New initiative aims to get York building again (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
New initiative aims to get York building again
8:15am Friday 1st February 2013 in News
COUNCIL chiefs have launched a new initiative to Get York Building.
It will include a £1 million fund and changes to affordable housing requirements to get stalled developments off the ground and increase the number of new homes built in York.
Proposals will be discussed at the City of York Counciil’s local plan working group on February 7 and by its cabinet on February 12.
They include updating affordable housing targets, accepting off-site financial contributions instead of on-site affordable housing on sites of less than 15 homes in rural areas, agreeing a first phase of building 50 to 70 new council homes, investing £1 million in addressing overcrowding in existing council homes, plus looking at a mortgage advice scheme and attracting investment to provide new homes for market rent.
Authority leader Coun James Alexander said: “City of York Council plays a key role in unlocking developments that can be brought forward, which is why we’re launching a new initiative called Get York Building, which will provide much-needed more sustainable homes, help the local economy, unblock the house-building market and provide a much-needed boost to employment, reducing benefits dependency while creating a knock-on impact in the wider prosperity of the city.”
Comments(37)
Yorkies4girls
says...
8:49am Fri 1 Feb 13
Buzz Light-year
says...
8:52am Fri 1 Feb 13
Keeet Lemon
says...
8:58am Fri 1 Feb 13
Mulgrave
says...
9:04am Fri 1 Feb 13
nowthen wrote:It is universally acknowledged that we have a chronic shortage of 'affordable' homes, but I don't hear this being said of schools, open spaces, etc so it must be that the people waiting for the homes will need education, recreation etc irrespective of their housing situation.
" accepting off-site financial contributions " in plain brown envelopes ? well at least they're being open about it :)
However as soon as anyone puts themself forward as a creator of housing, they seem to become solely responsible for the creation of the demand for said schools, recreation, when it could be argued they are solving the primary problem. It should be remembered that the provision of extra housing at what ever price level, will, due to supply and demand in a free market,
lead to a rebalancing of supply and pricing and make more of the existing housing stock affordable to more people.
I have no involvement in house building, but if someone wants to build housing at what ever price level, how about just letting them do it, subject to planning. The ridiculous '50% of nothing is nothing' affordable housing scenario was never going to work, and surely it is time for a different approach. It is argued that schools are under used in the area around the university because of the increased student numbers, I bet a pound to a penny if someone tried for a dozen houses they would be hit with a hefty section 106 demand for provision of sschooling!
pedalling paul
says...
9:06am Fri 1 Feb 13
pedalling paul
says...
9:06am Fri 1 Feb 13
capt spaulding
says...
9:13am Fri 1 Feb 13
So Im sure you wont mind if I make a comment.
I have seen the amended proposals put together by our (NEW BROOM) Darren, which have been described to me as tinkering round the edges and rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic !,
Nothing will happen now as it has not happened before.
House building of any substance in York is a distant memory.
Dave and Tracey are responsible and they should resign they are a disgrace.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
12:52pm Fri 1 Feb 13
We had hoped that you might be able to bring about the change of culture, and approach/attitude needed at COYC, but, at the same time we were well aware that you would face massive resistance - from officers and councillors. It seems that the usual suspects have achieved their main objective - not to get York building, not to increase housing, but, to protect affordable targets at the expense of everything else.
I told you at our last meeting, that the council would have to take a hit on the AH targets, but, this is nowhere near enough, and will do little or nothing to unlock stalled sites. A target of ten percent and a threshold of 10 had been the minimum requirement, and even then this may not have been enough. The reduction put forward of 5% is in effect an adjustment for dynamic viability. It’s tinkering, and shows that the council is oblivious of the scale of the problem, and incapable of sorting it out.
We have been here before. We know exactly how officers have manipulated previous consultations, and this one is no exception. It has all the hallmarks of their previous stitch-ups; the partisan attendees at the workshops, and then the skewed report full of misleading half-truths and defective statements, all designed to paint a convincing picture that the council is responding to stakeholders.
You entered this process too late. The decisions were made before you started. The invitation lists carefully rigged. The interviews with stalled site owners carried out behind closed doors and no report/survey produced. You have been outflanked and outnumbered, and your impact neutralised. I don’t blame you, but, I do pity you. You have inherited a poisoned chalice, and will no doubt be blamed for any failure.
I suspect the council will now attempt to capitalise with a free for all allocation of greenbelt land, which will give them the levels of affordable that they require. The problem here is that it will take at least 3-5 years before these yield any completions, and even then there is a possibility that the limited capacity in the industry and locally, will delay things even longer.
