within the Barbican Venture proposal considered by the [Council's] Member
Panel that the Auditorium would be owned and operated by Absolute Leisure
Limited."
SOB was not satisfied by this reply and so we could judge for ourselves we
made a Freedom of Information Request to the Council for all the Barbican
development paperwork.
The reply from the Senior Officer responsible, was that as this was a lot
of work for him. We could have the records for the "last year" only.
The Officer suggested that if we told him specifically what we were interested
in for the previous years he would supply details. No doubt as he saw fit!
This is absolutely no good to us as if we did has the Officer suggested then
the Council would realise exactly what we suspected.
This is where this Freedom of Information request stands at the moment. We
still do not have the information we requested.
In relation to this request, I as SOB chair, wrote to the Council's Democracy
department asking if the Freedom of Information Act applied to the City of
York Council.
They did not reply!
More "consultation"
and broken promises
Barbican
Venture proposed a gross intensification of the development on the rest of
the site and the "wet side" buildings. A single, smaller, cheaper
replacement pool was proposed.
Charlie Croft, the Council's Assistant Director of Leisure described this
later, in a statement to the High Court, as the new Council wishing "to
see a different balance in the way the scheme delivered capital". In
plain words, Charlie Croft meant that the Council wanted more cash out of
the deal.
What we believe happened is that, with a new Council elected, Barbican Venture
saw an opportunity to increase profit by offering the Council more money in
exchange for intensification of the development.
However, whatever the truth is, the proposal to build a smaller replacement
pool began a chain of broken promises.
In July/August 2003 a "re-consultation" letter was produced by the
Council. This document stated that the developer had come up with revised
proposals which included:-
We believe that this exercise was a sham as the Council only contacted 754
residents directly.
This so called "consultation" was almost solely about the proposition
of a smaller, cheaper pool and to describe the paper as a "consultation"
is typical of the spin and truth twisting which, in our view, was to become
a pattern of the Council and Barbican Venture propaganda.
Nowhere in the document is there any invitation to respond or comment on
the developers' revised proposals and the descriptions of the revisions are
sketchy to say the least. To describe this paper as a consultation is laughable.
The document, we believe, was designed to get the Barbican Venture's new proposals
past public scrutiny without attracting any objection.
The only question asked concerned the provision of a cheaper, smaller pool,
which was itself a broken promise. Predictably the question was couched in
such a way as to elicit the desired answer.
The reality of Barbican Venture's
proposal
In time it became clear what actually was proposed.
Without
any consultation, the "wet side" development was grossly enlarged.
158 apartments on three floors became 244 apartments on five floors plus a
roof garden. The boundary of this gigantic development was to be 30 yards
from the front doors of the nearest residents.
The
two small hotels became one 135-bed Hotel with only 30 parking spaces. Now
we realised what was to happen to the missing 120 public parking spaces -
they were to be used as private hotel parking!
A casino was proposed, to be sited in and above the sports hall and the entire
"dry side" of York Barbican Centre was to be leased off
Concern changed to fury when residents and Barbican users became aware that
the new Council had agreed, behind closed doors, to this gross increase in
an already intensive scheme.
The
birth of Save Our Barbican
The Save Our Barbican protest was the result of this fury.
Our founding Chair, John Issit, lit the torch by calling a public meeting
and at this meeting the Save our Barbican campaign was formed.
Several well attended public meetings followed and the result was that the
Save Our Barbican pressure group was founded with a mandate from those attending
the meetings to fight… and fighting we jolly well are!
John, Keith, Charlie and Ernie.
The
meetings, under the Chairmanship of John Issit, were passionate and memorable.
One in particular, is well worth mentioning as it was attended by none other
than Charlie Croft, the Council's Deputy Director of Leisure, and Councillor
Keith Orrell, the new Council's Executive Member with responsibility for Leisure.
They were received courteously and were listened to politely, despite the
high feelings of the audience.
To
be fair, Council Officers like Charlie Croft were placed in an invidious position
as they had to implement the very unpopular decisions made by the new ruling
group on the Council.
Unfortunately, some of Charlie's statements did not go down well with locals
and campaigners. Some of his reported comments were considered pure propaganda
and "developer spin" which became known as "Charlie's Angles".
SOB wits coined this pun on the TV fiction "Charlie's Angels" mainly,
they believe, because Charlie's public utterances on the Barbican Fiasco sometimes
seemed a little short on accuracy.
Other statements were just plain funny! For example, Charlie had to announce
one of the Council's first broken promises.
The replacement swimming pool, (now completely cancelled as we predicted
it would be) was to be very much smaller. Charlie described the change with
the words "there will be some loss of laneage". We laughed
all the way to the pub!
Casino, what casino?
Councillor Keith Orrell's words at this early meeting were remarkable, as
despite a casino being proposed in several Council documents, he stated to
very relieved residents that, "there were no plans to open a casino on
the Barbican site". Later it emerged that the proposed operators of the
"dry side" Barbican, Absolute Leisure, always intended to operate
a casino and the firm's Managing Director, Tony Knox, stated to me in front
of witnesses, that Absolute Leisure would open a casino as soon as regulations
allowed.
I genuinely believe that either Councillor Orrell was failing in his duty
in not assessing the intentions of Absolute Leisure or that he was deliberately
seeking to mislead the meeting in order to defuse people's objections.
There are a number of similar statements by Councillor Orrell which might
be considered to be duplicitous; one being when he, in answer to opposition
Councillors' questions, stated that swimming would continue on the Barbican
site. Members of SOB have always believed that the present Council never intended
to replace the Barbican swimming pools as they promised to do many times.
At the time of Councillor Orrell's statement, rumours were circulating that
the Council and Developers were about to break their promise to build a replacement
pool on the site. This prompted the questions and answer, in the Council Chamber.
Shortly afterwards, when it was announced that the planned replacement pool
was indeed being dropped Councillor Orrell excused himself by saying that
he was referring to the luxury hotel that was planned for the site and it
was likely that a small pool might form part of the hotel facilities.
Councillor Orrell was accused of misleading Council members and no doubt
he thought his tactical remarks clever. It is not surprising that many people
who live close to the Barbican site detest him. As for myself, I certainly
wouldn't buy a used Volvo from him!
