Is there a plot? (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Is there a plot?
8:26am Monday 14th May 2012 in Letters By Reader's letter
SO THE Government planning inspector castigated our council for not saying where the core strategy plan to build 16,000 new homes will find the land for this project.
The site for this equates to about 30 times the area used for the Rowntree development in Osbaldwick. The council owes it to its citizens to be fully open as to where it intends these homes should be built.
Stifling debate on this issue will only lead to people thinking there is something to hide.
Geoff Robb, Hunters Close, Dunnington.
Comments(28)
Mr Crabtree
says...
12:30pm Mon 14 May 12
Many property experts in York have serious doubts that York can deliver the new homes because their affordable housing targets remain unworkable. These are now 35% for greenfield and 25% for brownfield with varying thresholds, the main urban one being 15 dwellings. The opinion of the experts was that 15% was the maximum the council should ask for, but recent material price inflation has brought that down to 10%. With increased building standards that are due over the next few years, this will eventually wipe out the target completely. Until the Council come to their senses, they will continue to fail, and this has not escaped the attention of the planning inspector.
Mr Crabtree
says...
12:48pm Mon 14 May 12
Jezreel wrote:Please explain how this is at the 'expense of the needy' when the current position is that very few homes are being built in York ?
Same old, same old. Watch out for Sperare (Spag Bol) and Crabtree and possibly other manifestations of Matthew doing a bit of special pleading on behalf of the greedy at the expense of the needy. It's getting boring.
It's the council who are being greedy with their unworkable affordable (social) housing targets.
Only 352 new homes were delivered in the year to 31-Mar-12, which is a record low. In 2004/05 there were 1,160 completions. Planning consents are even worse; in 2007/08 permission was given for 1,629 homes, which fell to 182 in 2009/10 and 198 in 2010/11. These latter figures represent the all important pipeline for the future, and are less than 25% of the average needed. York has a serious problem, but, they will not admit it. Instead they pretend that it doesn't exist. The main culprits behind the deception are Coun Merrett and Coun Simpson-Laing assisted by a handful of politicised officers. They have been found out, and the planning inspector is onto them !
Mr Crabtree
says...
12:55pm Mon 14 May 12
Jezreel wrote:LOL.... That reminds me, I must disinfect mine to kill off those nasty annoying germs that lurk under the rim. A good flush, then I'll wash my hands of the odious little blighters !
Thanks Lavatree, now put on your other hat and tell us what Spag Bol thinks
YorkToff
says...
12:55pm Mon 14 May 12
The government needs to compulsory purchase land at low cost and build houses for sale at affordable prices and rent.
Mr Crabtree
says...
1:05pm Mon 14 May 12
YorkToff wrote:Exactly what Coun Merrett is banking on. The only problem is, Labour are not running the country, and even if they get back in power, this communist ideology will never get as far as a white paper.
There is plenty of space in and around York. The government needs to compulsory purchase land at low cost and build houses for sale at affordable prices and rent.
Interesting though, that YorkToff is on the same wavelength as his comrade, Chairman Mao Tse Merrett.
Mr Crabtree
says...
1:18pm Mon 14 May 12
If York Council are so hellbent on providing social housing, why didn't they insist that Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust build 100% affordable at Derwenthorpe ? It was the council's land, sold at a massive discount, and yet they allowed JRHT to only build 40% affordable, even though the target was 50%. Why don't the council sell or give all their land to JRHT in return for social housing ? It's because they want as much money as they can get. That's why they are selling Yearsley Grange to Linden Homes, and not to JRHT. The hypocrisy stinks.
YorkToff
says...
1:49pm Mon 14 May 12
Mr Crabtree wrote:Crabby - wrong as per usual.
YorkToff wrote:Exactly what Coun Merrett is banking on. The only problem is, Labour are not running the country, and even if they get back in power, this communist ideology will never get as far as a white paper.
There is plenty of space in and around York. The government needs to compulsory purchase land at low cost and build houses for sale at affordable prices and rent.
Interesting though, that YorkToff is on the same wavelength as his comrade, Chairman Mao Tse Merrett.
Most council housing was done under Tory governments - McMillan.
YorkToff
says...
1:51pm Mon 14 May 12
Mr Crabtree wrote:It isn't compulsory theft - it is taking land from people at a reasonable cost for the benefit of the homeless and not landlords and landowners fat wallets.
Here is a question for those who agree with York Toff on his compulsory theft of land for social housing.
