Letters RSS Feed


Kept in the dark over street lights

MY FELLOW rural West York councillors and I are used to hearing from residents angry about the Labour council keeping them in the dark, their plans for the current budget and whether they will join 90 per cent of councils in freezing council tax being one such example.

However, the decision to cut down lampposts has taken this darkness too literally.

A few weeks ago residents were shocked to see lampposts cut down without notice; in many cases taking away the only light in a street. The council says it took action on safety grounds, however it is failing to provide adequate information.

We support the replacement of dangerous lampposts, but this must be done in an orderly way, rather than the rush job it seems to have been at the darkest time of year.

Safety is vital, but far from being inundated with residents detailing the injuries they have sustained from falling lampposts, many have raised concerns about possible accidents due to a lack of lighting and higher crime.

Safe and effective street lighting is a key responsibility of the council and this sort of chaos is symbolic of the new administration.

Chris Steward, Conservative councillor, Spokesman for corporate services.

• COUN Simpson-Laing accuses letter writers of misrepresenting the council’s affordable housing policy targets, but this does not alter the fact that the policy has failed (Letters, February 1).

It is certainly false to think the policy is fair, workable or successful, as she infers.

It is, however, undeniably true that the 50 per cent target, which was in force from April 2005 to December 2010, did massive harm to housebuilding in York, and the effects are still being felt.

The following facts confirm this:

• York’s housing completions peaked in 2004/05, three years before the credit crunch.

• York’s housing completions fell 55 per cent from 2004/05 to 2007/08, while house building in the rest of the country was still booming.

• York’s housing planning permissions fell 85 per cent from 2007 to 2011.

• York’s average housing completions for the past five years is only 59 per cent of York’s annual target of 800 homes.

• The council expects only 352 homes to be completed in the year to March 31 – a record low.

The councillor claims the policy is sound and correct, but how can this be when it is a failure?

Paul S Cordock, Durlston Drive, Strensall, York.

Comments(3)

Mr Crabtree says...
6:52am Tue 7 Feb 12

Scarborough Council, who have only achieved 41% of their houing target in the last four years, have now proposed to reduce their affordarble housing targets. In Scarborough this is currently 40%, but, they propose to cut this by half to 20%.
This follows Leeds where they reduced their targets to the inner suburban areas to 15%, and to the city centre to only 5% !
Why are York stubbornly, and greedily retaing targets of 35% and 25%, when it is clear they are still inflated ?
Even Coun Simpson-Laing has stated that the council will only achieve an average of 15% from negotiated quotas. This practice, called a 'seek to negotiate' stance, deters planning applications owing to the uncertainty of outcome. York Council have got this wrong again, and they have not learned from six years of mistakes with the 50% policy. This really is unforgiveable, and those responsible should resign.

Mr Crabtree says...
7:03am Tue 7 Feb 12

BTW, Scarborough were 17th (out of 17 councils I have checked) for housing completions from 2007-11, in the Yorks & Humber region, achieving 41% of their target.
Leeds Council were 11th with 66%, and York 13th with 59%.
Sheffield were 1st, with 151% of their target, and Barnsley 2nd with 104%.

Mr Crabtree says...
7:05am Tue 7 Feb 12

Pity the Press misplaced Mr Cordock's housing letter......... under a streetlighting headline ? !!!

click2find

Most popular


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