The casino question
From the very beginning a casino was intended on the site. It was clearly
proposed in Council documents. In fact I believe that Absolute Leisure's determination
to operate the site is partially based on the profit potential that gambling
would surely bring. The residents I speak to are frightened by the proposal
and are firmly against it. Every time we have been able to face the ruling
group of Councillors with this they either deny that large-scale gaming has
been planned or they say that they would not allow it. The fact is that the
Council would not be able to stop Absolute Leisure from opening a casino,
if the present gaming rules are relaxed as the Government has pledged to do.
This was made clear at a Council meeting when, initially, it was maintained
by the ruling group that, if the Council wished, it could stop any casino
by refusing planning permission. When challenged, at SOB instigation, and
after much investigation at senior officer level, it was finally admitted
that casinos do not need planning permission if the buildings that house them
do not need to be altered. In fact, in the course of my professional life,
I have witnessed casinos arrive at a site on the back of a truck and be assembled
and working within a couple of hours.
Independent Councillor, Janet Hopton, told SOB that she had been assured
by senior officers that gambling would not be allowed on the site. I no longer
trust the City of York Council not to change this view if it became expedient
to do so. Certainly requests to the Council to place a codicil to proscribe
gambling in the lease was offered to Absolute Leisure were greeted with stony
silence.
Sheds
A buzz word in the entertainment industry is "shed". It refers
to the Big Leisure Companies' vision of a future where very large entertainment
complexes would exist in towns and cities in the UK. "Shed" is the
industry slang word for big buildings and would mean establishments run on
American lines, like in the movies. They might house many kinds of leisure
activity but in particular gambling and the sale of alcohol.
The ambitions of the Big Leisure Companies were fuelled by the Government's
recent attempts to liberalise the UK's gambling regulations. Some even believe
that the industry's lobbying helped to influence Government thinking, despite
public opposition. However it is probable, that large scale deregulation of
the Gaming Laws will take place.
Are the Barbican "dry side" buildings big enough for such a venture?
They certainly are. So, does any person seriously believe that a company like
Absolute Leisure has not considered these possibilities?
These "sheds", however, should not be sited in a residential area
where the residents are totally opposed. Further more, it is quite wrong for
a Local Authority to acquiesce or allow circumstances where this could easily
happen, especially when they own the buildings as trustees for the citizens.
And what if the above came to be a reality? A "liberated" gambling
regime would certainly attract the big international Leisure Companies to
the UK. Witness the scramble at London's Millennium Dome. The Barbican "wet
side" development plans passed by the Council show a covered walkway
link from a large luxury hotel to the proposed "dry side".
What might this operation be worth with its massive bars, nightclub and casino
up and running … especially in the tourist Mecca of York? I bet it would
be a lot more than the pittance the present Council proposes to accept from
Absolute Leisure.
A one-off payment of £750,000 for pristine buildings that cost £15million
to construct at 1989 prices!
No rent payable thereafter! And all with the added potential that the actions
of the Council's Planning and Licensing Committee have bestowed upon the lucky
operator.
I called it the Great Barbican Giveaway and SOB was and is, determined to
expose and oppose it.
Fighting for right
The first SOB action following the public meetings was to organise the collection
of a petition to the Council Planning Committee. The petition asked that they
refuse planning permission for the proposed Barbican development.
This was a magnificent effort by users of the Barbican and by nearby residents.
In a few short weeks over 6,000 signatures were collected and the petition
was presented to the Planning Committee when they made a site visit.
I must pay tribute to the ordinary folk who worked so hard to collect the
signatures in such a short time. It was a great effort and names like Edna
Glowala, Dusty Wartho, Jenny Metcalf, Ray Simpson and Grace Maiden come to
mind as people who collected many signatures, as did others.
Unfortunately the Chairman of Planning, Councillor Richard Watson, accepted
the petition with indifference and bad grace and this was when we first encountered
the truly breathtaking arrogance of York's current administration. A number
of Councillors wrote letters to the local paper attacking the petition in
silly and outrageous terms. It also gave us an example of how inept and unthinking
some leading Councillors are.
Elastic Attitude
An example of this is that a long-standing planning requirement for the operation
of the "dry side" Barbican was that sufficient car parking is provided.
If the development of the "wet side" Barbican went ahead, then
there would be no parking on the site. In addition the tourist coach park
on the adjacent Kent Street would also be lost.
The Council's solution to this was to reallocate an existing car park, named
St George's Field, as the designated park for the Barbican and tourist coaches.
This displays a somewhat elastic attitude to planning requirements, as St
George's Field is some distance from the Barbican and would require patrons
to walk a fair distance crossing a bridge and a major road. This would prove
difficult for the disabled and elderly.
St George's Field adjoins the Ouse riverbank and is usually the first land
to be submerged in York's regular and famous floods. A redefinition of the
car park would mean York losing one of its few remaining visitor car parks,
as St George's Field would have to be kept for the exclusive use of the "New
Barbican". In addition, the parking area was simply not big enough for
Tourist Coaches and Barbican use. SOB raised these concerns in the Letters
column of the local Press and at the Barbican Planning Committee site meeting
Ann Reid, a Executive Member with responsibility for transport, announced
a change in plan.
The new arrangement was that tourist coaches, instead of using St George's
Field, would drop passengers in York's heavily congested city centre and then
drive outside the city to park, returning later in the day to pick up passengers,
some of whom may be frail and elderly.
York's narrow and congested streets would be inundated with tourist coaches
belching out diesel fumes at the busiest times of day, double-parked while
trying to locate and pick up passengers.
I pointed this out to Councillor Reid and asked what would happen if an elderly
passenger was lost or late for the coach. Would the driver be obliged to leave
the passenger behind or would York's roads be blocked whilst he waited? Councillor
Reid made no answer and hurried away.
Slick Willy Politicos
Ruling Group Councillors, such as Keith Orrell and others belittled the petition
in the Council Chamber, the Press and on the Local Radio stations. I was astounded
that they could be so arrogant as to hold to ridicule the efforts of frightened
residents who were desperate to get their point across. The Councillors' complaint
seemed to be that the petition had been signed by a few people who were not
residents of York. Councillor Orrell got publicity claiming that one couple
had given their address in Scotland. Rightly so, as some signatures were collected
at the concerts held at the Barbican Centre.
