Developer seeks to renegotiate terms for Hungate site (From York Press)

Mr Crabtree says...
10:19am Fri 20 Jul 12

Straight from the horses mouth -, Hungate isn't viable with 20% affordable (social) housing !

So what has suddenly brought this about ? Have house prices suddenly dropped ? No, they have stayed roughly the same for a good while now, in York. Looks like messrs Laverack, Jones, Reeves, Cordock and Reynolds have been right all along....

Are you listening Coun Simpson-Laing, Coun Alexander, Coun Merrett and Graham Tissiman ?

So why are the council are still asking for 25% for new brownfield sites. ?
It's time to drop the target to 10%, to get York building.

Report this post »

pedalling paul says...
10:22am Fri 20 Jul 12

Grateful for the developer contribution towards the really useful cycle/pedestrian bridge across the Foss. This opened at an early stage and is already being well used.

Report this post »

jaycee says...
10:22am Fri 20 Jul 12

Firstly how about asking how much the company is prepared to pay for community projects.Then ,split the projects into costs per project and finally let the taxpayers decide which to approve.But for goodness sake get a move on.

Report this post »

samthedog says...
10:26am Fri 20 Jul 12

cover it with grass, couple of trees and park benches. Job done

Report this post »

sperare e coraggio says...
10:35am Fri 20 Jul 12

Jaycee

Better still - get the taxpayers to foot the bill for those items which are everyone's responsibility - starting with social housing. It is fundamentally wrong to expect housebuilders alone to carry this burden. Social housing should be the responsibility of government and be funded through general taxation - just like it used to be when all those council houses were built between the wars and in the 1950's and 1960's.
The New Labour brainwave of blackmailing private builders into building social homes at less than cost price has now backfired spectacularly.
The goose that laid the golden eggs has been mortally wounded. Without a thriving house building sector t here will be no economic recovery. Bad times are here to stay. Unemployment in construct ion is here to stay. Apprenticeships are like rocking horse poo. When did you last see any?

Report this post »

Torycouncil2015 says...
10:39am Fri 20 Jul 12

"He said that without the section 106 contributions, the developer would make a profit of £15 million, or 12 per cent. He said the firm would ordinarily seek a 25 per cent profit margin but would settle for 20 per cent at Hungate"

My word people lose perspective/reality. The Section 106 is £6million so by the developers own admission in this statement they would still make a profit of £9million.

Ok so this isnt the 20 -25% they want but hey thats business. They took a gamble when they decided to develop. If the profit margin is slightly less than they were hoping why exactly should the people of York take a hit to ensure their profits are maximised?

Report this post »

Madasanibbotson says...
10:40am Fri 20 Jul 12

We know the Labour party and its leader aren't very good at maths but
which is larger
25% of Nowt or 10% of something ?

Report this post »

Eric Style says...
10:49am Fri 20 Jul 12

2024!

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
10:52am Fri 20 Jul 12

Mike Slater, the council’s assistant director for city development, said: “No detailed viability assessment has yet been carried out by the applicants on Hungate. Until City of York Council receives and reviews this assessment no re-evaluation of their section 106 payments can be submitted to support the application.

A quick back of a fag packet viability assessment, based on Hungate's numbers:-

£130m x 20% profit = £26m
£26m - £15m = £11m reduction of AH

Private sale unit say £200,000
Social unit say £100,000
Difference £100,000

£11m divided by £100,000 = 110 units.

Remaining dwellings to be built : 540
Affordable 540 x 20% = 108 units

So to make the remaining 540 units viable, NO affordable need to be provided !

The truth is finally out - housebuilders cannot afford to provide affordable housing !

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
10:56am Fri 20 Jul 12

Torycouncil2015 wrote:
"He said that without the section 106 contributions, the developer would make a profit of £15 million, or 12 per cent. He said the firm would ordinarily seek a 25 per cent profit margin but would settle for 20 per cent at Hungate" My word people lose perspective/reality. The Section 106 is £6million so by the developers own admission in this statement they would still make a profit of £9million. Ok so this isnt the 20 -25% they want but hey thats business. They took a gamble when they decided to develop. If the profit margin is slightly less than they were hoping why exactly should the people of York take a hit to ensure their profits are maximised?

Please explain how York people are taking a hit ? The hit they will take if the development doesn't go ahead is, a loss of jobs, a loss of council tax, and a £130m loss to York's economy !

