On Saturday 7th September and Monday 9th September we ran tours – around the site and virtually online introducing the new proposals, with around 70 people taking part. Comments and other feedback were recorded using Post-Its written by participants plus notes taken on the tours and during the online session.
The proposals were also shared via the local press, a series of social media posts, and presented to interest groups including York Access Forum, York Liberal Jewish Community, York Business Improvement District Board and Guildhall Ward Committee. Responses have been analysed and collated alongside comments posted on the blogs, video, and emails to the council’s Regeneration team.
Below is a brief report drawing out the main issues. In keeping with the approach through the My Castle Gateway process, we do not give numbers of people in favour or against. Rather the focus is on drawing out the issues and points of connection that need to be given consideration in the next phases of design work.
Remove Castle Car Park – but where’s the parking strategy?
The vast majority of people who took part in the engagement supported the removal of Castle Car Park. But how this decision relates to wider parking and movement strategies, and bus stops was questioned. Could Tower Street/ Clifford Street be reconfigured to reduce road capacity and enable public realm gain to free up better use of the ‘park’ area near the riverfront? In particular there was concern that loss of parking would affect local businesses.
The new spaces in the current Castle Car Park
The Blue Badge Parking was pretty universally seen as necessary – although a minority still questioned whether an alternative location or layout couldn’t be found given the small site and the original aim to remove the car park from this historically significant setting. Illustrating the spread of views, some felt 30 was too few spaces while others asked whether as many as 30 were needed.
The question of enforcement was raised – how could it be ensured only Blue Badge drivers use the spaces, including that the Blue Badge spaces on Tower Street don’t get clogged up by taxis.
Accessible seating, toilets and links to mobility schemes were referenced as important to making a truly accessible place.
Many welcomed the suggestion to screen the cars from the rest of the area, although the question of whether this left car park users vulnerable were also raised and whether landscaping could be designed to give an appropriate balance.
Connection to river edge
There was some sense that the connection between Clifford’s Tower and the Foss should be enhanced as much as possible to reconnect the castle area with its historic riverfront, and the car park should not be a barrier. The potential loss of openness between the river and park area risks increasing anti-social behaviour like behind Fenwick’s was noted.
The opportunity to improve habitat and re-naturalise the stagnant River Foss was noted.
Movement and connectivity
The Castlegate Junction itself
There was concern that the junction would not feel primarily like a pedestrian route, especially at the cross-over with the access to the servicing area and blue badge parking. It was noted that speed tables don’t work well in York elsewhere. It was asked if traffic lights might be needed. The proposed paved surfacing raised concerns – would it be robust enough to deal with heavy lorries. The surfacing also raised concerns about whether it would work well for those using wheelchairs or rollators.
Could the freight turning head at the Coppergate Centre be better used?
The need for a drop off and pick up point was noted.
Pedestrianise Castlegate?
The question of whether Castlegate would be pedestrianised was raised – pointing to the need to reinsert these new proposals for the castle car park area and Eye of York back into the wider Castle Gateway footprint that has always included Castlegate.
Walking routes
One group felt that the number of pedestrian routes through the site and parking area have created a granular appearance and should be reduced.
One of the people who came on the walk suggest the path that crosses the car park was in the wrong place – it could be moved to be centred on the motte creating a fantastic symmetrical approach to Clifford’s Tower.
Will there be access onto the radial walk from Clifford Street?
The Boardwalk is fantastic – but what about the Coppergate path?
The boardwalk down the back of the Female Prison and towards Raindale Mill and the proposed bridge over the Foss was widely welcomed, although the impact it might have on bedrooms in the flats opposite was noted.
While the boardwalk itself was very warmly welcomed the question of how it connected to the current footpath between Coppergate and the Foss was raised repeatedly. As one participant euphemistically put it: “The path around the Coppergate centre is very unpleasant. The bench is used for transactions”.
Cycling routes and bike parking – but will cyclists dismount really?
Greater clarity on cycling routes through the area was thought to be needed – are new routes seen as cycling routes? The area’s development was seen as a chance to contribute towards building a network for cycling across the city. Provision is needed for cyclists approaching from Tower Gardens to access Castlegate and the site and its attractions.
The proposal for cyclists to dismount on the boardwalk was greeted with scepticism by a number of people. It was noted by others that 3m width proposed for the boardwalk was wider than other shared use paths in York.
The need for bike parking was emphasised, and in particular that it should be located conveniently. This should include parking for adapted bikes and cargo bikes.
In terms of the cycling connections to the wider area, it was suggested that given cyclists will be directed over the proposed new Foss Bridge that there was a need for a segregated cycling path on Piccadilly. It was also noted that Castlegate allows cycling one way so this could connect into cycle routes through the new area.
Heritage and the legibility of the collection of buildings
There was a general consensus that the concept design respects the setting of Clifford’s Tower and the historic buildings.
The castle and prison
Bringing out the outline of the castle was well received and the proposed walls were seen as offering a chance for sitting and play as well as understanding. It was noted that the outline to the 19th century prison had been lost.
The garden space at the ‘last drop’ execution site at the north end of the Castle Museum (former Female Prison) requires a sensitive use such as quiet reflection and contemplation.
Clifford’s Tower
The circular walk around Clifford’s Tower and the importance of commemoration – of saying the Mourners’ Kaddish and laying stones – was widely welcomed as crucial for the area. The tension with misbehaviour on the Motte was noted too, though, as well as potential conflict between a space for remembrance and a space for protest. The location and design of these spaces needs careful consideration in terms of both current adjacent uses and respecting the multiple histories of the place.
