'Council should not rule out complete core strategy re-think' (From York Press)

Looks like our officers have done it again..IE managed to completely mess up the process
they will be torn to pieces at a public enquiry if this ever gets that far and I confidently predict they will have to start all over again
The present document is a mess,full of legal inaccuracies and ripe to be pulled to pieces by clever lawyers and will be thrown out as unsound by the inspector if york are stupid enough to make it stand.
Heads need to roll at CoYC when the true cost, inefficiency and time wasted comes to light as we the tax payers of York are paying these incompetents wages

'meme' is right on all of his points, but, he has only hinted at the seriousness and magnitude of the Council's ineptitude.

This process has been running for years, with legions of highly-paid officers producing reports by the lorry-load. Even the Planning inspector commented on the removals van that delivered box after box of documents to him, over half of which he sent back. There were 18 officers at the meeting, and the most senior; Bill Woolley looked totally indifferent - he would, as he is leaving the mess he has overseen, in the summer, leaving a total shambles as his legacy.
The cost of the work done by the council will be astronomic, and they should be made to disclose it.
Heads should roll, and one should be the buffoon who has written the affordable housing policy, which is a key component of the Core Strategy. This politicised, Guardian-reading idiot, assisted by the complicity of left-wing Councillors Merrett and Simpson-Laing have wrecked housebuilding in York with their unworkable policies. Get rid of the lot of them !

Officers have clearly attempted to blind the Planning Inspector with science. They hoped that the sheer quantity of paperwork would either con Mr Vickery that they had been so thorough that their work had to be right, or that he would just rubber stamp it, without having to spend years reading it all. Their ill-conceived 'STRATEGY' has been found out, and Mr Vickery was having none of their deception or ineptitude.
The Press need to follow this story up with comments from business leaders, explanations from Woolley, and reactions from Councillors. This is an almighty ****-up, and an Inquiry is a must !

It is important that issues like the handling of the affordable housing policy and Core Strategy, both of which have cost rate-payers and the economy millions, are investigated. Unless the culprits are exposed and held to account, the same 'mistakes' which were intentionally and deviously intended, will be made again, and again. Councillors and officers are complicit in these stitch ups and they should be, named, shamed and punished !

Bill Woolley will soon be gone, but, he and the mess he has overseen, will not be forgotten !
He leaves behind an almighty mess, and a team of officers, many of whom are politicised and complicit in an iniquitous conspiracy.

Of course, one could look at this the other way round. The government charges councils to come up with numbers of houses to be built and then lays into them for not coming up with the correct strategy. As for affordable homes, who insisted that a certain proportion had to be so designated ? Interestingly, a development of twenty or so houses recently completed in Wigginton are all sold, even before completion. Clearly, houses can be built at a profit in York.

I hope the planning inspectorate is better than its similar cousins the FSA and Ofsted, otherwise it could be a case of baffoons leading the blind. Lord save us from vested interest, self-serving red-tape merchants. Literacy levels in adults not better than they were 40yrs ago and an economy blasted to pieces due to lack of bank/financial services regulation. That tells you all you need to know about inspectorates imho.

I was at that meeting and i have never seen the like before.

York Council Officers who were there in some numbers were rounded on by the inspector and given a hiding the likes of which we have not seen in York since Harald Hardrada and Blood axe Eric came up the river ouse in Viking longboats.

They deserved every item he threw at them, despite throwing it at them in the nicest possible way the arrows hit the mark on all occasions.

These council officers are not fit for purpose and Mr Vickery made it very clear and Succint that he would go all the way whatever that took to ensure that the People of York had the core strategy blueprint put into place that would be to the benefit of the People of York.

These council officers should be sacked for the incompetant buffoons that they are.
Mr Vickery is to be applauded for his stand.

He gained considerable admiration from the gathered assembly for the way he dealt with these failing officers.

I await the next chapter of this debacle with great interest.

Even AndyD wrote:
I hope the planning inspectorate is better than its similar cousins the FSA and Ofsted, otherwise it could be a case of baffoons leading the blind. Lord save us from vested interest, self-serving red-tape merchants. Literacy levels in adults not better than they were 40yrs ago and an economy blasted to pieces due to lack of bank/financial services regulation. That tells you all you need to know about inspectorates imho.