Report this post »

Sawday2 says...
10:58am Fri 20 Jul 12

20% affordable? That makes 80% unaffordable. So, if they are NOT affordable who is going to buy them?

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
11:04am Fri 20 Jul 12

Sawday2 wrote:
20% affordable? That makes 80% unaffordable. So, if they are NOT affordable who is going to buy them?

That isn't your problem, so don't worry about it. Hungate (Crosby Lend Lease, Evans & Land Securities), will find buyers, and if they don't, the council might get some cheap housing.

Report this post »

roobarb85 says...
11:22am Fri 20 Jul 12

I'm a bit apprehensive about entering this debate, since, from reading previous threads that have touched on similar matters, they have degenerated into either party political point scoring and/or unseemly name calling.

Can't see the point of either of those.

Similarly, I don't want to contribute a further series of assertions about the rights and wrongs of "affordable housing".

So, why am I posting?

Simply this. It seems to me that the core of this isn't anything to do with housing at all.

Rather, in my view, it goes like this.

A speculative capitalist signs a contract. Presumably it was read and checked out before signature.That's great - we wouldn't get anywhere if there weren't venture capitalists..

But, as with all such ventures, any decent VC would know you could lose or gain. Now, 6 years down the line, the profit isn't going to be what was hoped. But rather than take the reduction in profit, the VC wants the taxpayer to pay the profit the VC hoped would be made.

If the profit had been more than expected, would the VC have given money back to CoY?

If your horse only comes second, do you expect the stewards to give you first place money because that's what you thought you'd get at the start of the race?

Nowt against builders - my uncle used to be one - but this seems to be a try on to see what developers can squeeze out of CoY. Stick to the contract as signed and agreed!

Report this post »

The Great Buda says...
11:25am Fri 20 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Sawday2 wrote:
20% affordable? That makes 80% unaffordable. So, if they are NOT affordable who is going to buy them?
That isn't your problem, so don't worry about it. Hungate (Crosby Lend Lease, Evans & Land Securities), will find buyers, and if they don't, the council might get some cheap housing.

Its everybodies problem if first time buyers are being priced out.

The housing market goes cold and suddenly a lot of people will be left with mortgages worth more than their house and more than they can pay.

We need more affordable housing, not less.

Report this post »

again says...
11:31am Fri 20 Jul 12

How come house prices are at historically high levels relative to people's wages, yet builders can't afford to build 'em any cheaper?

Land too expensive?

Report this post »

highhat says...
11:32am Fri 20 Jul 12

roobarb85 wrote:
I'm a bit apprehensive about entering this debate, since, from reading previous threads that have touched on similar matters, they have degenerated into either party political point scoring and/or unseemly name calling.

Can't see the point of either of those.

Similarly, I don't want to contribute a further series of assertions about the rights and wrongs of "affordable housing".

So, why am I posting?

Simply this. It seems to me that the core of this isn't anything to do with housing at all.

Rather, in my view, it goes like this.

A speculative capitalist signs a contract. Presumably it was read and checked out before signature.That's great - we wouldn't get anywhere if there weren't venture capitalists..

But, as with all such ventures, any decent VC would know you could lose or gain. Now, 6 years down the line, the profit isn't going to be what was hoped. But rather than take the reduction in profit, the VC wants the taxpayer to pay the profit the VC hoped would be made.

If the profit had been more than expected, would the VC have given money back to CoY?

If your horse only comes second, do you expect the stewards to give you first place money because that's what you thought you'd get at the start of the race?

Nowt against builders - my uncle used to be one - but this seems to be a try on to see what developers can squeeze out of CoY. Stick to the contract as signed and agreed!

Absolutely and then go bust, what a daft letter.
You obviously know nowt about the deal or the contract or the building industry.