Make more use of the radial walk design to ensure it is well used and enable removal of superseded paving to the north and west side of the tower.
Accommodating different uses and telling different stories
The desire to interpret and share the many layers of histories and stories as documented in the My Castle Gateway blog archive was noted, including William Wilberforce, the Victorian, Female and Debtors prisons, executions, Jewish history, William the Conqueror and the Eye of York.
Some felt that too much is being offered on what is quite a small site, and therefore the result is to offer a lot, but deliver little. They felt it is difficult to see what will attract people to the area in terms of the public realm itself, other than the existing draw of the tourist sites? A simpler scheme prioritising fewer elements was recommended.
The Eye of York
There was some welcome of the range of potential spaces in the proposals. Yet there was also a concern expressed that it was ‘doing something for the sake of it’. There was a worry that all the benches and planting might prevent it being used flexibly such as a place to gather (including for protest) in the future. There was a desire to retain kerbs to define the central area rather than a level shared space.
It was raised by a group that the tree on the Eye of York obscures sightlines of the three connected heritage buildings (court and two former prisons) and Castlegate, and could be removed. Though this was debated in depth in 2021 where the public was strongly in favour or retaining the tree.
Benches of different kinds – but what about shade and shelter? And bins?
Lots of benches – some with backs and of interesting designs – were welcomed. The question of shade and shelter was also raised – how could the benches be placed to make the most of the existing shade and more sheltered areas? Will people sit on open grass in summer in the full glare of the sun?
The need for bins, including for dog poo was raised.
Play and playfulness – and getting close to the Foss
Playful – but the issue of balancing this with reflective spaces
The balance the plans were seeking to strike between play and respecting the quiet spaces was recognised as important, although hard to achieve.
Comments were made from a group that the proposed ‘park’ area should be as large as possible for it to be a destination in its own right. They felt that the proposed space is currently small and underwhelming and does not adequately deliver the ‘flexible green space with children’s play provision’ brief, further constrained by the swathe planting.
The question of whether the play would be playful enough was raised – could the elements be more interactive in some way? The loss of the fountains from the previous scheme was felt by some.
Could problems of noise disturbing the court be eased by exploring secondary glazing there?
The swathe is wonderful – but is it practical?
The idea of representing the historic role of water was very popular. But there were worries it would be hard to keep looking good. There was also concern about whether it would look muddy and attract rubbish. Would there be a dedicated maintenance team who understood the design?
The need for native planting was also noted – this would provide biodiversity and cool the city.
Other concerns:-
Beyond these structural / spatial issues there was a range of feedback which broadly addressed usage and economy – the bringing of life to the area at all times of day/year and in all weathers:-
Great in the daytime when it is nice weather – but what about when it is raining or at night?
The idea of a place to sit, meet up in a green space was very much welcomed. The question of where food and drink might be bought was raised – was there an opportunity for a café or street food?
A number of people wondered what the area would be like if it was raining, as there is no indoor focal point.
Some felt the loss of the events space function of the previous plan – including the focal point that it would have offered for skateboarding. Should the design include future proofing the site with event infrastructure? The question of evenings was raised. What will there be to do after work at 5pm?
A stark warning was also issued by those that lived in the flats with views over the current Castle Car Park. Currently there is disruptive activity at night with music and cars doing doughnuts with significant rubbish present in the mornings. The current plans don’t provide any focus for the evening that might help displace the current activity. This could mean the area at night would be quite an intimidating space for Blue Badge drivers and people walking through.
Lighting was seen as important – but it was noted that what really makes a place safe is lots of people.
Maintenance – how much will it cost? And are we missing a trick to raise revenue?
Many were concerned that while the landscape proposals looked good, how could it be afforded long term? It was noted that some parks around York are no longer maintained by the council and that this area – especially with complex or ambitious planting – should not be done by volunteers.
Creating an active, vibrant space requires activity, to bring people in both during the daytime and after dark.
The loss of revenue from the current car park was noted, and the question of whether maintenance could be enabled through revenue generation arose. Any such economic activity would need to be accommodated in the design.
Some asked how the scheme would be funded and whether the council should instead have other priorities such as potholes or resurfacing Parliament Street. Some noted a desire to start delivering the scheme.
Helen
York Liberal Jewish Community strongly objects to the inclusion of a Protestor’s area within the site. And has explained why.
And has highlighted the expansion and more detailed information needed of the Contemplation area area near the foot of and to the eastern side of Clifford’s Tower.
None of this appears within this summary.
It is not a position of how to accommodate both uses – its the opportunity for large organised Protests to be planned for here (as a designated space), potentially from outside organisations, with harm to York’s citizens and its inclusive ideology.
Thank you for your reply Lilian. We acknowledge York Liberal Jewish Community’s objection to a protestor’s area and desire for a contemplative area and inclusion of historical routes. There is no intention to include a specific ‘protestors area’ in the design although we are keen to retain an area to gather. The reason that protest is referenced in materials thus far is to recognise the historic context of this area alongside other current and historic reasons to gather such as the St George’s Day parade, or to perform plays or Viking re-enactments.
City of York Council Regeneration Team
Thanks Helen for this very helpful summary.
Consideration of the bus stop locations needs to take account of the plans for Clifford Street.
Some form of sheltered area needs to be included to encourage use of the area in bad weather or in the evening.
Noted thank you Graham. We are working closely with council’s Sustainable Transport team to align with their work to review bus stops and routes in the area.
City of York Council Regeneration Team