You were not there mate if you were you wouldnt have made these comments.
Mr Vickery has a good track record of sorting out FAILING Councils......Why do you think he is here ?????

We shall see and no I wasn't there. I just have a healthy and well merited disregard for government inspectorate. Maybe Mr V. is different, as you say we shall await the outcome.

Alf Garnett wrote:
Of course, one could look at this the other way round. The government charges councils to come up with numbers of houses to be built and then lays into them for not coming up with the correct strategy. As for affordable homes, who insisted that a certain proportion had to be so designated ? Interestingly, a development of twenty or so houses recently completed in Wigginton are all sold, even before completion. Clearly, houses can be built at a profit in York.

The government charge councils to determine what housing is needed, and devise a strategy that can deliver. This is where CoYC have failed - the houses cannot be delivered, because they are not viable, and the largest; York Central and British Sugar are too complex to be built in the immediate future.

The government also charge councils with assessing the need of affordable housing, and to set achieveable targets for them to be delivered through the planning system. Again York have failed because the targets are unworkable.

The development in Wigginton, that you referred to by Daniel Gath Homes, is not for 20. It is less than the 15 affordable threshold for urban areas, and does not have to provide any affordable. I think there are 9 houses there that sold within a month of them starting. Contrast this with Derwenthorpe where only 16 out of the first phase of 64 have been sold in 13 months. The difference being that there are 40% affordable (social) which is a density which will put off many private buyers. This site was the brainchild of Labour, and proves that they know nothing about delivery.

York has a serious housing crisis that has worsened because of the councils damaging affordable policies. The mess with the Core Strategy and the housing problem is all of their own making. There needs to be an inquiry, and those responsible should be fired, and councillors behind the mess should resign.

Agree with Highhat. David Vickery is one of the most highly regarded Inspectors in the country and knows exactly what he wants and when he wants it! Officers should be very very worried.

Surprised the article did not mention the green belt and the fact that the CS must define the boundaries. No more warm words please from Officers and Councillors that areas A & B might never be needed at all. The public need to know the truth for once!

And another thing....... the green belt around York may soon lose its (already limited) statutory status altogether if the RSS is abolished in the coming months.

Why does the Press not highlight these points to their readers? We need another article as suggested by Mr Crabtree above (love your posts Mr C even though they say much the same over and over)!!

Even AndyD wrote:
I hope the planning inspectorate is better than its similar cousins the FSA and Ofsted, otherwise it could be a case of baffoons leading the blind. Lord save us from vested interest, self-serving red-tape merchants. Literacy levels in adults not better than they were 40yrs ago and an economy blasted to pieces due to lack of bank/financial services regulation. That tells you all you need to know about inspectorates imho.

David Vickery is a different animal altogether. He is razor-sharp, and will cut the council's inept officers down to size. He totally destroyed them yesterday, they were slaughtered, it was carnage, and I loved it ! It's just a shame that Coun Alexander and Coun Simpson-Laing were too cowardly to attend. They knew what was coming and hid under some stone, while David Vickery humiliated the 18 officers present.

How many times has Coun Simpson-Laing confidently and arrogantly predicted that the CS would be found sound ? Several times in her letters and press quotes. Shows what she knows. Not so confident now, eh, Tracey ?

Then there is wonder boy - Coun James Alexander the not so great - 'Aladdin' a man's job, who said he would rub his magic lamp and do as the privat-sector had urged him, to get the LDF in place asap. Where were you at this crucial meeting James ? Which stone did you hide under ? There is no genie, tooth fairy, or santa to bail you out of this mess young man. How many more failures are we going to see under your calamitous leadership ? Union Terrace, Terry's, Beckfield Lane, Burnholme Community College, no council house grants applied for, no council tax loan accepted. It really is 'Calamity James' isn't it ?

Even AndyD wrote:
We shall see and no I wasn't there. I just have a healthy and well merited disregard for government inspectorate. Maybe Mr V. is different, as you say we shall await the outcome.

David Vickery has presided over 13 LDF's, and takes no nonsense. He is a dragon slayer - York's St George who slayed the dragons on York Council at the St Georges Day massacre yesterday.

