The inquiry into the ill-fated council headquarters is becoming as farcical as the original fiasco itself (Too little money for HQ planning, The Press, March 16).

Whether the estimated and escalating project costs were adequate or not is completely immaterial. The scheme was never abandoned on costs grounds but purely on a matter of its design. It is incredible that the head of property services should now claim that none of the individuals involved “thought that they would have such a problem getting past English Heritage and planning”.

What response did they expect to such a huge edifice towering over a listed building?

I am not convinced for one moment it was the formal objection of English Heritage which led to the planning application being withdrawn. There was no obligation on the council to withdraw the scheme.

It would obviously be better if all the statutory consultees were supportive, but it is not essential and it would not be the first time that schemes had gone ahead in spite of adverse comments.

The question the ad-hoc scrutiny committee needs to ask is: “If the project leaders were so convinced that their pet scheme was so right then why did they not pursue it anyway?” It may have been called in by the Secretary of State for determination at a public inquiry, but this was always a possibility, and it would at least have given the proponents of the scheme the opportunity to challenge the alleged change of attitude by English Heritage.

Isn’t the real truth of the matter that those behind this gross overdevelopment knew there was serious disquiet among rank-and-file councillors and there was a serious risk that the planning application would be rejected by a majority of members, so, rather than suffer such humiliation the negative comments of English Heritage were used as a most convenient excuse to ditch the whole thing?

Matthew Laverack
Warragul, Victoria, Australia.



• I read with incredulity the latest excuse emerging from the findings of the council’s special sub-committee charged with delving into the York HQ debacle. When will the council’s officers stop trying to defend the indefensible and admit their mistakes?

Any basic project management handbook teaches that “failing to plan results in planning to fail”; without thorough analysis, projects are doomed from the beginning as they inevitably get off on the wrong track. Sound familiar?

If there is an emerging theme from the tortuously slow ad hoc scrutiny of the York HQ issue – that thankfully is being reported in The Press – it is an absence of thoroughness in forward planning.

Unsurprisingly – given the lack of a proper focus for the HQ development right from the outset – the revelations so far are of:

• poor internal communication

• inadequate external consultation

• a poor design brief

• failure to follow the council’s own planning guidelines

• knee-jerk reaction to unfolding events

The latest excuse – the inadequacy of the budget – is the lamest excuse of the lot. Surely any lack of resources is simply a consequence of a failure to plan thoroughly enough – not a cause of project failure. Project plans can only be resourced properly if they are planned properly at the outset – not the other way around!

It is not excuses for the HQ fiasco that the citizens of York require. We want an acknowledgement of an awareness of the “five Ps”, i.e. “proper planning prevents poor performance”. We also want an undertaking that lessons are being learned that will be applied in future. A string of excuses that amount to putting up a smokescreen is unacceptable to York council taxpayers, who so far have footed a bill for £5million on an aborted plan.

Alan Charlesworth
Old Earswick, York.