York is a tourist city. It has many regular visitors who dearly love the
Barbican. Many of these visitors felt compelled to protest at the impending
loss of the Barbican facilities and asked to sign the petition. It ill becomes
leading Councillors, especially Keith Orrell, who is responsible for Tourism
& Leisure, to ridicule these kind visitors.
There's
only One Four Star ******
We however were beginning to become used to this "slick willy"
style of politics and partial justice was done when Keith Orrell announced
to the Press that the Barbican development was worth doing as it would provide
York with a first, much needed, four star hotel. Unfortunately for Keith,
York already has three four star hotels. By the time the managers of these
establishments became informed of Councillor Orrell's remark, the point was
being made that the well paid Executive Member for Tourism should have known
how many stars York's main hotels had.
To the SOB campaigners, Keith will always be known as "4 star Councillor
Orrell"
Support and Critics
As the City of York Council Planning Committee loomed, we were heartened
by the massive public support we received. All of our activists reported little
or no negative comment on our campaign and many letters appeared in the Yorkshire
Evening Press in support of what we were saying.
Only a few letters criticised us, which, we have been informed, disappointed
the developers and the Council as they had mounted a large and expensive public
relations exercise.
We noticed that these critical letters were, without exception, all from
persons who lived in outlying areas like Skelton, Strensall, Wheldrake or
Huntington.
Many of the letters were remarkably similar both in style and content. So
similar they could almost have been written by the same hand! We believe that
some were "spoof" or"planted" letters. This is an old
trick by "slick willy" politicians who ask supporters to send a
particular letter to local newspapers.
A humorous episode occurred some time later when a letter, attributed to
an M. Kendall was printed. This letter was highly critical of SOB and a little
insulting. It drew an enraged response to the Press Letters column and one
letter in particular, from a reader entirely unconnected to SOB, suggested
that M. Kendall should ask her partner, Councillor Christian Vassie, to answer
her questions!!!
Spoof Letter? Slick Willy Politics? I don't know, but to my knowledge M.
Kendall has not written to the Press recently.
The Editors always write!
The letters
column in The Press (formerly Yorkshire Evening Press) is terrific. It
is always informative and entertaining and is an excellent platform for individuals
and groups to publicise issues.
I am not suggesting that every letter critical of SOB is not genuine, people
are entitled to their views and we have proved we can take the heat, but it
is sad IF the column is abused by the Slick Willy politicos.
Planning Decision
Important local organisations came out against the Barbican proposals. York
Civic Trust and the Georgian Society both voiced opposition because of the
gross over development, described as "huge and overpowering" and
the proximity to the Scheduled Ancient Monument of York City Walls.
Hugh Bayley, MP for York, attacked the scheme because of the inadequacy of
the then proposed replacement pool and Council's lack of proper consultation.
The Labour and Green Parties spoke against this new revised plan because
of the intensification, considered a gross over development by most.
In our naivety we considered that we had a good chance at the Planning Committee
hearing because of the size of our support and because so many important local
organisations and individuals had spoken out against the scheme.
I was impressed by the words of the opposition councillors and our residents
who spoke were magnificent. But all to no avail; personally I was astounded
by the uncaring arrogance I perceived among the Councillors of the ruling
group.
The Councillors of the ruling party all voted to implement the development
and everybody else voted against. The scheme was approved. Many people in
York were deeply upset.
Try and try again
John Issitt told me later that early the next morning, whilst cycling by
the Barbican, he was surprised to see a "little fat bloke" standing
at a makeshift table, giving out leaflets and haranguing passers by. It was
me.
So began the next stage, a letter campaign to the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister (ODPM) to request a Public Inquiry. Many people worked very hard
in this campaign. Names like Dan Golding and Imelda Pilgrim come to mind,
together with many others.
It should be realised that none of the SOB action committee had any experience
of campaigning. We knew almost nothing about how to proceed, largely it was
a case of feeling our way.
Requests for Public Inquiries are made to Government Office for Yorkshire
and Humber in Leeds which is the area office of the ODPM. The ODPM will only
consider ordering a public inquiry on very limited grounds. The Civil Servants
dealing with such requests are obliged to consider if the subject of the request
breaches Government Policy, or is of "more than local" significance.
If the planning matter does not fall into either or both categories then an
enquiry cannot be ordered.
We thought we were in with a good chance because of the close proximity to
the Scheduled Ancient Monument of York's City Walls and because of what most
people saw as a gross over-development, which we thought exceeded Government
guidelines for "brown field" sites.
Many people agreed with us and we mustered a great many letters asking for
an Inquiry.
We were bitterly disappointed when ODPM declined our request, giving as the
reason that the scheme did not fall into either of the categories I have outlined.
Council Leader cock-a-hoop
The Council Leader, predictably, claimed that this meant that "the Government
supported" the development. He and other Executive Members kept this
up for a year until they were finally reminded that the ODPM had not expressed
a view on the development but had merely declined to intervene.
SOB proscribed
SOB, as a group of York citizens, was banned by the Leader of the Council
from using the Barbican facilities and our posters and notices were removed
from the public notice boards. We were called irresponsible mischief-makers,
misguided and worse.
The Head of the Council's leisure management department, Shane Chalmers,
tried to intimidate me whilst I was lobbying on the Barbican forecourt. He
seemed to take pleasure by informing me that SOB was not allowed in his
building. I felt the need to explain to Shane who it was that really owned
the Barbican Complex. He left me to my lobbying and did not interfere again.
What kind of Democrats are these?
Honest residents who were engaging in their democratic right to protest at
what was clearly a threat to their lifestyle were vilified by so-called Democrats
who should know better. Some of the posturing and postulating by the Council
Leadership was little more than bullying in our view.
Meanwhile
the Council Leader, Steve Galloway, announced the premature closure of the
Barbican swimming facilities. This unnecessary move caused outrage among many
people who believed, rightly in my view, that the closure was a crude attempt
to force a fait accompli. The swimming pools were closed in June 2004.
Around this time, John Issit stepped down as leader of our group for personal
reasons. I was elected to succeed him. John has continued to be an invaluable
SOB member and stalwart friend and I would like to take this opportunity to
thank him for all he has done and all he is doing. I am sure that without
John SOB would never have come into being.
Not looking good!