Ask your Uncle for advise before hitting the keys

Report this post »

meme says...
11:43am Fri 20 Jul 12

Torycounci said If the profit margin is slightly less than they were hoping why exactly should the people of York take a hit to ensure their profits are maximised?
SORRY I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HIT THE PEOPLE OF YORK WILL TAKE? WHATEVER THEY GET IS FOR FREE. THEY ARE NOT PAYING ANYTHING AND THE DEVELOPER BUILDS HOUSED THAT YORK NEEDS. DO YOU WANT NO HOMES BUILT OR NO CONTRIBUTIONS WHATSOEVER?
YORK SHOULD BE GRATEFUL SOMEONE WILL BUILD AT ALL

Report this post »

Sawday2 says...
11:44am Fri 20 Jul 12

The Great Buda wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Sawday2 wrote:
20% affordable? That makes 80% unaffordable. So, if they are NOT affordable who is going to buy them?
That isn't your problem, so don't worry about it. Hungate (Crosby Lend Lease, Evans & Land Securities), will find buyers, and if they don't, the council might get some cheap housing.
Its everybodies problem if first time buyers are being priced out.

The housing market goes cold and suddenly a lot of people will be left with mortgages worth more than their house and more than they can pay.

We need more affordable housing, not less.

I think you are missing the point. The term 'Affordable' is misleading as EVERYTHING is affordable to someone. 'Affordable housing' could be priced at £1m+ and would still be affordable to some.
Whatever they price this development at will be affordable - it's just the council getting it's knickers in a twist misusing the English language.

Report this post »

Sawday2 says...
11:45am Fri 20 Jul 12

The Great Buda wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Sawday2 wrote:
20% affordable? That makes 80% unaffordable. So, if they are NOT affordable who is going to buy them?
That isn't your problem, so don't worry about it. Hungate (Crosby Lend Lease, Evans & Land Securities), will find buyers, and if they don't, the council might get some cheap housing.
Its everybodies problem if first time buyers are being priced out.

The housing market goes cold and suddenly a lot of people will be left with mortgages worth more than their house and more than they can pay.

We need more affordable housing, not less.

I think you are missing the point. The term 'Affordable' is misleading as EVERYTHING is affordable to someone. 'Affordable housing' could be priced at £1m+ and would still be affordable to some.
Whatever they price this development at will be affordable - it's just the council getting it's knickers in a twist misusing the English language.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
12:12pm Fri 20 Jul 12

roobarb85 wrote:
I'm a bit apprehensive about entering this debate, since, from reading previous threads that have touched on similar matters, they have degenerated into either party political point scoring and/or unseemly name calling. Can't see the point of either of those. Similarly, I don't want to contribute a further series of assertions about the rights and wrongs of "affordable housing". So, why am I posting? Simply this. It seems to me that the core of this isn't anything to do with housing at all. Rather, in my view, it goes like this. A speculative capitalist signs a contract. Presumably it was read and checked out before signature.That's great - we wouldn't get anywhere if there weren't venture capitalists.. But, as with all such ventures, any decent VC would know you could lose or gain. Now, 6 years down the line, the profit isn't going to be what was hoped. But rather than take the reduction in profit, the VC wants the taxpayer to pay the profit the VC hoped would be made. If the profit had been more than expected, would the VC have given money back to CoY? If your horse only comes second, do you expect the stewards to give you first place money because that's what you thought you'd get at the start of the race? Nowt against builders - my uncle used to be one - but this seems to be a try on to see what developers can squeeze out of CoY. Stick to the contract as signed and agreed!

It goes like this, actually....

THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SCANDAL

In 1997, New Labour ambushed the housebuilding industry and imposed a punitive, discriminatory, stealth tax in the guise of adffordable (social) housing using the planning system to blackmail builders into providing it. This forced housebuilders to provide social housing at less than cost, with the land thrown in for free. It was not resisted because of windfall profits from house price inflation, and the initial targets of 25% on sites of 25 or more dwellings meant that many sites avoided having to provide any AH.

Then, after the government allowed councils to set their own targets, York decided to double their's overnight; from 25% to 50%, in April 2005. Housebuilders complained, but, were ignored - the council called this "consultation" ! The targets were supposed to be based on need; York's being 40%, and deliverable ? !!!
Of course, York being greedy, they set their's at 50%, while neighbouring Leeds, who had the same need at 40%, set their's at 25% - ther reason being they felt it would achjieve more housing being built. They were right. York's housing completions went into decline immediately, and Leeds continued to rise for four more years untill 2008/09.

