U-turn welcomed

U-turn welcomed

U-turn welcomed

First published in Letters by

I READ with interest a recent letter from Conservative councillor Joe Watt (Housing issue, August 1).

Despite Conservative councillors appearing in The Press on a regular basis against housing developments, he says his party supports more housing. He says Conservatives “now support house building on a scale not too far off what was in Labour’s 2011 council manifesto”.

This is 800 homes a year which was rejected by the planning inspector – a figure higher than Liberal Democrat proposals for 575 homes a year. Since this time York’s need for homes has increased and therefore the number of homes that need building has also been increased.

At a meeting of full council on June 30, 2011 all councillors were given the opportunity to vote for 800 homes a year; Cllr Watt and his party voted against.

The Conservative leader at the time said his party were against 800 homes a year as “the green belt will be at risk”. I welcome this Conservative U-turn, but the people of York would be interested to know which greenbelt sites the Conservatives now back for development as stated by the former Conservative Leader.

Councillor James Alexander, Labour Leader of City of York Council.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:59pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

Where is Gordon Cheapcastle, surely he does all your bidding.

Anyway mines a big Mc and fries.
Where is Gordon Cheapcastle, surely he does all your bidding. Anyway mines a big Mc and fries. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -12

6:56pm Mon 11 Aug 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Just shows you Jimmy; you are all in it together!
Just shows you Jimmy; you are all in it together! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -19

1:08am Tue 12 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

'This is 800 homes a year which was rejected by the planning inspector'


This is NOT true.

David Vickery did NOT say '800' homes a year 'was too low', as Coun Alexander tweeted on 21/06/13 as follows:-

James Alexander @jmalexander1982
4d

@iDanHill So what number? Planning inspector said 800 was too low and this was already opposed as too high by Cons, Lib Dems + Greens

It is time that Coun Alexander was taken to task over this blatant untruth.
[quote] 'This is 800 homes a year which was rejected by the planning inspector' [/quote] This is NOT true. David Vickery did NOT say '800' homes a year 'was too low', as Coun Alexander tweeted on 21/06/13 as follows:- James Alexander @jmalexander1982 4d @iDanHill So what number? Planning inspector said 800 was too low and this was already opposed as too high by Cons, Lib Dems + Greens It is time that Coun Alexander was taken to task over this blatant untruth. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -25

9:00am Tue 12 Aug 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Why didn't he write it under his over name? Gordon "the moron" Cheapcastle? p.s. have you got your application in at the new mcdonalds yet James?
Why didn't he write it under his over name? Gordon "the moron" Cheapcastle? p.s. have you got your application in at the new mcdonalds yet James? oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -11

9:06am Tue 12 Aug 14

Knavesmire view says...

Actually Jimmy, the people of York are interested to know when you plan to have the decency to resign and finally rid our City of your rotten to the core administration.
Actually Jimmy, the people of York are interested to know when you plan to have the decency to resign and finally rid our City of your rotten to the core administration. Knavesmire view
  • Score: -13

10:15am Tue 12 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
'This is 800 homes a year which was rejected by the planning inspector'
This is NOT true. David Vickery did NOT say '800' homes a year 'was too low', as Coun Alexander tweeted on 21/06/13 as follows:- James Alexander @jmalexander1982 4d @iDanHill So what number? Planning inspector said 800 was too low and this was already opposed as too high by Cons, Lib Dems + Greens It is time that Coun Alexander was taken to task over this blatant untruth.
The fact is the council aborted their Local Development Framework which they had to because by granting planning consent for the Vanguarde development at Monks Cross they invalidated it.

Prior to the withdrawal, the planning inspector had raised concerns about the deliverability of the plan, not the 800 target.

It should also be noted that since Labour took control of the council, they have not issued a revised housing trajectory, which up to them being elected has been done evevery year as part of the Annual Monitoring Report. The reason they have not done this is clear - because housing completions under Labour are at all time record lows!

Total housing failure by Labour and James Alexander!

Vote them out in May 2015!
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote] 'This is 800 homes a year which was rejected by the planning inspector' [/quote] This is NOT true. David Vickery did NOT say '800' homes a year 'was too low', as Coun Alexander tweeted on 21/06/13 as follows:- James Alexander @jmalexander1982 4d @iDanHill So what number? Planning inspector said 800 was too low and this was already opposed as too high by Cons, Lib Dems + Greens It is time that Coun Alexander was taken to task over this blatant untruth.[/p][/quote]The fact is the council aborted their Local Development Framework which they had to because by granting planning consent for the Vanguarde development at Monks Cross they invalidated it. Prior to the withdrawal, the planning inspector had raised concerns about the deliverability of the plan, not the 800 target. It should also be noted that since Labour took control of the council, they have not issued a revised housing trajectory, which up to them being elected has been done evevery year as part of the Annual Monitoring Report. The reason they have not done this is clear - because housing completions under Labour are at all time record lows! Total housing failure by Labour and James Alexander! Vote them out in May 2015! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -14

3:23am Wed 13 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

I thought The Press had said they'd fixed the vote-hacking on the comments section...??
I thought The Press had said they'd fixed the vote-hacking on the comments section...?? Magicman!
  • Score: 6

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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