Counting cost of doomed process (From York Press)

The preparation of the LDF began around 2004. Do you remember 2004? House prices were going through the roof and domestic, European and western world economies were booming. At the time the LDF was not a priority in fact the Labour government set no time scale for the completion as the Lib-Dem council began the process. So given the enormous changes since its inception and the change of democratically elected council it’s hardly surprising that major changes are now required. In fact it would be irresponsible not to change it if new opportunities for the city such as the Monks Cross development arose.

A quick Google will tell you both these letter writers are far from being impartial.

As a YCFC supporter, but also as a resident of this city, I think the stadium is one of the best things to happen to York in a long time.

With an extra 23,000 residents over the last 10yrs, I also think we need the extra retail. Lets give residents facilities other similar sized towns and cities have enjoyed for years.

Will.I.Aint wrote:
The preparation of the LDF began around 2004. Do you remember 2004? House prices were going through the roof and domestic, European and western world economies were booming. At the time the LDF was not a priority in fact the Labour government set no time scale for the completion as the Lib-Dem council began the process. So given the enormous changes since its inception and the change of democratically elected council it’s hardly surprising that major changes are now required. In fact it would be irresponsible not to change it if new opportunities for the city such as the Monks Cross development arose.

I'm sorry but, you are mistaken, on two points:-
1. In 2004, the Labour government originally set an end date of September 2007 for local plans to be scrapped and replaced by LDF's. By this date only 14 out of 350 councils had their LDF's in place and approved, so the end date was cancelled, and Labour failed to set another.
2. The Core Strategy has been constantly amended and updated to take account of the changes in the housing market, and of sites that were completed. This is done through data collected and published in Annual Monitoring Reports.

The major changes are necessary because the council had failed on many different counts, the most damning and serious being the MX2 decision. None of this was owing to the global economic crisis, changes in council political control, or the new NPPF. The council have been irresponsible, and no amount of spin or denial will wash with those who have followed this, and understand how the process works. Those responsible; councillors and officers, should stand down or be fired.

Even AndyD wrote:
A quick Google will tell you both these letter writers are far from being impartial.

As a YCFC supporter, but also as a resident of this city, I think the stadium is one of the best things to happen to York in a long time.

With an extra 23,000 residents over the last 10yrs, I also think we need the extra retail. Lets give residents facilities other similar sized towns and cities have enjoyed for years.

The letter writers are an architect and a housebuilder. Unlike many who have been taken in by the council's lies and deception, these individuals know what they are talking about and understand how the process works.

The letters are more about the the lies and spin used by the council about the cost of the aborted LDF, and the non-compliance of the MX2 decision with the NPPF. The later makes the likelihood that the Secretary of State will call in MX2, almost certain.

If the existing LDF and it's back up material could be reused to put things right there would have been no obligation to withdraw it.
It could have simply been amended as per the original intention following the Planning Inspector's first exploratory meeting. It is the earthquake of the Monks Cross approvals that has destroyed the foundations of the whole core strategy. It has been fundamentally busted and all this talk by the council of new opportunities and utilising work previously done is a load of crap designed to conceive and save face.

ANDY D

Both letter writers make their comments openly in the press with their names and addresses, which is to be applauded. They have the courage of their convictions and do not hide behind anonymous blog names.
Both letter writers are well known contributors to the press and are not hiding the fact that they are in business. They have their views and you have yours, all based on Hiw you see things. They are no more or less impartial than you are. But that does not stop you once again "having a pop" at them. You might not like what they have to say but that does not alter the fact that what they say is absolutely right. The abortive LDF costs are far higher than the council have claimed and the work previously done on it cannot be simply regurgitated into a new document.

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Will.I.Aint wrote:
The preparation of the LDF began around 2004. Do you remember 2004? House prices were going through the roof and domestic, European and western world economies were booming. At the time the LDF was not a priority in fact the Labour government set no time scale for the completion as the Lib-Dem council began the process. So given the enormous changes since its inception and the change of democratically elected council it’s hardly surprising that major changes are now required. In fact it would be irresponsible not to change it if new opportunities for the city such as the Monks Cross development arose.

I'm sorry but, you are mistaken, on two points:-
1. In 2004, the Labour government originally set an end date of September 2007 for local plans to be scrapped and replaced by LDF's. By this date only 14 out of 350 councils had their LDF's in place and approved, so the end date was cancelled, and Labour failed to set another.
2. The Core Strategy has been constantly amended and updated to take account of the changes in the housing market, and of sites that were completed. This is done through data collected and published in Annual Monitoring Reports.

The major changes are necessary because the council had failed on many different counts, the most damning and serious being the MX2 decision. None of this was owing to the global economic crisis, changes in council political control, or the new NPPF. The council have been irresponsible, and no amount of spin or denial will wash with those who have followed this, and understand how the process works. Those responsible; councillors and officers, should stand down or be fired.

1, I stand corrected about the September 2007 date. It seems apparent however that with only 4% of councils complying and the government not bothering to set a new target, the exercise was already flawed.

2, I never said that the core strategy wasn’t being updated.

I dispute your point however that major changes to the LDF were only necessary because of the council’s failure especially when referring to the MX2 decision. If I remember correctly the LDF had already been rejected by the government’s inspector before the decision on MX2 was made. The major changes to our cities plans were necessary for the same reasons as major changes are needed by every individual, company, council and government. The economy has changed beyond all recognition since 2004 and we all have to adapt. In fact bearing in mind what is happening in the euro-zone at the minute everything could well change again.

Will.I.Aint you are wrong.

The LDF had not been rejected by the Inspector prior to the Monks Cross approvals.

The inspector had agreed to a six month deferral to bring the document up to scratch.

The approval of the Monks Cross applications blew it apart. The document could no longer be modified because the Monks Cross approvals went against all accepted planning strategy that had been discussed and agreed during the eight year LDF consultation period.
The position now is extremely uncertain. It is difficult to see how York council can come up with any credible core strategy. You must understand that planning decisions must be "fair" and "consistent" so anyone else now coming forward with out of town applications on green land (who are offering a big enough financial incentive) will obviously say you've given consent to Monks Cross so you must give permission to me.
It is a mess. A very serious problem. The possible detrimental consequences cannot be over stated. Have a read of last week's "Planning" magazine to see what planning professionals think of it. They are not at all impressed.