Another indictment against York Council, was the fact that in 2006, the government changed the rules, and PPG3 became PPS3 which required affordable targets to be based on an evidence based viability study. York intentinallly delayed having their AHVS done until 2009 and then delayed it's publication until July 2010 - four years after the requirement became required. Why ? Because, even by cheating with the evidence base, using massively discounted land values, they could only manage a still inflated target of 25% ! Half the 50%, which they had kept arguably illegally, for six years !

roobarb85 should learn about the history of this disgraceful abuse of legislation by CYC, before throwing stones through the windows of housebuilders, who have been made mugs of for too long !

[quote][p][bold]roobarb85[/bold] wrote: I'm a bit apprehensive about entering this debate, since, from reading previous threads that have touched on similar matters, they have degenerated into either party political point scoring and/or unseemly name calling. Can't see the point of either of those. Similarly, I don't want to contribute a further series of assertions about the rights and wrongs of "affordable housing". So, why am I posting? Simply this. It seems to me that the core of this isn't anything to do with housing at all. Rather, in my view, it goes like this. A speculative capitalist signs a contract. Presumably it was read and checked out before signature.That's great - we wouldn't get anywhere if there weren't venture capitalists.. But, as with all such ventures, any decent VC would know you could lose or gain. Now, 6 years down the line, the profit isn't going to be what was hoped. But rather than take the reduction in profit, the VC wants the taxpayer to pay the profit the VC hoped would be made. If the profit had been more than expected, would the VC have given money back to CoY? If your horse only comes second, do you expect the stewards to give you first place money because that's what you thought you'd get at the start of the race? Nowt against builders - my uncle used to be one - but this seems to be a try on to see what developers can squeeze out of CoY. Stick to the contract as signed and agreed![/p][/quote]It goes like this, actually.... [bold] THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SCANDAL [/bold] In 1997, New Labour ambushed the housebuilding industry and imposed a punitive, discriminatory, stealth tax in the guise of adffordable (social) housing using the planning system to blackmail builders into providing it. This forced housebuilders to provide social housing at less than cost, with the land thrown in for free. It was not resisted because of windfall profits from house price inflation, and the initial targets of 25% on sites of 25 or more dwellings meant that many sites avoided having to provide any AH. Then, after the government allowed councils to set their own targets, York decided to double their's overnight; from 25% to 50%, in April 2005. Housebuilders complained, but, were ignored - the council called this "consultation" ! The targets were supposed to be based on need; York's being 40%, and deliverable ? !!! Of course, York being greedy, they set their's at 50%, while neighbouring Leeds, who had the same need at 40%, set their's at 25% - ther reason being they felt it would achjieve more housing being built. They were right. York's housing completions went into decline immediately, and Leeds continued to rise for four more years untill 2008/09. Another indictment against York Council, was the fact that in 2006, the government changed the rules, and PPG3 became PPS3 which required affordable targets to be based on an evidence based viability study. York intentinallly delayed having their AHVS done until 2009 and then delayed it's publication until July 2010 - four years after the requirement became required. Why ? Because, even by cheating with the evidence base, using massively discounted land values, they could only manage a still inflated target of 25% ! Half the 50%, which they had kept arguably illegally, for six years ! roobarb85 should learn about the history of this disgraceful abuse of legislation by CYC, before throwing stones through the windows of housebuilders, who have been made mugs of for too long ! Mr Crabtree

Report this post »

PinzaC55 says...
12:19pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Put a statue of Andrew Waller on the site.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
12:27pm Fri 20 Jul 12

The Great Buda wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Sawday2 wrote: 20% affordable? That makes 80% unaffordable. So, if they are NOT affordable who is going to buy them?
That isn't your problem, so don't worry about it. Hungate (Crosby Lend Lease, Evans & Land Securities), will find buyers, and if they don't, the council might get some cheap housing.
Its everybodies problem if first time buyers are being priced out. The housing market goes cold and suddenly a lot of people will be left with mortgages worth more than their house and more than they can pay. We need more affordable housing, not less.

I agree.

More affordable (social/council) housing is needed, and should be provided.

Where I disagree, is who should be made to provide it.

Housebuilders were wounded as bad as the banks, but, they were not bailed out.

The top twenty UK housebuilders had a combined turnover of £38billion for 2009, 2010 and 2011, and made a net loss of £5.3billion .

For the six-year period from 2007 - 2012, Barratt built and sold 84,000 homes for a combined turnover of £15.3billion and made a net loss of £193million.