During 2004 concern was mounting among the citizens who lived nearest to
the site. Their main concerns were the scale of the development opposite the
homes on Barbican Road and the use proposed for the "dry side" development
by Absolute Leisure. This concern was shared by many other people in the general
area particularly as licence applications were sought for extended hours for
drinking Alcohol, and Music, Singing and Dancing.
With Absolute Leisure's track record this meant only one thing to many people.
The "wet side" development could now technically proceed. People
were confused as to how the scheme might affect their lives, as it had proved
impossible to get concise and accurate information from the City of York Council.
Responsibility for different aspects lay with different departments and it
proved a nightmare to even find what information was available and where it
was kept.
Legal Eagle
As Chair I proposed to the group that we seek legal advice, preferably from
a Firm of Public Law Specialists. I knew of a firm of solicitors who had a
very good reputation in this field and SOB authorised me to contact Irwin
Mitchell, for advice.
We were put in touch with the Sheffield Office where the Public Law Department
is based.
Mr Andrew Lockley, a partner with Irwin Mitchell, agreed to look at the Barbican
Development and advise us if he could.
Andrew Lockley is an extremely able lawyer. He is also very approachable
and patient with people who have little knowledge of the Law. He is certainly
one of the best Public Law Solicitors in the country, if not the best. He
is also a very nice fellow.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Andrew Lockley instructed a specialist barrister, Mr Gordon Nardell and together
they explained to us the Law regarding Environmental Impact Assesment. [EIA]
As I understand it, EIA Law requires Planning Authorities to carry out a
thorough assessment of the effects that a major development may have on its
environment and the people who would be affected.
An EIA, when complete, is published as one document and made available to
the public. This empowers ordinary folk to see clearly the possible consequences
of a particular development.
Furthermore, they are able to see this in one document, in one place, instead
of having to indulge in a baffling paper chase, around several offices asking
questions of the Planning Authority or Council Officers.
This is obviously of major comfort and help to a citizen who is faced with
a development on the doorstep and is great use to important local "watchdogs"
such as the media and Ward Councillors who cannot be expected to be experts
on everything.
I find that EIAs are not very popular with certain types of developer, but
never mind eh?
Some developers publish reports which they claim to be EIAs, invariably painting
a rosy picture of the development and are simply propoganda. This is what
happened with the Barbican Scheme and it caused considerable confusion to
SOB for a while. The developer's "EIA" actually claimed that the
scheme's 244 flats, 134 bed hotel and vast entertainment centre would have
no impact on traffic!
A Planning Authority can decline to carry out an EIA if it decides one is
not necessary. However a Senior Officer is required to state his reasons in
a publically available report called a Screening Opinion.
The City of York Council did exactly this with regard to the Barbican scheme.
We asked Andrew Lockley and Mr Nardell for advice.
The advice was straightforward. The Council should have carried out an EIA
and the screening opinions were faulty. The remedy, we knew, was to be a Judicial
Review: straight forward and simple, but in practice extremely complex.
Threats and more threats : Steve gets cross!
News of our intention to go to Law was received with fury by the Council.
The Leader, Steve Galloway, threatened campaigners saying that they could
be "hit" with the Council's Court costs of £250,000. In addition
he threatened to sue us for building costs caused by any delay which could
amount to a further £120,000. That was just for starters!
I remember that somebody from SOB was quoted in the Press as saying that
"Councillor Galloway had the appearance of a blustering bully and not
for the first time" Other senior Councillors made similar noises which
appeared to be a campaign of threats against our group.
Councillor Galloway has many times accused us of being a tiny group of people.
This was not true initially, as we knew we had enormous grass roots support,
However, Steve Galloway's threats were effective as attendance at our meetings
fell away and people told us frankly that the threats, which were without
substance, and therefore mere imtimidation, had frightened them.
However, a stalwart group decided to carry on with planning our case for
Judicial Review.
We had learned that community issues, especially environmental ones, were
often funded by Legal Aid. This is because they are often considered to be
for the public good. The rules say that if a case involves a community group,
then that group should make a financial contribution. This was confirmed by
Legal Advice and we set about raising money.
Our suporters are not wealthy people but we raised a sum which we offered
as a contribution to the Legal Services Commision (LSC). Two of our suporters,
who were regular users of York Barbican had qualified for Legal Aid and I
wish to pay tribute to these fine, brave people.
One lady who suffers from two disabling diseases and another, a mature student,
never wavered in the face of much insult and sniping from the developers and
Senior Councillors who should have known better.
Comments
made at this time, by the Leader, Steve Galloway, and other senior executive
members were disgraceful, in my view. They seemed to pursue a vendetta, using
vast Council resources to rubbish honest people who were exercising their
democratic right to question and oppose a development which they knew would
drastically affect their homes and peace of mind. Little wonder impartial
observers, some in letters to the Press, were asking exactly what kind of
Democrats these politicians were.
Towards the end of 2004 the whole of York Barbican complex was closed.
Community contribution
Save Our Barbican suffered a major set back when the Legal Services Commission
began interpreting their rules on the "Community Contribution" in
a way they had never done before. They began demanding 50% of the possible
costs, up front. This was an enormous sum completely beyond our reach.
The debate, that raged between our lawyers and the LSC, became fairly heated
at times. The LSC demanded more and more information from SOB supporters which
included very personal details that we did not think they were entitled to
ask.
They also jumped to many false conclusions as they treated newspaper notes
and statements, which they gleaned from the internet, as absolute fact.
Although we believe that the LSC has a duty to safeguard the Legal Aid Funds
we thought their stance was unfair. Legal Aid had been granted and we had
raised as much money as we were able. Yet despite this, we were put in the
position of having to fight a major Legal Action without adequate funding.
A
good pasting
This was the position on the 13th June 2005 when, in the Supreme Court, the
Honourable Mr Justice Elias carried out the Judicial Review we had fought
for. The problem for us was that we had no legal representation!!
What happened was that, Mr Gordon Nardell, the barrister acting for us, explained
the problems we had with funding and asked for an adjournment. This was opposed
by the barristers acting for the developers and the Council.
Despite what one lawyer described as a "real fighting cock" display
by Mr Nardell, Mr Justice Elias refused an adjournement. Our lawyers were
then compelled to retire leaving us to face highly skilled and experienced
barristers alone and without any legal advice.