York people are very lucky that he was appointed, but York Council with it's incompetent politicised officers and arrogant, cocky, blinkered foolish labour councillors are not. They have been put firmly in their place, and thay had better do as Mr Vickery asks or it will be curtains !!!

sharpish wrote:
Agree with Highhat. David Vickery is one of the most highly regarded Inspectors in the country and knows exactly what he wants and when he wants it! Officers should be very very worried. Surprised the article did not mention the green belt and the fact that the CS must define the boundaries. No more warm words please from Officers and Councillors that areas A & B might never be needed at all. The public need to know the truth for once! And another thing....... the green belt around York may soon lose its (already limited) statutory status altogether if the RSS is abolished in the coming months. Why does the Press not highlight these points to their readers? We need another article as suggested by Mr Crabtree above (love your posts Mr C even though they say much the same over and over)!!

Why thank you 'sharpish' for your kind words.

I make no apology for the repetition, as I have had to do this to try and silence the cynics and doubters. Maybe now a few of my critics will see that I did know what I was talking about afterall ?

I believe that the Press have been urged to write a follow up story immediately, after asking business leaders, councillors and officers for their comments. Tghis is a very serious indictment against the council, they are in the dock, and they cannot duck the charges on the pretence that this is a run of the mill part of the process, it is not !

With respect to the Press, this really should attract the attention of the wider media, both regionally and nationally. 'Calendar' and 'Look North' should be urged to cover the story - IT IS THAT BIG !

I wish the wider press had been there . The humiliation poured on the C of York Council officers was unprecedented in our times.

I noted that Councilors Merritt and the traffic light meddler sneaked out before the end.
They had a good idea what was coming and they were right.

You reap what you sow.

Wow what have i missed, Im just wondering who was there.
Well attended Im told, but hardly any councilors.

I cant believe it, we have the most important event happening in our city the conclusion of which will effect our lives for the next 20/30 years and hardly any...well 2 Im told could be bothered to attend? and those two cleared off before the end.
Can someone explain to me just what our councilors actually do.
I am at a loss as to what they consider important. Maybe salt bins or bendy buses.. Someone out there put us in the picture.

highhat wrote:
I wish the wider press had been there . The humiliation poured on the C of York Council officers was unprecedented in our times. I noted that Councilors Merritt and the traffic light meddler sneaked out before the end. They had a good idea what was coming and they were right. You reap what you sow.

I noticed that Anne Reid had left early, but, am disgusted that Merrett didn't wait till the end to hear Mr Vickery give his closing summary. Leaving early should be something that he and other Labour Councillors should be considering, as in before the next local elections !!!

mickrick wrote:
Wow what have i missed, Im just wondering who was there. Well attended Im told, but hardly any councilors. I cant believe it, we have the most important event happening in our city the conclusion of which will effect our lives for the next 20/30 years and hardly any...well 2 Im told could be bothered to attend? and those two cleared off before the end. Can someone explain to me just what our councilors actually do. I am at a loss as to what they consider important. Maybe salt bins or bendy buses.. Someone out there put us in the picture.

Councillors that were there:-
D Merrett (Lab)
S Wiseman (Con)
A Reid (Lib-Dem)
A D'Agorne (Green)
M Warters (Ind)

No James Alexander or Tracey Simpson-Laing.

There was another councillor present for the first session - George Barton (Con) I believe?

ALF GARNET asks who insisted a certain number of homes had to be "affordable"?
Answer - the officers and councillors who were responsible for the Core Strategy that the Inspector will not accept because he can see it will not work.
The development in Wigginton is not 20 houses. If it was it would not be going ahead. It is for less than 15 dwellings and therefore below the threshold. Yes they are all provisionally sold - hardly surprising when so few new homes are being built - but is the builder actually making a profit - or is he just about keeping his head above water?
One thing for sure - if the proposed Core Strategy was in place that scheme would be subject to onerous affordable requirements (starting at just 2 dwellings) and would not be happening!
That is what this thing is about.
York Council can impose whatever policies it likes but it cannot force private enterprise to undertake projects if they are too risky or just not worth while.
House builders have been telling the Council that for years. The Council never listened but carried on regardless. David Vickery did listen - thank goodness.
There might now be a chance for some sensible and realistic policies so builders can get back to work and the housing stock can be increased. But it will be next year at the soonest. More delay. More pain. And the responsibility for this misery rests with officers and elected members at City of York Council.
Their performance and competence leaves a lot to be desired.