It's now time for the government and councils to get off the backs of private housebuilders and build their own social/council housing. Leave the housebuilders to provide the housing for those that can afford to buy them. They have done their charity bit, and enough is more than enough !

Stop taking the p*ss !

Report this post »

jimmy120883 says...
12:29pm Fri 20 Jul 12

The developer is going to make a 9-15 million profit. I'm not against anyone making a profit and so they should but i think that amount is easily enough all this is showing is developers and home builders to be even more greedy.
"but the current obligations on the developer would cause a loss of £215,000. Polo PR, which represents the developer, whether that would be an overall loss or a loss in the 20 per cent profit,BUT THE FIRM DECLINED TO SAY."
I wonder why?

Report this post »

jimmy120883 says...
12:38pm Fri 20 Jul 12

If these developers aren't making as much money as they used to then they need to re-structre there organisations like many other buissness and services in the private and public sectors have had to do since the recession, If they can't do that then they will just go out of buisness. Everyone is having to make hard cut backs these last few years through spending wages, raw materials etc these shouldn't be any different.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
12:42pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Here's an interesting fact.

First of all, a simple question:

What do Housing Associations provide ?

Answer : Social housing ? CORRECT !

Then does anything strike you as being unusual about this....

Housing Association London & Quadrant are developing a £128 million project to build 375 new private homes near Arsenal Football Club in north London, featuring no social or affordable housing !

So private housebuilders have to provide social housing in York, but, a housing association doesn't have to provide any on a site where it is building private housing - WHAT A DISGRACE !

Report this post »

jimmy120883 says...
12:50pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Here's an interesting fact. First of all, a simple question: What do Housing Associations provide ? Answer : Social housing ? CORRECT ! Then does anything strike you as being unusual about this.... Housing Association London & Quadrant are developing a £128 million project to build 375 new private homes near Arsenal Football Club in north London, featuring no social or affordable housing ! So private housebuilders have to provide social housing in York, but, a housing association doesn't have to provide any on a site where it is building private housing - WHAT A DISGRACE !

But are these private houses going to be rented out through the housing association to low income familys?

Report this post »

Ichabod76 says...
12:52pm Fri 20 Jul 12

jimmy120883 wrote:
The developer is going to make a 9-15 million profit. I'm not against anyone making a profit and so they should but i think that amount is easily enough all this is showing is developers and home builders to be even more greedy.
"but the current obligations on the developer would cause a loss of £215,000. Polo PR, which represents the developer, whether that would be an overall loss or a loss in the 20 per cent profit,BUT THE FIRM DECLINED TO SAY."
I wonder why?

you fail to mention the developer has invested and risked £130 million !

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
12:58pm Fri 20 Jul 12

jimmy120883 wrote:
The developer is going to make a 9-15 million profit. I'm not against anyone making a profit and so they should but i think that amount is easily enough all this is showing is developers and home builders to be even more greedy. "but the current obligations on the developer would cause a loss of £215,000. Polo PR, which represents the developer, whether that would be an overall loss or a loss in the 20 per cent profit,BUT THE FIRM DECLINED TO SAY." I wonder why?

You obviously didn't read my post about housebuilders losses.

This site has been stalled for the last four years, and the developer has been at a standstill. They designed the scheme in 2003, and started work on the in 2007 and expect to finsh in 2024 - that's an 22-year project with an 18-year build period. The returns on such a long period of investment need to be reasonable.

jimmy120883 should compare the returns of housebuilders with pharmaceutical companies, who don't have to give away 255, 35% or 50% of their drugs at less than cost price !

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
1:02pm Fri 20 Jul 12

jimmy120883 wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote: Here's an interesting fact. First of all, a simple question: What do Housing Associations provide ? Answer : Social housing ? CORRECT ! Then does anything strike you as being unusual about this.... Housing Association London & Quadrant are developing a £128 million project to build 375 new private homes near Arsenal Football Club in north London, featuring no social or affordable housing ! So private housebuilders have to provide social housing in York, but, a housing association doesn't have to provide any on a site where it is building private housing - WHAT A DISGRACE !
But are these private houses going to be rented out through the housing association to low income familys?

They are to be sold as private housing !

Just like 60% of Derwenthorpe by housing association Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust.

What a farce ? !!!

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
1:09pm Fri 20 Jul 12

We should realise why councils are forcing housebuilders to provide social housing.....