We had to endure a difficult time whilst the developer's lawyers gave us
a good pasting. The thing that irritated me the most was that false interpretation,
and at least one untrue statement, was put to the Court. We were unable to
contradict these and, not surprisingly, the Judge found against us.
Happy
councillors
The developers and the Council were again cock-a-hoop and publicised their
victory to the hilt. We could not understand why the Legal Services Commision
seemed to be prejudiced against us.
We became aware that the solicitors for Barbican Venture, presumably acting
on instruction, had made "representations" to the LSC long before
the Judicial Review came to the High Court. We are not sure what these solicitors
said to the LSC but, when questioned by the Press, a spokesman for Barbican
Venture admitted that they had been in contact with the LSC and had questioned
the grant of Legal Aid for our action. We also believe that they made "representations"
regarding the the size of our Community Group contribution. Barbican Venture
said that it had every right to make "representations" as Legal
Aid was funded by the tax payer.
I remember thinking that we citizens of York are lucky indeed, to have in
our midst developers who seem to do everything for the public good and not
at all for profit.
Left to pick up the pieces, we tried to make sense of the situation with the
LSC. After long negotiation and consultation, SOB determined that the only
way we could make sense of the situation was again to go to the Law. The advice
we received was that the remedy available was to apply for another Judicial
Review - this time, of the LSC. This took a long time to arrange and meanwhile
events regarding York Barbican took a surprising turn.
Variation
On the 25th August 2005 the City of York Council Planning Commitee considered
an application to vary the conditions on the original grant of planning permission.
This application concerned Barbican Venture's "wet side" scheme.
This seemed strange, as detailed planning permission had only been granted
in September 2004. We wondered what changes had taken place to warrant this
unusual action.
Conditions attached to planning permits are put there for very good purpose
and are usually insisted upon by Local Authority Officers who are knowledgeable
in planning matters. Here was a proposal to remove several conditions and,
as usual regarding York Barbican, the developers and the Council had not seen
fit to consult or inform those living close to the site.
The conditions to be varied were largely environmental and were to do with
such items as the look of the proposed new buildings i.e. the brickwork and
other external materials, and the means of enclosure to the site whilst works
took place. Conditions controlling the landscaping were also to go. Were there
now to be no trees and shrubs?
Then there was condition 17 which concerned the water environment. We were
told that the reason the application was deferred at a previous meeting was
due to objections regarding the removal of this condition from the Environment
Agency yet, strangely, when residents enquired of the Environment Agency they
were told that the Agency had not objected.
Lack of concern
It is extraordinary that Councillors of the Ruling Group showed no conception
of the concern felt by home owners, some of whom, in the past, had suffered
considerable subsidence problems, when conditions regarding risk to the water
environment are removed.
The same fear applied to the proposed removal or "variation" of
conditions 19 & 20. These were both to do with the method of piling.
Maria Dodd, a Save Our Barbican committee member and tireless fighter in
defence of her home, had, earlier, on SOB's behalf, written to the Council
asking what method of piling was to be used. Maria's concern is understandable
when one considers that the massive scheme's boundary is planned to be 25
feet from the front door of the home she shares with her husband and three
children. The infamous reply from a senior City of York Council Officer confirmed
that the Council did not know what method of piling was to be used, as they
had not been informed.
This crass and insensitive reply shows the scant regard given to the fears
and feelings of neighbours of the development, and now it was proposed to
remove, or "vary", the conditions to do with the very method of
piling.
Needless to say the application to remove the conditions was passed. All
the ruling group of Councillors voted in favour and all opposition Councillors
voted against.
Unfair
criticism
It is astonishing that leading Councillors continue to this day to criticise
people like Maria, who live close to the proposed development and have genuine,
well-founded fears about the future. A good example of this is the criticism
of Edna Glowala by Councillor Keith Orrell [4*] in a letter to the local paper.
Edna is another SOB supporter who has worked hard in pursuit of her democratic
right to oppose what she sees as detrimental to her home and way of life.
Edna also lives in Barbican Road and was one of our main petition organisers.
The 4* Councillor had the effrontery to accuse Edna of using "misinformation
"in pursuit of petition signatures, in other words, dishonesty.
I will leave to others to decide just who in this affair has been dishonest
but, in my opinion, the insensitivity and arrogance of leading City of York
Councillors has been shameful.
Judicial Review
As our impending Judicial Review of the Legal Services Commission became
due, Andrew Lockley, our Solicitor, tried hard to negotiate a settlement.
When unsuccessful, Andrew suggested mediation to save public money. He, like
ourselves, was very concerned about the cost to the public purse in Legal
Aid. We all believed that going to Law was a last resort.
Our case seemed to be taking on an importance that we had never envisaged:
if the LSC's new stance of demanding vast sums as a contribution was to become
the norm, then how could poorer members of the community have access to justice?
This was a fight that had to be fought.
The LSC proved once again to be intransigent and the "York Claim",
as London lawyers were referring to our dispute, went before Mr Justice Goldring
on the January 30th 2006.
This time we did rather better. After a ding-dong verbal battle between the
magnificent Gordon Nardell and Mr Kenneally (Counsel for the LSC), Mr Justice
Goldring found against the LSC quashing their 50% decision. He also directed
that the LSC reconsider the whole issue of our Community Contribution.
This was a marvellous decision for our campaign. The Judge's words were particularly
important for me as I had come in for personal critisism by the LSC. These
comments were in letters and repeated in the defence documents. They were
used verbally to the Court by the Barrister acting for the commission. I was
accused of evasiveness and obstruction, among other things.
I have many faults, but I do pride myself on my honesty. The critisism hurt
and so I was heartened by the Judgement when Mr Justice Goldring, referring
to the allegations, wrote "I do not agree".
Without doubt, our Lawyers won us a brilliant victory. The LSC has now accepted,
as our Community Contribution, the sum of money we had raised and offered
at the beginning. This opens up a number of possibilities and Andrew Lockley
and Mr Nardell are currently working on the next step.
See the SOB news page for details!
New scheme for the Barbican
Developments regarding the Barbican Venture "wet side" scheme continued
throughout 2006.