Okay - am willing to learn here. Can someone provide a link to what the problem is for builders re affordable housing. I've Googled around and the main problem to house builders seems to be the availability of land. But its not a subject I know a great deal about, so a link would be good.
Genuine interest here - so save me the abuse. Thanks.

Your letter is genuine and if you wish to learn then simply read the last few letters.
The upshot of the problem is that Builders cannot make a profit if the council claims some of the houses for social housing and paying nothing for them.
Then of course we have the rest of the site difficult to sell beacause no one wants to pay £200 grand plus for a house to find he has to live cheek by jowl with whoever the housing association puts in the other houses...and dont forget one moves out and another moves in.
Dont get me wrong a lot of the tenants of social housing are upright solid folks who have respect for others and then again a lot are not..Would you want to take that risk.? I doubt it and neither would I.
Dont forget if you have the neighbours from hell imposed on you, finding a buyer for your blighted home will be difficult if not impossible.
Its no win no win no win situation
Social engineering championed by the loonie left Merritt and co.
Thats why no building sites are in the pipeline in york.
Ps dont believe for a minute that Germany Beck and the rest are going to get started.
Everything is on hold.

As previous posts have said this is an important issue. Sadly the media seem either unable or unwilling to understand the issues and to inform the wider population. Please don't blame the officers for everything though - the plan has to be endorsed by councillors and Merrett and TSL are ace meddlers. As for Alexander - he seems to be lying low

mickrick wrote:
Your letter is genuine and if you wish to learn then simply read the last few letters. The upshot of the problem is that Builders cannot make a profit if the council claims some of the houses for social housing and paying nothing for them. Then of course we have the rest of the site difficult to sell beacause no one wants to pay £200 grand plus for a house to find he has to live cheek by jowl with whoever the housing association puts in the other houses...and dont forget one moves out and another moves in. Dont get me wrong a lot of the tenants of social housing are upright solid folks who have respect for others and then again a lot are not..Would you want to take that risk.? I doubt it and neither would I. Dont forget if you have the neighbours from hell imposed on you, finding a buyer for your blighted home will be difficult if not impossible. Its no win no win no win situation Social engineering championed by the loonie left Merritt and co. Thats why no building sites are in the pipeline in york. Ps dont believe for a minute that Germany Beck and the rest are going to get started. Everything is on hold.

Setting aside whether the council are totally or just 90% inept just for a moment...

Surely it's a bit more nuanced than you make out:

How easy is it for the council themselves to build social housing? I suspect not easy at all. If that's the case, then there needs to be a trade-off between purely private builds (which is the only way stuff gets done) for private sales and some inclusion of social housing (or there will be none) in new builds. Hasn't this been the policy from successive governments for years now?

Limiting the debate to a simple binary view of social housing (yes/no) isn't helpful imho: what is needed is for people in the know to suggest an appropriate level of social housing for new developments (potentially on a case-by-case basis) that allows the thing to actually fly whilst trying to maintain at least some sort of social cohesion.

WARNING ANECDOTE TIME!

When they were planning to build on Shipton St. school (what's happened to that?!) me and the mrs went to the developers open day. The developer guy went on a long spiel about how they were planning to make it a gated community (come on! It's not exactly Compton) and said "don't worry, we're fighting the council to minimise social housing".

The point that social housing isn't exclusively for people termed workshy or scroungers seemed to totally escape him. For example, when I pointed out that around 1 million people nationally who are in low paid jobs get housing benefit (some of whom do stuff like look after old people in care homes etc) he seemed totally incredulous.

The point being that social housing should be exactly that - housing to enhance society & neighbourhoods. That is, unless you like the idea of segregation by economics and sink estates.

I'm by no means defending the council (either those elected or not) but what is needed in my opinion is a grown-up debate about it.