The council have missed an opportunity with the oven-ready sites, and are putting all their eggs in the development plan basket, which will leave York starving for housing – the famine is set to get worse – is this a self-fulfilling prophesy ?
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
1:08pm Fri 1 Feb 13
How many houses do they hope will be built in York as a result of these measures over the next five years ?
These are the predictions made in the Council's last published Annual Monitoring Report (2010/11) for housing completions:-
2013/14 - 985
2014/15 - 1,066
2015/16 - 1,211
2016/17 - 887
2017/18 - 1,096
In 2011/12 there were 321 completions, and excluding student accommodation which the council now count as housing, the completions for 2012/13 are likely to be around the same as the previous year (c.320).
Will the GYB initiative increase housing completions to the levels predicted in the AMR ?
IMHO, not a chance !
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
1:15pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Keeet Lemon wrote:Totally agree !
Too little too late
Mulgrave
says...
1:54pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:It is ludicrous to simultaneously count the new build student accomodation in the housing numbers, and bring in the article 4 declaration to require planning consent for change of use when an existing house is to be newly occupied by three or more students. Looks very much like making it up as they go along and tying themselves up in knots in the process
I ask the Council this question:-
How many houses do they hope will be built in York as a result of these measures over the next five years ?
These are the predictions made in the Council's last published Annual Monitoring Report (2010/11) for housing completions:-
2013/14 - 985
2014/15 - 1,066
2015/16 - 1,211
2016/17 - 887
2017/18 - 1,096
In 2011/12 there were 321 completions, and excluding student accommodation which the council now count as housing, the completions for 2012/13 are likely to be around the same as the previous year (c.320).
Will the GYB initiative increase housing completions to the levels predicted in the AMR ?
IMHO, not a chance !
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
2:27pm Fri 1 Feb 13
He pledged to increase housing in his manifesto, yet in his first year in power completions bombed to an all time low of 321 (2011/12).
He has now promised to increase completions this year, after failing for the last two years. What other 'smoke and mirror' stunts will he pull to inflate the numbers ? Watch out for counting hotel bedrooms as housing next !!!
meme
says...
2:29pm Fri 1 Feb 13
I have not built any for a while as the affordable percentages made it impossible for a small builder to make any money.
The new proposals will not change my mind at all. I willl not be building at all except on individual sites for single buildings.
Small devlopers cannot bear these costs..Larger ones can.
Changing the percentages by effectivly 5% is not a radical change but tinkering at the edges.
York needs homes and this council is stopping them being delivered and results in ever higher prices due to a suply drought.
Plus York please stop fiddling the figures.....produce a NET number of new homes split into affordable and open market but ignoring student bedsits then the York populace may actually see how acute this problem is and how few real homes are being delivered
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
2:48pm Fri 1 Feb 13
The Council should listen to developers/professio
nals like 'meme', but, they don't. They have ignored the common sense advice since before the 50% affordable housing policy was introduced. They were warned that this would choke off land supply and housebuilding, yet the Council went ahead and retained the target for almost six years.
They were forced to reduce the AH targets following the late in the day AHVS, which could not justify the illegitimate 50% target, but, even then the reduced targets were criticised as unworkable. That was two years ago, and again the critics were proved right - no increase in housebuilding, instead another decrease.
This is third time unlucky for the left wing officers running the show, and meanwhile they draw their generous salaries while the housebuilders of York have lost their jobs and the firms and their industry.
capt spaulding
says...
2:55pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Reading in this column and speaking to others, I conclude that this hasnt happened and nor will it.
Darren Richardson should be allowed to do the job he was employed to do at great expence to us and get things moving. Sadly he is being sidelined.
I will have a shilling on the side with anyone that he moves on soon.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
3:25pm Fri 1 Feb 13
capt spaulding wrote:My bet, is that they will sacrifice York's greenbelt, to satisfy their demand for inflated levels of affordable housing. They will allocate this at the expense of stalled brownfield sites.
The council needs to get builders in agreement and on board with these proposals. Reading in this column and speaking to others, I conclude that this hasnt happened and nor will it. Darren Richardson should be allowed to do the job he was employed to do at great expence to us and get things moving. Sadly he is being sidelined. I will have a shilling on the side with anyone that he moves on soon.
The big builders do not work collectively, and will cut each others throats to get a short term gain, even if they cut their own throats in doing so. They cannot be relied on to make a sensible case, and are only concerned with blinkered self-interest.
Policies should be balanced, fair, clear, unambiguous and benefit York, not the controlling politicians and their politicised officers. These proposals are more about satisfying ideaological beliefs, which are discriminatory against, and punitive to, the private sector generally.