In late January 2006, Council Leader Steve Galloway announced that the promised
Barbican replacement pool would not now be built. Instead the land,
earmarked on Kent Street, would go to Barbican Venture and would be used for
the building of a second hotel.
Barbican Venture had successfully negotiated a new deal, for a changed development,
with more valuble land for substantially less money.
The changed scheme proposed fewer residential flats, to make room for an
elderly persons' home, the hotel to have 40 more bedrooms and become 4/5 star
and an additional hotel to be built on the land recently vacated by the long
promised, and now cancelled, replacement swimming pool.
The original deal would have brought £10 million in revenue. This new
deal would realise only £7 million. Councillor Galloway's justification
for this was that "land prices in York had decreased".
This was deeply suspect as York land and house prices have boomed in recent
years. What was more likely, we believed, was that the demand for flats had
fallen due to the overdevelopment of apartment blocks permitted by the Council
in the previous two years.
Many doubted the wisdom of a home for the elderly on the same site as a large
hotel and night club project, and people were devastated by the cancellation
of the swimming pool.
It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I was not surprised at the cancellation
of the pool, having long predicted that the replacement swimming pool would
never be built. I felt that the profit motive would always prove too strong.
Betrayal and blame
We agreed with the Editor of The York Press when he described Steve
Galloway's breaking of his promise as a "betrayal". Many believe
Councillor Galloway's promise to preserve sporting and swimming facilities
at the Barbican got his Party elected in 2003.
There is an election in May 2007. It remains to be seen what the voters of
York think of this Council's actions.
Councillor Galloway played his usual blame game. He blamed SOB for his broken
promise, claiming residents' protest was responsible for the reduction in
the value of the scheme and that we were responsible for the loss of the promised
replacement pool and other facilities.
To blame SOB for the new, reduced proceeds from the sale of the Barbican
"wet side" is plain daft. We did not take part in the secret negotiations.
We believe the Council has consistantly shown weakness when dealing with
the developer. If the developer had decided that he could not pay the value
of the site as agreed, then other options should have been considered.
We believe that the whole scheme, including the "dry side" deal
with Absolute Leisure, should have been cancelled. The Barbican affair should
have been looked at afresh.
Many people are now starting to question this Council's seemingly absolute
commitment to the developers. Why has the Council Executive agreed to a reduction
in proceeds for the "wet side" development and why do they persist
with the "give away" deal for the "dry side"?
Resources Transfer
We think it plain silly for Steve Galloway to blame SOB for his cancellation
of the replacement swimming, sporting and social facillities. The figures
simply do not support this.
Of the £7 million that the "re-negotiated" deal may realise,
Councillor Galloway now proposes to spend £4 million on a brand new
scheme for a pool in his constituency. £500,000 is earmarked to repair
and refit the Yearsley Pool and the remainder is planned to be used to part-fund
a pool at the University of York. Who knows whether this will come to pass
as the University describes its desire for a pool as "aspirational".
The £4 million that is now proposed for the new pool scheme is ample
money to provide the promised replacement pool on the Barbican site. All that
has happened is that the resources have been transferred to Councillor Galloway's
electoral heartland. Many believe that this is blatant electioneering whilst
others are convinced that the breaking of his election pledge is a vindictive
act, designed to punish campaigners who have dared to oppose his plans.
Of those who listened to the radio interview following the announcement of
the new scheme, many have commented on the obvious relish and glee in Councillor
Galloway's voice as he said "I bet the protestors are sorry now".
The University "aspirational" pool, to be part paid for out of
the Barbican deal proceeds, depends on the University's expansion scheme surviving
its own Public Inquiry. Following that hurdle the "aspiration" would
need to become a reality. It is likely to take 6 or 7 years for the "aspiration"
to be realised, even if all goes well.
Planning permission not needed?
Steve Galloway made an extraordinary and worrying statement to the Press
when he announced that the new scheme could proceed on the existing Planning
Permission.
This was a ridiculous thing to say, considering the changes that had been
announced. He worried neighbours of the scheme greatly because, in keeping
with the Council's track record, they had not been informed or consulted.
SOB resolved to mount a legal challenge if a new planning process was not
instigated. Councillor Galloway has had to back-track on this and a Senior
Officer announced to the Press that the new proposals would need a new planning
application.
A fresh planning application would have been opposed. It would certainly
have provoked a repeat campaign from SOB. In addition, a new application would,
if granted, mean that 50% of the new flats would have to be "affordable"
i.e. designated for social use.
There is not much profit in Social Housing and this seems to have swung it
for the developer. As a spokesman said "the increase in affordable housing
would drastically reduce the site value". What ever the reason, the developers
dropped the newly announced scheme and went back to the original plan but,
minus the pool and plus the extra hotel.
Appalling blunder
Save Our Barbican knew that the planning permission for the development included
provision for the promised swimming pool as a condition. We felt that the
cancellation of the new pool was a radical departure from the permission granted
and so we took Legal Advice about this.
The Council, after months of saying the sale of the site to Barbican Venture
was imminent, seems to have only recently realised that this "section
106" condition would need to be removed for the scheme to proceed.
This has been described as an appalling
blunder.
The developers are trying to rectify the situation by yet another application
to vary a condition. We oppose this and believe the Planning Committee will
consider the matter at the end of September 2006.
If the Committee allows the change in the condition, we will then apply to
the ODPM and ask, yet again, for a Public Inquiry.
Absolute Leisure
The "dry side" development story is very controversial. People
who live close to the site were strongly against the granting of late licences
to Absolute Leisure, which does not have the best of reputations elsewhere
in the North of England. I and others involved in our campaign, have yet to
speak to a person who is in favour of Absolute Leisure taking control of the
"Dry Side" Barbican Centre Buildings.
If you live in York please email
us to let us know what you think.
The Deal
Everybody we speak to is aghast at the deal offered by the Council to Absolute
Leisure:-
The City of York Council has offered Absolute Leisure a 250-year "renewable"!
lease for a one-off payment of £750,000 WITH NO RENT PAYABLE THEREAFTER!
This is for buildings in pristine condition that were built approx 16 years
ago at a cost of £15 million at 1989 prices.
Is this a good deal?
Please give us your opinion
by email.
Councillor Keith Orrell and Charlie Croft, the Officer with responsibility
for this deal have both justified the arrangement by saying that it will bring
about a "much needed" £2.5 million investment at the centre.
