Property paradox

York Press: Property paradox Property paradox

JAMES ALEXANDER says the council cannot force property owners to turn their properties into homes.

That is true. Just like the council cannot force builders to construct houses when planning demands are unrealistic.

What Mr Alexander fails to admit is that where the council is the property owner and is disposing of a building it has the power to impose a restrictive covenant for its subsequent use. It also has the opportunity to provide approved drawings and planning permission.

Thus, when the building is marketed prospective buyers will only be those interested on the option stipulated by the vendor.

The council could have done this with St. Leonard’s Place. We might then be looking forward to the restoration of this fine terrace to its original use as much-needed housing instead of yet another hotel.

But this would have impacted on the selling price because of the planning rules and affordable housing demands that the council seeks to impose on others but does not wish to comply with itself.

A clear case of council hypocrisy. Do as we say, not as we do.

Matthew Laverack, Architect of this parish, Lord Mayors Walk, York.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:48pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Badgers Drift says...

As it's a Matthew Laverack letter involving both the council and James Alexander, any comment agreeing with this fair criticism is bound to be awarded a triple low -ve score by the score hacking mongrel.... woof woof !!!
As it's a Matthew Laverack letter involving both the council and James Alexander, any comment agreeing with this fair criticism is bound to be awarded a triple low -ve score by the score hacking mongrel.... woof woof !!! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -31

3:23pm Mon 17 Mar 14

TheTruthHurts says...

I tend to agree with ML generally though i have one question.

In all of his letters he signs off as 'Architect of this Parish' does this mean anything. I mean by now anyone who reads the letters page knows what ML does for a living. But just wanted to know if it has any extra meaning?..... It comes across as rather odd?

TheTruthHurts,
Landscape Gardener
Dog Walker
God Parent
Pizza Loving
philosopher
occasional drinker
420 friendly...... of this parish :-)
I tend to agree with ML generally though i have one question. In all of his letters he signs off as 'Architect of this Parish' does this mean anything. I mean by now anyone who reads the letters page knows what ML does for a living. But just wanted to know if it has any extra meaning?..... It comes across as rather odd? TheTruthHurts, Landscape Gardener Dog Walker God Parent Pizza Loving philosopher occasional drinker 420 friendly...... of this parish :-) TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 10

5:28pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Badgers Drift says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
I tend to agree with ML generally though i have one question. In all of his letters he signs off as 'Architect of this Parish' does this mean anything. I mean by now anyone who reads the letters page knows what ML does for a living. But just wanted to know if it has any extra meaning?..... It comes across as rather odd? TheTruthHurts, Landscape Gardener Dog Walker God Parent Pizza Loving philosopher occasional drinker 420 friendly...... of this parish :-)
Everyone knows what James Alexander is (does), but, he still adds his 'Leader' title to his letters.

I imagine that like JA, ML is proud of his profession and that he is of 'this Parish'.

It's a long-standing tradition for ML, whereas with JA, it's likely to soon be a thing of the past, as in 2015, it will most certainly come to an abrupt end !
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: I tend to agree with ML generally though i have one question. In all of his letters he signs off as 'Architect of this Parish' does this mean anything. I mean by now anyone who reads the letters page knows what ML does for a living. But just wanted to know if it has any extra meaning?..... It comes across as rather odd? TheTruthHurts, Landscape Gardener Dog Walker God Parent Pizza Loving philosopher occasional drinker 420 friendly...... of this parish :-)[/p][/quote]Everyone knows what James Alexander is (does), but, he still adds his 'Leader' title to his letters. I imagine that like JA, ML is proud of his profession and that he is of 'this Parish'. It's a long-standing tradition for ML, whereas with JA, it's likely to soon be a thing of the past, as in 2015, it will most certainly come to an abrupt end ! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -31

6:56pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Seadog says...

When banns are called in church, it is customary to refer to one or or other (or both, if applicable) of the betrothed as "of this parish." Since Lord Mayor's walk is in the parish of St Thomas (I think) that, I suppose is the parish to which ML refers.

It's the bit that comes next which is interesting: "if any one knows any cause or just impediment ... Ye are to declare it."
When banns are called in church, it is customary to refer to one or or other (or both, if applicable) of the betrothed as "of this parish." Since Lord Mayor's walk is in the parish of St Thomas (I think) that, I suppose is the parish to which ML refers. It's the bit that comes next which is interesting: "if any one knows any cause or just impediment ... Ye are to declare it." Seadog
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Although I agree with the gist of Mr Laverack's letter I don't really care whether the offices are turned into a hotel or flats since I think I would be unable to afford either.
What does fascinate me is that the owners have had about 6 years to firm up their hoyel plans and yet the offices have been empty for a year now. Could it be that the owners are waiting for somebody to offer to buy the offices and thus make a quick profit for no effort? Or will they turn into the new White Swan so in 30 years wizened old Yorkies will say "Aye lad they used to be the council offices but they have been derelict for 3 decades now".
Although I agree with the gist of Mr Laverack's letter I don't really care whether the offices are turned into a hotel or flats since I think I would be unable to afford either. What does fascinate me is that the owners have had about 6 years to firm up their hoyel plans and yet the offices have been empty for a year now. Could it be that the owners are waiting for somebody to offer to buy the offices and thus make a quick profit for no effort? Or will they turn into the new White Swan so in 30 years wizened old Yorkies will say "Aye lad they used to be the council offices but they have been derelict for 3 decades now". Pinza-C55
  • Score: 15

8:45pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Its also worth pointing out that when the offices were sold - 2007 I think? - Mr Alexander was not in charge of the council so wasn't in a position to place any kind of covenant on their use. That would be Andrew Waller.
Its also worth pointing out that when the offices were sold - 2007 I think? - Mr Alexander was not in charge of the council so wasn't in a position to place any kind of covenant on their use. That would be Andrew Waller. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 17

9:54am Tue 18 Mar 14

The Great Buda says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
Its also worth pointing out that when the offices were sold - 2007 I think? - Mr Alexander was not in charge of the council so wasn't in a position to place any kind of covenant on their use. That would be Andrew Waller.
Stop letting facts get in the way.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: Its also worth pointing out that when the offices were sold - 2007 I think? - Mr Alexander was not in charge of the council so wasn't in a position to place any kind of covenant on their use. That would be Andrew Waller.[/p][/quote]Stop letting facts get in the way. The Great Buda
  • Score: 13

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree