Anger over Monks Cross planning delays (From York Press)

People find something to whinge about shocker.

Nimbies !

Generally service from CoYC planning dept is dreadful: with delays no common sense and a 'block everything' attitude..Unless of course the politicians make you refuse to make a recommendation!! However credit where its due
Today one of my collegues met a planning officer and reported back he was, courteous, polite and very helpful... a Mr P Edwards.
he was a breath of fresh air!
Well done CoYC

meme wrote:
Generally service from CoYC planning dept is dreadful: with delays no common sense and a 'block everything' attitude..Unless of course the politicians make you refuse to make a recommendation!! However credit where its due
Today one of my collegues met a planning officer and reported back he was, courteous, polite and very helpful... a Mr P Edwards.
he was a breath of fresh air!
Well done CoYC

One swallow, does not a summer make !

It is good to hear that planning applications have almost doubled over a number of months- it would be good to know if applications for business property have gone up as this may be an indication for the economic development of the city- is there a place I wonder where these applications are analysed and shared in the public domain. Having a major application such as Monks Cross was bound to tie up officer time, and not just he plannerss- give them a break on this one at least.
I have also heard Edwards is a very professional and supportive planner

Ring the Council, don't get your own way, so ring the Press? Is that how it was? Doesn't sound very professional to me if that is the case.

gmsgop wrote:
It is good to hear that planning applications have almost doubled over a number of months- it would be good to know if applications for business property have gone up as this may be an indication for the economic development of the city- is there a place I wonder where these applications are analysed and shared in the public domain. Having a major application such as Monks Cross was bound to tie up officer time, and not just he plannerss- give them a break on this one at least. I have also heard Edwards is a very professional and supportive planner

Indeed, perhaps local entrepreneurs feel encouraged by CoYC's recent decision and skill in bringing together different partners, in order to provide the residents of the district with the services they have expressed a need for. Well done, CoYC!

Even AndyD wrote:
Ring the Council, don't get your own way, so ring the Press? Is that how it was? Doesn't sound very professional to me if that is the case.

Agree, Andy, Mr Laverack own numerous properties, especially a number of flats in The Groves, so has presumably been well served/advised by Planning in the past. One must question his motives in going public on this.

I have spoken to two architects who have suffered from these delays with their applications. In both cases, the delays were that receipt of the applications were not acknowledged (registered). The council's customer contract apparently promises to register applications within 5-days, and in one of these cases an acknolwledgement was over a month late, and was chased half a dozen times.

Based on this anecdotal evidence, I am not surprised Mr Laverack felt it necessary to alert the press to the issue.

The absence of an apology from Bill Woolley says it all, as does his vague excuse that there had been a doubling of applications over a number months. How many months, how many applications, and why were only a few affected ?
What a coincidence that one of them was Mr Laverack ?

Even AndyD wrote:
Ring the Council, don't get your own way, so ring the Press? Is that how it was? Doesn't sound very professional to me if that is the case.

How professional is it, to not acknowledge an application for over a month ? How much time does it take to give a reference number to an application and send off an acknowledgement ? This is a simple clerical operation, and the delays in doing this are ridiculous. For it to be a 'small number of applications' is very suspect, if the delays were up to a month, and points to possible victimisation.

So here we are again with the usual critics having another go at Matthew Laverack. Any excuse to denigrate him. No matter what he says or does certain individuals can be guaranteed to crawl out of the woodwork with some ill-informed comment.

"Well served by planners in the past!". Utterly ridiculous. The planning system is a farce and an obstacle to economic recovery. And one has had to pay to use it. Currently £335 for one dwelling. If you went into Marks & Spencer and bought a new suit and paid for it but six weeks later they hadn't even given you a receipt for it you might lodge a formal complaint and refer the matter to the press.

This is not complaints about planning officers being slow to deal with applications. It is a complaint about applications not even being acknowledged! They are supposed to be registered within 5 working days. So 44 days from lodging a valid application to issuing a registration number and allocating it to an officer to deal with is a legitimate cause for complaint.
Perhaps of course if Mr Laverack was not quoted but it was instead some other architect referred to in the article then there might have been quite different blogs - like that the planning system should be shaken up so it actually does the job it is supposed to. But the blogs are not about the planning delays are they? The blogs are about Mr Laverack. Same old. Same old.

With the current climate of austerity and cut-backs, particularly in the public sector, perhaps we are reaping what we have sown? One way in which any economic recovery is stifled by spending cuts.

Expect more of the same, probably.

sperare e coraggio wrote:
So here we are again with the usual critics having another go at Matthew Laverack. Any excuse to denigrate him. No matter what he says or does certain individuals can be guaranteed to crawl out of the woodwork with some ill-informed comment. "Well served by planners in the past!". Utterly ridiculous. The planning system is a farce and an obstacle to economic recovery. And one has had to pay to use it. Currently £335 for one dwelling. If you went into Marks & Spencer and bought a new suit and paid for it but six weeks later they hadn't even given you a receipt for it you might lodge a formal complaint and refer the matter to the press. This is not complaints about planning officers being slow to deal with applications. It is a complaint about applications not even being acknowledged! They are supposed to be registered within 5 working days. So 44 days from lodging a valid application to issuing a registration number and allocating it to an officer to deal with is a legitimate cause for complaint. Perhaps of course if Mr Laverack was not quoted but it was instead some other architect referred to in the article then there might have been quite different blogs - like that the planning system should be shaken up so it actually does the job it is supposed to. But the blogs are not about the planning delays are they? The blogs are about Mr Laverack. Same old. Same old.