It's run by a handful of officers, not Darren Richardson. I doubt that he will last long, but, will take the generous salary (between £88,000 - £106,000) in the meantime.
south bronx red 2
says...
7:06pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
7:17pm Fri 1 Feb 13
south bronx red 2 wrote:If you mean affordable in the context of this issue, then you should know that this means social housing.
You still havent answered how much it costs to build an affordable house and what return you get on it Paul.
Basically, the developer receives less than it costs to build the social houses it has to hand over under S106 requirements, and the land has to be thrown in for nothing. There is therefore a loss not a return.
I hope this answers your question, as I will not be answering anymore from you on this subject. Ask your Labour councillor friends to brief you.
south bronx red 2
says...
7:48pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Typical, maybe a good reason to ignore your rants.
Forced to build loss making properties. I dont think so.
Maybe a reason why you cant complete the circle, the real answer is you are not agreeing to build a property which gives you a little less return than want. If a property developer didnt make a million over the last 15 years they cant be that bright
south bronx red 2
says...
7:53pm Fri 1 Feb 13
£100k+ plus expenses ?
Maybe you should be making sure you've filed your return so i can look them up on companies house soon.
jorvik
says...
8:10pm Fri 1 Feb 13
south bronx red 2 wrote:South Bronx red you really are a tit
If we are talking sallaries what's your take every year ?
£100k+ plus expenses ?
Maybe you should be making sure you've filed your return so i can look them up on companies house soon.
Paul Meoff
says...
8:52pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:Stupid comments from a pair of idiots. So nothing should be done because it wasn't done earlier.
Keeet Lemon wrote:Totally agree !
Too little too late
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:03pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Paul Meoff wrote:Wrong - they should do more, a lot more !
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:Stupid comments from a pair of idiots. So nothing should be done because it wasn't done earlier.
Keeet Lemon wrote:Totally agree !
Too little too late
What authority do you have to call us 'idiots'. Disprove what I say, I challenge you. If not, don't waste our time trolling.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:08pm Fri 1 Feb 13
south bronx red 2 wrote:Look, you are only on here to cause trouble, and spread malicious lies. Go away and learn more about the subject, then come back when you know what you are talking about. Leave the grown ups to debate the issue, which you clearly don't understand, or care about.
So you will spout figures which suit your paranoia but wont back them up on here.
Typical, maybe a good reason to ignore your rants.
Forced to build loss making properties. I dont think so.
Maybe a reason why you cant complete the circle, the real answer is you are not agreeing to build a property which gives you a little less return than want. If a property developer didnt make a million over the last 15 years they cant be that bright
You are making a fool of yourself, and those you seek to protect/support.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:14pm Fri 1 Feb 13
south bronx red 2 wrote:Ha ha, I wish.
If we are talking sallaries what's your take every year ?
£100k+ plus expenses ?
Maybe you should be making sure you've filed your return so i can look them up on companies house soon.
I have earnt £36,000 in the last five years ! Not per year, a total of £36k in five years. Thats an average of £7,200/yr - less than minimum/living wage.
All returns filed and up to date. Look them up.
Many in construction have suffered hardship in York, not helped by the Council's housing policies.
If I had been busy, I wouldn't have time to read the reports and do the research.
capt spaulding
says...
10:25pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Southbronx thingummy says ....well not a lot really just niggling ping pong rubbish.
so whos right ?
Well lets think here.
There aint no building happening.
Why ? because i suppose its no longer viable .
But the fact is there aint no building happening.
Why ? because there are so many obstacles put into the path of developers that they have gone elsewhere.
Doesnt take a genius to work it out does it.
South bronx you are simply making trouble .....reminisent of the utter bile that jezreel spouted in the past.
My advice to all posters is to completely ignore any posts from bronco billy
south bronx red 2
says...
3:40am Sat 2 Feb 13
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:The same utter bile on here about elected York officials are to blame for everything ?
south bronx red 2 wrote:Look, you are only on here to cause trouble, and spread malicious lies. Go away and learn more about the subject, then come back when you know what you are talking about. Leave the grown ups to debate the issue, which you clearly don't understand, or care about.
So you will spout figures which suit your paranoia but wont back them up on here.
Typical, maybe a good reason to ignore your rants.
Forced to build loss making properties. I dont think so.
Maybe a reason why you cant complete the circle, the real answer is you are not agreeing to build a property which gives you a little less return than want. If a property developer didnt make a million over the last 15 years they cant be that bright
You are making a fool of yourself, and those you seek to protect/support.
Where have these developers gone exactly ?
Surprisingly Paul and his buddies what to tell everybody who earns what and what they claim as a legal expense.
But refuse to expand on what it costs them to build a affordable home and what the profit is.