Seems to be a debate about ideology meeting reality. One reason why York works as a city has always been for me about how its housing is mixed and there are no huge deprived estates as you would find in (say) Hull with Bransholme and Orchard Park.
You can point to areas such as Chapelfields, but it is not huge and it is surrounded by private housing, similarly look at the mix in Bootham/Clifton.
As someone who believes strongly in community and the fact that familiarity actually kills contempt, I'm all for social integration. However, politicians and house builders live in the real world and yes, I can see why someone might not pay £200k to live in a new build estate which might be viewed as 'poor'. We also have estates which haven't worked - Foxwood would be one of them for me.
The only other thing that puzzles me is haven't home builders done well out of the massive increase in house prices? 20yrs ago your average home cost about £50k, its now over three times that? Land values have doubtless risen, but surely building costs haven't to that extent.

EVEN ANDY D

Please note:

1. There is no shortage of building land. You can buy Nestlé South, Terry's, Heworth ex gas works, Barbican Road flats and numerous other sites all with approvals. They are all on the market. No one is interested at any price.

2. Building costs have escalated to ridiculous levels as a direct result of exessive new Building Regs and the new Code for Sustainable Homes. It often now costs more to build homes than they can be sold for.

3. Even on sites which do not have affordable requirements it is difficult for a builder to make a return which justifies the effort and risk involved - and provides sufficient funds to go out and do the next scheme.

4. The Wigginton development is being undertaken by one of the few local small housebuilders still operating. He is too young to retire and so is struggling on. You will not see him driving a Rolls Royce or living in a mansion. The older family firms have shut up shop - some permanently.

Look around you! The world has gone mad. A desperate shortage of new houses and a huge unsatsfied demand for homes - but no significant building going on. Forget all the excuses of politicians - the recession, mortgages etc. Utter twaddle. It is all those regulations and demands placed on builders which never existed prior to 1997. That is why they are not building. There is no money in it.
That is why they are buying up existing homes to renovate and sell on or let out (often to students). Who can blame them?
They are just trying to make a living as best they can because their traditional source of income has been regulated to extinction.

Okay. I can see there is less building than there was and we have discussed this before - - ref. the comparison to the tiny (less than 15 home plots) building activity today compared to Clifton Moor, etc.
But if this is all due to changes made nationally in 1997, why is it all the fault of York councillors? This council has only been in office since 2011!
Look, I accept a lot of what you say, but it doesn't match the vitriol I'm seeing against one or two individuals.
And I don't claim to be an expert on all of this, far from it, but I am trying to make sense of it. So thanks for the above.

ANDY D

It is the fault of York councillors and officers because the threshold of affordable requirements and the percentages required are the one set of regulations over which they have local control.
The Building Regs and Sustainability Codes etc are national - BUT the obligations (blackmail) on planning approvals are determined at a local level.
This is where councillors and officers could have helped but didn't. No. They made it far worse than it needed to be. The result was virtually no house building at all in the private sector. The 50% policy produced five "handovers" in five years! The council did its best to hide this statistic. It was exposed after a Freedom of Information request.
The 50% demand imposed in 2005 has only recently been relaxed to 25/35%. It is still far too high. And the threshold of just two units is utterly ridiculous.

Even AndyD wrote:
Okay. I can see there is less building than there was and we have discussed this before - - ref. the comparison to the tiny (less than 15 home plots) building activity today compared to Clifton Moor, etc. But if this is all due to changes made nationally in 1997, why is it all the fault of York councillors? This council has only been in office since 2011! Look, I accept a lot of what you say, but it doesn't match the vitriol I'm seeing against one or two individuals. And I don't claim to be an expert on all of this, far from it, but I am trying to make sense of it. So thanks for the above.

Andy D

Please note the following:-

1. The main problem was the 50% affordable housing target policy, that was implemented by the Lib-Dems in April 2005, after pressure from Labour councillors.
2. This policy target was Coun Dave Merrett's idea, when he was leader of the Council in November 2002.
3. The 50% policy with a threshold of 15 dwellings in urban areas and 2 dwellings in villages of less than 5,000 population was a doubling of the 25% policy with a threshold of 25 dwellings, that existed before April 2005.
4. Coun Simpson-Laing has defended this flawed policy at every opportunity ever since, often demonising any critic with spurious allegations about their motives, and making them out to be liars.
5. The effects of this policy have been thoroughly documented and commented on - it killed housebuilding in York and York's housing completions went into decline when it was introduced. This was three years before the credit crunch and before most councils had their peak completions.