If York Council are so hellbent on providing social housing, why didn't they insist that Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust build 100% affordable at Derwenthorpe ? It was the council's land, sold at a massive discount, and yet they allowed JRHT to only build 40% affordable, even though the target was 50%. Why don't the council sell or give all their land to JRHT in return for social housing ? It's because they want as much money as they can get. That's why they are selling Yearsley Grange to Linden Homes, and not to JRHT. The hypocrisy stinks.
Even AndyD
says...
1:51pm Mon 14 May 12
You'd not know decent Communism if it bit you on the foot and told you how to say ow! Not that they didn't know how to solve the housing problem. The world has never seen home building like the Soviets did to sort their shortage between 1960-70. All terrible of course and didn't last, but there you go.
Even AndyD
says...
1:53pm Mon 14 May 12
Do you know, I think I've cracked it! :-)
YorkToff
says...
2:04pm Mon 14 May 12
There should be an emphasis on pretty houses with nice gardens if required, green spaces and villages not sprawling estates or stalingrad style flats.
Mr Crabtree
says...
2:07pm Mon 14 May 12
YorkToff wrote:Reasonable cost ? What like the land values the Council use in their affordable housing viability study ? I wonder if Andy D will agree with you, when he finds out what Bootham Crescent is really worth because of the council's policy ?
Mr Crabtree wrote: Here is a question for those who agree with York Toff on his compulsory theft of land for social housing. If York Council are so hellbent on providing social housing, why didn't they insist that Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust build 100% affordable at Derwenthorpe ? It was the council's land, sold at a massive discount, and yet they allowed JRHT to only build 40% affordable, even though the target was 50%. Why don't the council sell or give all their land to JRHT in return for social housing ? It's because they want as much money as they can get. That's why they are selling Yearsley Grange to Linden Homes, and not to JRHT. The hypocrisy stinks.It isn't compulsory theft - it is taking land from people at a reasonable cost for the benefit of the homeless and not landlords and landowners fat wallets.
Even AndyD
says...
2:16pm Mon 14 May 12
Mr Crabtree
says...
4:29pm Mon 14 May 12
Even AndyD wrote:Please share it with us then, Andy....... how much is it worth now, as opposed to years back ?
I already know that, Mr C. Everyone knows, its been in the media for months if not years. It was certainly discussed in depth by City fans on RnB years back, which is why we knew the YCFC contribution to MX2 wasn't going to be much.
Mr Crabtree
says...
4:59pm Mon 14 May 12
The cancellation of meetings is nothing new, but, I do wonder how hard the LDF Working Group and officers are actually working on the Core Strategy ? Last year they had a meeting on 14-Mar-2011, then three consecutive meetings were cancelled in April, July and September, with the next one held on 3-Oct-11; almost seven months later. It certainly looks like they took all summer off, and were in no rush to get the LDF submitted.
Is there any wonder that it has taken eight years to prepare and submit the CS/LDF, when they take seven months bewteen meetings ? The new administration waited five months to have their first LDF meeting, and shows that Labour have a record of stifling debate on this matter.
Never mind, if the Monks X and Stadium application is approved on Thursday, they can start all over again, as the LDF will fail. Better still why not cancel the LDF ?
Mr Crabtree
says...
5:15pm Mon 14 May 12
YorkToff wrote:There is no law against this, but, why do you think no one is doing it in a big way ?
I believe the government should allow people to form housing co-operatives where they could design houses as they like - within reason. There should be an emphasis on pretty houses with nice gardens if required, green spaces and villages not sprawling estates or stalingrad style flats.
Since you are full of bright ideas and are good at telling others how it should be done, like Coun Simpson-Laing, why don't you have a go ?
Find some land, appoint an architect to draw up plans, apply for planning permission, comply with the affordable housing policy and agree to hand over 25% of the houses you build at less than they have cost you to build, and provide the land for them for nothing. Pay all the upfront S106 charges for education, open space and infrastructure. Pay your architect for detailed design for building regulation purposes. Use all your savings to part fund the project and borrow the rest from your bank. Employ tradesmen, order materials, supervise and organise the work, and find buyers whio don't mind living next to the pepper-potted social housing. When you have finished, tell us how much money you have made, or lost ?
Create the utopia you think is so easily achieveable..... in your dreams, YorkToff - DREAM ON !
Even AndyD
says...
5:53pm Mon 14 May 12
Mr Crabtree wrote:Believe it or not, I'm not a walking memory bank for land values. But......I seem to recall the figure discussed pre-2007 was about £4m and now we'd be lucky to get half that. Less probably. The fall in house prices along with AH has certainly been discussed.
Even AndyD wrote:Please share it with us then, Andy....... how much is it worth now, as opposed to years back ?
I already know that, Mr C. Everyone knows, its been in the media for months if not years. It was certainly discussed in depth by City fans on RnB years back, which is why we knew the YCFC contribution to MX2 wasn't going to be much.
You can check for more detail on RnB - the ground saga thread has 115 pages and nearly 3000 comments, you'll feel right at home! :-)
Mr Crabtree
says...
7:11pm Mon 14 May 12
The last published valuation was in 2008, when Bill Woolley (that man again) had BC valued at £3.8m.
The council had their AH viability study carried out in 2009, which was published in July 2010 (more delays). This is supposed to be an evidence-based study, but is totally contrived, using massively-discounted
, theoretical land values. For brownfield land it uses £200,000 - 250,000/acre to support 25% affordable housing.
Using these values; BC is approx 5 acres x £250,000 = £1.25m less site clearance/abnormal costs of say £500,000 = £750,000. So it may have lost £3m of it's value.
The paradox is, that at the time of the £3.8m valuation (2008), the council's AH target was 50%. As land values decrease the amount of AH supported increases by about 5% for every £50,000/acre the land is reduced by. Hope your following this ? At 50% the land value is, guess how much ? It is zero ! If you then factor in the siteclearance/abnorm
als cost for BC this would have given a negative land value of -£500,000 in 2008.
How then did Bill Woolley get a valuation of £3.8m ? One possible answer is that the site was appraised on the assumption that it would be high density flats, which do provide higher land values. Flats have now lost their cache/appeal, so developers (Persimmon have the option on the site) will be looking at 2/3/4 bed terraced housing, with lower densities. Let's see how this all unfolds, and see what it is sold for, if it is sold, and if the price is disclosed ?
Even AndyD
says...
7:32pm Mon 14 May 12
Bet Mr Craig is a happy bunny - when he (just about legally) 'stole' the ground, he certainly didn't retire happily on minus any amount of pounds!
End of the day though - life is a fickle mistress who moves in ways we can never predict. So, lets just see.
Mr Crabtree
says...
8:12pm Mon 14 May 12
If housebuilding was booming, YCFC might have been bailed out by a speculator like Grantside, who paid over the odds for Terry's, hoping to be bailed out by continuing house price inflation. We all know what has happened to that site, and there is the lesson - land values are not just affected by changes in house prices - planning policies like affordable housing have the same effect !
Even AndyD
says...
8:21pm Mon 14 May 12
Its just the value of BC isn't the central issue in all this. You've got to appreciate, that whilst AH is the centre of your universe, different people have different agendas and priorities.
Mr Crabtree
says...
8:35pm Mon 14 May 12
Even AndyD wrote:Stop patronising me, and why is it funny ? The value of BC is not as minor as you attempt to make it - it is a major issue for YCFC. What happens if they can't sell it ? The AH agenda may not be the centre of anyone's universe, but, it may very well end up causing the sky to come crashing in on YCFC's plans ! You have been warned, and making light of it will not diminish the importance and relevance of BC's value. The council won't bail YCFC out on any shortfall on BC, will they ?
No - not doubting. Funny thing to ask???
Its just the value of BC isn't the central issue in all this. You've got to appreciate, that whilst AH is the centre of your universe, different people have different agendas and priorities.
Even AndyD
says...
8:44pm Mon 14 May 12
ColdAsChristmas
says...
11:44pm Mon 14 May 12
Even AndyD
says...
7:43am Tue 15 May 12
If the road system can't cope with 3000 fans once a fortnight, it certainly won't tolerate 16,000 new homes!
The infrastructure in this city needs sorting. Gridlock is an overused word, I find, but those of us who know the A1237 intimately can genuinely suggest it applies to the bypass frequently. UKs 7th most congested road - sort it please, its holding York back!
Mr Crabtree
says...
1:40pm Tue 15 May 12
The reality is that the population is growing as are household formations, and waiting lists are increasing; now 5m nationally. The need is undeniable, and like it or not, housing has to be provided. Opting out is not an option. Housebuilding will bring jobs and growth, which in turn will provide the government with tax revenues to spend on upgrading the road network.
YorkToff
says...
11:00am Wed 16 May 12
Mr Crabtree wrote:Only way you will get all that housing for all is government funded projects, cheap land and chaep mortgages and rents. Not greedy landlords and landowners making money from the poor.
CAC
The reality is that the population is growing as are household formations, and waiting lists are increasing; now 5m nationally. The need is undeniable, and like it or not, housing has to be provided. Opting out is not an option. Housebuilding will bring jobs and growth, which in turn will provide the government with tax revenues to spend on upgrading the road network.
YorkToff says...
11:09am Mon 14 May 12
People need housing and that usually requires land to build on.