Who is denigrating Mr Laverack? Fair play to him, I say, as he employs a number of people. However, he's clearly had a constructiven ongoing relationship with the planners extending over many years. Now he's experienced a delay. As another poster has pointed out, it is quite possible that Planning has shed staff because of cutbacks. What I am interested in the decision to go public on the issue - making a mountain out of a molehill.

A 44-day wait for something that should take no longer than 5-days, is not making a mountain out of a molehill.
As far as having 'constructive ongoing relationship' with the planners is concerned, you should perhaps ask local architects what their views are on CoYC's planning services. Their descriptions would paint quite a different picture, in terms of the inconsistency and often poor service that is often provided.

If the cut backs are to blame, then why hasn't Mr Woolley or a Labour councillor jumped on this as they usually do ? No detailed explanation in terms of reduced staff numbers and increased planning applications has been provided, just a vague 'ALMOST doubling over a NUMBER of months'. The absence of specific figures of both applications and the duration is telling. The fact that some posters are questioning Mr Laverack's motives rather than questioning the lack of justification by the council, shows that some people are barking up the wrong tree. Who is the victim here ? It isn't the Council - any fool can see that !

Mr Crabtree wrote:
If the cut backs are to blame, then why hasn't Mr Woolley or a Labour councillor jumped on this as they usually do ? No detailed explanation in terms of reduced staff numbers and increased planning applications has been provided, just a vague 'ALMOST doubling over a NUMBER of months'. The absence of specific figures of both applications and the duration is telling. The fact that some posters are questioning Mr Laverack's motives rather than questioning the lack of justification by the council, shows that some people are barking up the wrong tree. Who is the victim here ? It isn't the Council - any fool can see that !

And some people are just 'barking', eh?

Quite frankly, I am outraged.

Even AndyD wrote:
Ring the Council, don't get your own way, so ring the Press? Is that how it was? Doesn't sound very professional to me if that is the case.

Rings the council six times and doesn't get an answer for 44-days, then rings the Press. That's how it was. Sounds totally justified to me....... ? !!!

sperare e coraggio wrote:
So here we are again with the usual critics having another go at Matthew Laverack. Any excuse to denigrate him. No matter what he says or does certain individuals can be guaranteed to crawl out of the woodwork with some ill-informed comment.

"Well served by planners in the past!". Utterly ridiculous. The planning system is a farce and an obstacle to economic recovery. And one has had to pay to use it. Currently £335 for one dwelling. If you went into Marks & Spencer and bought a new suit and paid for it but six weeks later they hadn't even given you a receipt for it you might lodge a formal complaint and refer the matter to the press.

This is not complaints about planning officers being slow to deal with applications. It is a complaint about applications not even being acknowledged! They are supposed to be registered within 5 working days. So 44 days from lodging a valid application to issuing a registration number and allocating it to an officer to deal with is a legitimate cause for complaint.
Perhaps of course if Mr Laverack was not quoted but it was instead some other architect referred to in the article then there might have been quite different blogs - like that the planning system should be shaken up so it actually does the job it is supposed to. But the blogs are not about the planning delays are they? The blogs are about Mr Laverack. Same old. Same old.

Where does it say its 44 days?

Even AndyD wrote:

sperare e coraggio wrote: So here we are again with the usual critics having another go at Matthew Laverack. Any excuse to denigrate him. No matter what he says or does certain individuals can be guaranteed to crawl out of the woodwork with some ill-informed comment. "Well served by planners in the past!". Utterly ridiculous. The planning system is a farce and an obstacle to economic recovery. And one has had to pay to use it. Currently £335 for one dwelling. If you went into Marks & Spencer and bought a new suit and paid for it but six weeks later they hadn't even given you a receipt for it you might lodge a formal complaint and refer the matter to the press. This is not complaints about planning officers being slow to deal with applications. It is a complaint about applications not even being acknowledged! They are supposed to be registered within 5 working days. So 44 days from lodging a valid application to issuing a registration number and allocating it to an officer to deal with is a legitimate cause for complaint. Perhaps of course if Mr Laverack was not quoted but it was instead some other architect referred to in the article then there might have been quite different blogs - like that the planning system should be shaken up so it actually does the job it is supposed to. But the blogs are not about the planning delays are they? The blogs are about Mr Laverack. Same old. Same old.

Where does it say its 44 days?

It doesn't but Paul Cordock/Mr Crabtree has an association with Mr Laverack, so has access to information not featured in the article; one only wishes he had declared his interests - he's always quick to point out the failings of others, which his why his views and opinions have no credibility.