Id like to know what is an affordable figure.
capt spaulding
says...
6:29am Sat 2 Feb 13
Give it a rest Liz we all know your hateful towards him. What we dont know is why.
capt spaulding
says...
6:34am Sat 2 Feb 13
Well he has either lost the key or has brought the wrong one.
Time to get a locksmith James or someone else who can do the unlocking.
Tough job though Tracey and Dave have fitted extra padlocks and strong bolts.
Paul Meoff
says...
7:55am Sat 2 Feb 13
capt spaulding wrote:Sounds like you should sober up or you'll continue to make a fool of yourself by posting such drivel.
Meanwhile James Alexander says his playing a KEY role in unlocking developments that can be brought forward ?????
Well he has either lost the key or has brought the wrong one.
Time to get a locksmith James or someone else who can do the unlocking.
Tough job though Tracey and Dave have fitted extra padlocks and strong bolts.
capt spaulding
says...
9:13am Sat 2 Feb 13
south bronx red 2
says...
9:57am Sat 2 Feb 13
capt spaulding wrote:No i dont . I know who he is. I was merely pointing out , thats the type of people York are being held to ransom by, just so happens he's his mate.
Your not interested in anything at all other than needling scarlet pimpernel who you wrongly believe to be Matthew Laverack.
Give it a rest Liz we all know your hateful towards him. What we dont know is why.
Maybe you could tell us all what the figures are for affordable housing.
Or will you be waffling about which councillor may or may not be posting on here.
jorvik
says...
11:00am Sat 2 Feb 13
south bronx red 2 wrote:To purchase an affordable/social house at the revival site on Tadcaster road you would need to put down a deposit of £20,000 how the fxxx is that affordable,it's a scam,and who in their right mind would spend over £250,000 on a house in an estate that has a 50% social housing policy (current policy)meaning you could have a chav on one side and an asylum seeker on the other
capt spaulding wrote:No i dont . I know who he is. I was merely pointing out , thats the type of people York are being held to ransom by, just so happens he's his mate.
Your not interested in anything at all other than needling scarlet pimpernel who you wrongly believe to be Matthew Laverack.
Give it a rest Liz we all know your hateful towards him. What we dont know is why.
Maybe you could tell us all what the figures are for affordable housing.
Or will you be waffling about which councillor may or may not be posting on here.
capt spaulding
says...
11:13am Sat 2 Feb 13
south bronx red 2 wrote:Waffle is not something I aspire to unlike yourself.
capt spaulding wrote:No i dont . I know who he is. I was merely pointing out , thats the type of people York are being held to ransom by, just so happens he's his mate.
Your not interested in anything at all other than needling scarlet pimpernel who you wrongly believe to be Matthew Laverack.
Give it a rest Liz we all know your hateful towards him. What we dont know is why.
Maybe you could tell us all what the figures are for affordable housing.
Or will you be waffling about which councillor may or may not be posting on here.
capt spaulding
says...
11:20am Sat 2 Feb 13
jorvik wrote:Yorvik has it about right here.
south bronx red 2 wrote:To purchase an affordable/social house at the revival site on Tadcaster road you would need to put down a deposit of £20,000 how the fxxx is that affordable,it's a scam,and who in their right mind would spend over £250,000 on a house in an estate that has a 50% social housing policy (current policy)meaning you could have a chav on one side and an asylum seeker on the other
capt spaulding wrote:No i dont . I know who he is. I was merely pointing out , thats the type of people York are being held to ransom by, just so happens he's his mate.
Your not interested in anything at all other than needling scarlet pimpernel who you wrongly believe to be Matthew Laverack.
Give it a rest Liz we all know your hateful towards him. What we dont know is why.
Maybe you could tell us all what the figures are for affordable housing.
Or will you be waffling about which councillor may or may not be posting on here.
Why would you buy a £250.000 house with chavs either side and asylum seekers opposite. ?
Bit tongue in cheek I know but he has a fair point.
Developers struggle to sell houses with that amount of affordable nearby and any decent solicitor would advise caution when his client will at some time wish to sell and the same difficulties will arise. Probably coupled with a devaluation as well.
The social engineering experiment our council have embarked upon is a complete disaster.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:08pm Sun 3 Feb 13
The consultation process was a stitch up.
The whole thing has been plotted by a cabal of officers with support from their senior officers.
It will be exposed, as will the officers, and those responsible should lose their jobs.
If this is how the council operates, it is being run in a deceitful and completely undemocratic way, with officers allowed to mislead and misinform councillors.
THIS NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED !
It is a total disgrace.
nowthen says...
8:24am Fri 1 Feb 13