We believe this is just bunkum. If £2.5 million is ever spent, it will
not be for the York taxpayers' benefit.
This money would be spent to make the buildings more profitable for Absolute
Leisure. They have already announced plans for a massive extension to the
public bars with a new glass covered "atrium" style drinking area
planned for the whole of the open area to the front.
Roof top bars, facing the city walls, are to be built and a fast food Italian
style Pizza and Pasta Restaurant is planned for the former ground floor disabled
access gym.
A casino would be established above the former sports hall "as soon
as legislation permits" and large internal drinking areas are to be furnished.
Also planned is a covered walkway from the large "wet side" luxury
hotel to the "dry side" buildings. I do not believe this is to keep
children dry on the way to their swimming lessons!
We dispute that this type of operation with its massive capacity is "much
needed" in a residential area and I know I am reflecting local opinion
when I say to Keith and Charlie, if you think such an establishment is needed,
then put it near your homes.
Email us with your opinion.
Licence battle
Absolute Leisure made its first application for late night drinking licences
at York Barbican in late 2004. I spoke to specialist licensing lawyers who
act for a very large entertainments company and, in conversation; I formed
the impression that this company, Luminar plc, and Absolute Leisure did not
like each other very much.
I was able to secure the help of the expert Licensing Lawyers, paid for by
the PLC, together with an indemnity for costs, up to a ceiling figure. I have
been criticised by developers and Councillors for this arrangement but, when
I think of the forces ranged against the residents, I make no apology for
taking help wherever I could find it.
Absolute Leisure's first application failed because they had failed to display
the statutory notices correctly. They also switched the notices during the
statutory display period.
Boy,
did we celebrate! And I must pay tribute to the residents who helped muster
the support we needed.
A fresh application was made and listed for the 13th April 2005. We mobilised
again and prepared for the hearing.
Surprisingly, on the day in Court, Absolute Leisure withdrew its application.
Absolute Leisure blamed uncertainty pertaining to SOB court action against
the "wet side" development. We, however, suspected they knew they
were up against it and had decided to wait until the Council took responsibility
for Licensing from Magistrates under the new Licensing Act 2003.
Our experiences with the planning applications had taught us what that might
mean.
Once again the Council would act as judge and jury on a scheme which was
their idea, brought forward at their instigation and in which they had a very
large financial interest.
We believe this is quite wrong because, even if the Councillors do make an
unbiased decision, the suspicion that they were influenced would always be
there.
The Licensing Act 2003
This new Act came into use in 2005 and on 11th July the Application by Absolute
Leisure was put before a bench of three Councillors, two from the ruling group
and one opposition member.
Basically, Absolute Leisure wanted a Premises Licence which would enable
them to sell alcohol in almost every corner of the very large buildings together
with extra drinking areas on the roof and to the front of the building. There
is a large paved area to the front where it was proposed to construct a glass
atrium.
Absolute Leisure asked for the Premises Licence to allow opening hours of
08:00 to 02:30 for EVERY licensable activity with alcohol being served throughout
the day until 02:00 hours, 7 days a week.
Later opening would be required on bank holidays, major holidays and ANY
major festivals and conferences. They also applied to be allowed to open CONTINUOUSLY
from 11:00 hours on the 31 December until 02:00 hours on the 2 January, presumably
to let the New Year in… several times over!
People living in this residential area were aghast and many believed that
the application, being adjudicated on by the Council would be a "done
deal" and that, this being so, Absolute Leisure had decided to ask for
everything they could possibly want. We resolved to oppose as hard as we could.
Both sides were represented by Barristers and we had secured the services
of Mr Jeremy Phillips, a leading Licensing Specialist, an advisor to the Government
on Licensing matters and the Editor of a Legal manual which is considered
the "Bible" among Licensing Lawyers.
We had also mustered 203 letters of objection and a petition of 725 signatures,
all from residents who live close to the site. This was a fantastic response
and once again Maria, Jenny, Ray and Hannah and others led the effort to make
people aware of what was proposed. I am proud to have them as friends.
Under the new Act only people who live very close to the premises applying
for the Licence are allowed to object. Thus, many of our supporters were not
allowed to make a written representation including myself.
Impartial
Councillors
On the day there was an early indication of how things were to go when the
Licensing Committee ruled against a request from Mr Phillips that the application
should be refused on the grounds that the Statutory Notices were not displayed
in accordance with the Law.
There is no doubt that the notices were not displayed correctly. Mr Phillips
had the relevant regulations to hand and Ray Cooper and I had checked and
rechecked the notices at the Barbican at Mr Phillips' request.
After retiring to consider the matter, the Licensing Committee announced
that they refused Mr Phillips' request on the grounds that Absolute Leisure
had done their best!
I always believed that Statutory Authorities had a duty to uphold the Law
but I suppose we live and learn.
Another example of what many folks considered bias on behalf of the Licensing
Committee occurred a little later as much of our documentary evidence was
barred from the Hearing. We had a good deal of this material. SOB had been
collecting information on Absolute Leisure's activities for some time.
We also had, as a witness, an acknowledged Licensing Expert who had been
engaged to visit Absolute Leisure Premises and prepare a report. His documents
included photographs and statements.
What happened was that the Council's Democracy department wrote to me with
the instruction that all documentary evidence had to be with them by a specific
time and date.
The problem was that I received the letter at lunchtime on Friday 8th July
and the hearing was scheduled for the following Monday. There was not enough
time to comply as the Council Offices are closed on the weekend. I informed
the solicitors acting for residents of the problem, as it was they who had
instructed Mr Phillips and the expert witness. I also contacted the Democracy
Department who informed me that, in the circumstances, we could produce the
documentary evidence on the morning of the hearing. I contacted the Solicitors
and ascertained that they had been given the same information.
At the hearing Absolute Leisure's Lawyers objected to the admission of the
documentary evidence because they had not been sent copies by the Democracy
department.
After another recess the Chairman ruled our documentary evidence inadmissible,
despite having been informed of the facts by me. Once again our residents
who spoke were magnificent and Mr Phillips was brilliant.
The Committee granted Absolute Leisure everything they asked for without
conditions.
Readers can judge for themselves if the Barbican residents got fair treatment
from the Council Licensing Committee or not.