Council Housing Built in the UK

Between 1951 - 1980 : 4,570,000
Between 1981 - 2010 : 355,000

Difference : A drop of 4.2million from one 30-year period to the other.

It's time that councils started building council housing again, as the housing shortage is the fault of politicians !

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
1:16pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Prediction : Nestle, Terry's and Germany Beck will be next to demand reductions to their affordable quotas.

The Council should see the writing that has been on the wall for long enough, and be proactive in reducing the target to !0%, rather than dragging their feet as they usually do.

The game is up, and the council should back up their claim that,YORK IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS ? !!!!

Are you listening Coun Alexander ?

Report this post »

TerryYork says...
1:20pm Fri 20 Jul 12

A 20,000 seater stadium for York City would fit in there nicely. Barnitts and Sinclair could pay for it.

Report this post »

who are ya says...
1:33pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree wrote:
We should realise why councils are forcing housebuilders to provide social housing..... Council Housing Built in the UK Between 1951 - 1980 : 4,570,000 Between 1981 - 2010 : 355,000 Difference : A drop of 4.2million from one 30-year period to the other. It's time that councils started building council housing again, as the housing shortage is the fault of politicians !

spot on!

Its ok for wealthy people because they don't give a t*ss which is polititians who make decisions. I dont see many politicians in council housing.Also a profit of 1 pence is still a profit, people who say that they lost £2million profit are wrong thats forcast profits. If you forcast £15 million and you make £12 million you have not lost 3 million you still HAVE MADE A BLOOMING PROFIT you greedy barstewards.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
1:34pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Hungate say they will only be able to start phase two in September 2015 - that's in three years time !

York Council had predicted last year that phase two would deliver 35 affordable dwellings in 2012/13. Doesn't this show how out of touch the council are ? Officers are clueless, and the blind are leading the blind.

York council's housing strategy is a complete shambles - no wonder messrs Woolley and Tissiman have done a runner. There are a few more culprits who should follow them !

Report this post »

meme says...
1:47pm Fri 20 Jul 12

The whole point is what do York Council want?
People building houses and working with all the benefits for those working on the job and new houses at the end
OR
Not have any new employment/ houses on this site, no affordable whatsoever ,No capital contributions towards the council whatsoever and an eyesore site sitting derelict
I know what I would vote for and i am pretty sure most realistic people would agree
So politicians of york, wake up and do something. Engage with them NOW; get what you can but at the same time extract a promise that the scheme will commence on X date and that only local contractors will be considered for the work. Other councils do this but for some reason York goes externally for work
Frankly the more I type and think about this the angrier i become as the politicians posture and argue whilst nothing happens and we ALL suffer, poor and rich!
There are no ideas from York's labour party to resolve this crisis just hot air, platitudes and meaningless consultation exercises where nobody listens and then they stifle all debate on the issue as they know they are wrong but don't have the courage to admit it

Report this post »

Pedro says...
1:52pm Fri 20 Jul 12

York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
2:02pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Pedro wrote:
York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?

Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
2:12pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Pedro wrote:
York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?

You are wrong - the council do set the affordable targets.

You are also wrong, that the council should hold Hungate to the levels agreed prior to the financial crisis. In fact, councils have been instructed by government to renegotiate unworkable S106 agreements, so the council have to do this.

You are like many people in York - misinformed about the realities. The council are to blame for many things in relation to this; producing misleading reports, cooking the books with their statistics, making completely unrealistic predictions with unworkable policies. This has all been about ideological political interference with the system, and the culprits; Coun Merrett, Coun Simpson-Laing and a cabal of officers, are now being exposed. They should be held to account for the losses to York's economy caused by the six years the arguably illegal 50% AH target, was allowed to be in force.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
2:21pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Even AndyD wrote:

Pedro wrote: York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?
Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?

That's rich comiing from a blinkered City fan, who's club is being subsidised to the tune of £4m of tax-payers money, with a freebie new stadium also using monies (£14.35m from Oakgate) that could have been used for affordable housing.

For a man that followed the stadium debacle closely, and read all the reports and quoted all the conditions etc at every point of the debate, you should do the same with this issue.

Hungate are entirely correct in renegotiating the S106, because the government have decreed this. No development should be held back by unworkable S106 agreements, and councils are duty bound to reduce requirements - that's business !