The vitriol is completely justified.

sharpish wrote:
There was another councillor present for the first session - George Barton (Con) I believe?

Sorry, I must have missed George, but, glad he was there. That made it twice as many as Labour bothered to send !

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:
Okay. I can see there is less building than there was and we have discussed this before - - ref. the comparison to the tiny (less than 15 home plots) building activity today compared to Clifton Moor, etc. But if this is all due to changes made nationally in 1997, why is it all the fault of York councillors? This council has only been in office since 2011! Look, I accept a lot of what you say, but it doesn't match the vitriol I'm seeing against one or two individuals. And I don't claim to be an expert on all of this, far from it, but I am trying to make sense of it. So thanks for the above.

Andy D

Please note the following:-

1. The main problem was the 50% affordable housing target policy, that was implemented by the Lib-Dems in April 2005, after pressure from Labour councillors.
2. This policy target was Coun Dave Merrett's idea, when he was leader of the Council in November 2002.
3. The 50% policy with a threshold of 15 dwellings in urban areas and 2 dwellings in villages of less than 5,000 population was a doubling of the 25% policy with a threshold of 25 dwellings, that existed before April 2005.
4. Coun Simpson-Laing has defended this flawed policy at every opportunity ever since, often demonising any critic with spurious allegations about their motives, and making them out to be liars.
5. The effects of this policy have been thoroughly documented and commented on - it killed housebuilding in York and York's housing completions went into decline when it was introduced. This was three years before the credit crunch and before most councils had their peak completions.

The vitriol is completely justified.

Vitriol is never *really* justified, it usually means someone has lost control of reasoned argument. Anger is the wind that blows out the light of the mind. Or something like that.
All I'm saying is watch the blood pressure, maybe get away from the who Council/Bayley thing for a while! Go for a walk or something.

Even AndyD wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Even AndyD wrote: Okay. I can see there is less building than there was and we have discussed this before - - ref. the comparison to the tiny (less than 15 home plots) building activity today compared to Clifton Moor, etc. But if this is all due to changes made nationally in 1997, why is it all the fault of York councillors? This council has only been in office since 2011! Look, I accept a lot of what you say, but it doesn't match the vitriol I'm seeing against one or two individuals. And I don't claim to be an expert on all of this, far from it, but I am trying to make sense of it. So thanks for the above.

Andy D Please note the following:- 1. The main problem was the 50% affordable housing target policy, that was implemented by the Lib-Dems in April 2005, after pressure from Labour councillors. 2. This policy target was Coun Dave Merrett's idea, when he was leader of the Council in November 2002. 3. The 50% policy with a threshold of 15 dwellings in urban areas and 2 dwellings in villages of less than 5,000 population was a doubling of the 25% policy with a threshold of 25 dwellings, that existed before April 2005. 4. Coun Simpson-Laing has defended this flawed policy at every opportunity ever since, often demonising any critic with spurious allegations about their motives, and making them out to be liars. 5. The effects of this policy have been thoroughly documented and commented on - it killed housebuilding in York and York's housing completions went into decline when it was introduced. This was three years before the credit crunch and before most councils had their peak completions. The vitriol is completely justified.

Vitriol is never *really* justified, it usually means someone has lost control of reasoned argument. Anger is the wind that blows out the light of the mind. Or something like that. All I'm saying is watch the blood pressure, maybe get away from the who Council/Bayley thing for a while! Go for a walk or something.

This has been going on for too long and has been far too serious and damaging to be taken light-heartedly. Those behind the deceit and skulduggery that has prolononged the LDF/CS process in order to prolong the longevity of an ideological policy (affordable housing) are responsible for ruining the lives of those who have lost jobs and businesses. Vitriol is all some people have left, and it isn't through choice. You need to have suffered to understand how it feels. There will be no forgive and forget, but there will be revenge !