Email and let us know what you
think.
As far as I was concerned I believe it was a stitch up, an utter disgrace!
The process
Objectors have a right to appeal to the Magistrates Court under the new Licensing
Act.
Our legal advice indicated that we had an excellent chance at an appeal.
We had two issues; the first was the incorrectly displayed notices. We were
advised that, on a point of law, this should be resolved.
Secondly, we felt that the Council's Licensing Committee had reached a biased
decision due to their very large financial interest. After all, they are a
joint applicant in the scheme.
In order to save the Court's time and money, the lawyers advising us proposed
a split appeal which would deal with the notices issue first. This made sense,
as should we be successful then there would be no need for the second "substantive"
appeal, as Absolute Leisure would have to make a fresh application and the
whole process would start again.
Only the original Objectors had a right to appeal and we asked for support
from them and eighty four signed our standard slips asking for an appeal.
The appeal
The Court granted an appeal and agreed to the proposal for a split hearing.
At last we were where we wanted the issues resolved. The Magistrates were
the only authority that the residents trusted. I and others involved in our
campaign, together with everybody in the area that we spoke to, had absolute
trust in the independence of the Magistrates. We felt that at last, worried
residents would see fair play.
We were, once again, fortunate to be represented by Jeremy Phillips who presented
our case extremely well.
There was no doubt that Jeremy was correct in what he said and when the Magistrates
returned to give their verdict they agreed that the notices were not correctly
displayed and therefore in breach of the regulations as laid down in the Act.
Unfortunately they also found that it did not matter!
This astonishing decision was received in shocked silence and I believe even
Absolute Leisure's Lawyer was stunned.
Mr Phillips addressed the Bench and respectfully pointed out that their Worships
had found for both sides. The Magistrates spokesperson agreed, with some embarrassment
I felt.
Absolute Leisure's Lawyer, having recovered his poise, asked the Magistrates
to award costs against us. The Magistrates declined to award costs but warned
that this might not be the case at any subsequent hearings.
I took leave of Mr Phillips outside the Court. He apologised for not winning
the appeal, even though he had nothing for which to apologise! He told me
that he felt so sorry for the residents. He felt that they had suffered injustice
on both of the occasions he had represented us [or words to that effect].
Mr Phillips also said that if ever a decision cried out for a Judicial Review,
it was the Magistrates'. Mr Phillips is a fine Barrister and a true gentleman.
What next?
The Court decision hurt many residents deeply. They felt badly let down by
the Magistrates whom they had trusted.
I consulted with the lawyers and we explored ways of continuing to fight.
We examined the possibility of legal action to have the Magistrates' decision
overturned.
I was informed that, should we start proceedings, Absolute Leisure had threatened
to make a fresh licence application to their friends and fellow developers
in the Council. The Legal advice was that this would have the effect of making
any application for Judicial Review irrelevant. The Courts would never allow
us to proceed.
I have no reason to doubt the legal advice received but I strongly believe
that the threatened use of this tactical manoeuvre is quite wrong. Citizens
disputing a Court decision were to be denied access to justice by the machinations
of the very commercial enterprise, which stands to gain financially from the
disputed decision of the Magistrates.
Because of the Magistrates' decision and subsequent events, the firm which
had supported us financially declined to do so further. I don't blame them.
They had spent a considerable amount of money on our behalf but they now felt
that we were flogging a dead horse. They felt that combination of interests
against us was just too strong.
The residents will always be grateful for the help kindly given by Luminar
PLC and we would like to publicly thank them.
I also had the main "substantive" phase of our appeal to consider.
We had no lawyers and no money. The decision of the Magistrates on the first
issue had made me feel that it was unlikely that we would win the substantive
appeal.
Substantial costs could have been awarded against the 84 people who had supported
the appeal. I felt that we had a duty to protect these fine people. I felt
a particular personal responsibility as I was responsible for recommending
the appeal.
At the time we had sought support, we had the indemnity against costs but
things had changed with the Magistrates' decision.
Battle lost, no wonder we're called SOB!
In order to be certain that every person was protected, I first went to the
Court and obtained a list of the appeal applicants. This was then cross-checked
against our list.
My friend Maria Dodd and I decided that we two would visit every person and
ask them to sign a withdrawal slip.
We did this to ensure nobody was left out. Had we missed one person, then
the appeal would have to proceed and If lost, then costs might have been awarded
against that person.
We then offered to deliver the withdrawal slips personally to the Magistrates'
Clerk. We were touched that almost every person trusted us to do this. Only
three posted withdrawals themselves and this was because they were out of
town when we were able to contact them.
The Licensing battle was lost. We continue to fight in other ways but Absolute
Leisure have the Licences they applied for.
As a footnote, the new Licensing Act has been introduced into York without
too many problems. I believe that this is because of clever and well thought
out conditions attached to the Licences by Council Officers.
It is ironic and illuminating that no such protective conditions have been
attached to Absolute Leisure's Licences, as the Barbican is by far the biggest
licensed building in the area, completely surrounded by residential streets.
Weakness in the Law
What happened illustrates, in our view, a weakness in the New Licensing Act.
In our opinion, Councils which have a financial interest in the premises
for which an application is made should be barred from deciding the matter.
The application should automatically be referred to the Local Magistrates'
Courts who will still need to maintain Licensing expertise as they are expected
to hear appeals.
We genuinely believe that what is happening at the York Barbican is a scandal.
And as far as the Licensing issues are concerned, we are heartened that John
Grogan MP for neighbouring Selby has stated that the York Barbican controversy
has "raised issues of wider national importance". We believe that
Mr Grogan has written to the Licensing Review Committee to draw their attention
to what had happened in York.
This tells the story so far.
See our News Page for developments.
We hope you find this site informative and don't forget: contact
us with your views on Barbican issues.
York
is our home and is an ancient and famous city in the County of Yorkshire.
We have many beautiful buildings such as the renowned Cathedral Church of
St Peter in York (York Minster), Clifford's Tower, and the most perfectly
preserved city walls in England. Protecting one of the "Bars" or
gates in the wall is the last remaining Barbican,
which is a small fortress-type
defence works.
Situated
close to this important monument, and directly opposite a section of York
city walls, is a leisure and fitness facility, which is named after its priceless
neighbour.