Report this post »

York1900 says...
2:23pm Fri 20 Jul 12

It all ways the same with any thing that to government or council get involved with private companies all ways try to come back for more money out of the deal

It is time that councils and government started taking companies to court for breach of contract and stop companies taking the tax payers for more and more for things companies have agreed to supply at a price

why should the tax payer be a the top up payer when a company as agreed to supply some thing then they find that there is not enough profit in it for them

Report this post »

Old_Man says...
2:29pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Take a step back and look at this from a business POV.

If CoYC came to me and said I could only start a new business if I contributed x amount to the community I would tell them where to go.

Why should a company who build houses be told that they must make x amount of their project available to benefit scroungers (which is the long and short of it), thus making the market value of the rest of the estate lower because the vast majority of potential buyers don't want to live next to riff-raff?

I await the usual nonsense from the lefties but this is hard fact. Hands up who wants to live next door to the "Shameless" generation?

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
3:43pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

Pedro wrote: York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?
Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?
That's rich comiing from a blinkered City fan, who's club is being subsidised to the tune of £4m of tax-payers money, with a freebie new stadium also using monies (£14.35m from Oakgate) that could have been used for affordable housing.

For a man that followed the stadium debacle closely, and read all the reports and quoted all the conditions etc at every point of the debate, you should do the same with this issue.

Hungate are entirely correct in renegotiating the S106, because the government have decreed this. No development should be held back by unworkable S106 agreements, and councils are duty bound to reduce requirements - that's business !

Knew 100% you would say that Mr C. 100%. This story is not about MX though. Also - I'm entitled to my opinion and YCFC haven't been given freebies, they are paying a six figure rent each year. Stadium is not solely for our use either, as well you know.
You are right that I'm not an expert on Hungate - and I'd stress I'm just saying it how I see it. Love the 'bite' though - as night follows day. :-)

[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?[/p][/quote]Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?[/p][/quote]That's rich comiing from a blinkered City fan, who's club is being subsidised to the tune of £4m of tax-payers money, with a freebie new stadium also using monies (£14.35m from Oakgate) that could have been used for affordable housing. For a man that followed the stadium debacle closely, and read all the reports and quoted all the conditions etc at every point of the debate, you should do the same with this issue. Hungate are entirely correct in renegotiating the S106, because the government have decreed this. No development should be held back by unworkable S106 agreements, and councils are duty bound to reduce requirements - that's business ![/p][/quote]Knew 100% you would say that Mr C. 100%. This story is not about MX though. Also - I'm entitled to my opinion and YCFC haven't been given freebies, they are paying a six figure rent each year. Stadium is not solely for our use either, as well you know. You are right that I'm not an expert on Hungate - and I'd stress I'm just saying it how I see it. Love the 'bite' though - as night follows day. :-) Even AndyD

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
3:54pm Fri 20 Jul 12

In fairness, and joking aside, I do empathise with local builders and affordable housing isn't the route forward. We've already discussed how the solution is simply building more homes and letting demand and supply dictate price (as it will).
Sorry for the 'bait' but I've put up with a lot from you over the months, Mr C. and I'm only human (yes - truly!). And don't call me blinkered! ;-p

Report this post »

TheTruthHurts says...
3:56pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Even AndyD wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

Pedro wrote: York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?
Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?
That's rich comiing from a blinkered City fan, who's club is being subsidised to the tune of £4m of tax-payers money, with a freebie new stadium also using monies (£14.35m from Oakgate) that could have been used for affordable housing.

For a man that followed the stadium debacle closely, and read all the reports and quoted all the conditions etc at every point of the debate, you should do the same with this issue.

Hungate are entirely correct in renegotiating the S106, because the government have decreed this. No development should be held back by unworkable S106 agreements, and councils are duty bound to reduce requirements - that's business !
Knew 100% you would say that Mr C. 100%. This story is not about MX though. Also - I'm entitled to my opinion and YCFC haven't been given freebies, they are paying a six figure rent each year. Stadium is not solely for our use either, as well you know.
You are right that I'm not an expert on Hungate - and I'd stress I'm just saying it how I see it. Love the 'bite' though - as night follows day. :-)

Well if you say it as you see it as you say :-s, then you are wrong simple as.

[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?[/p][/quote]Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?[/p][/quote]That's rich comiing from a blinkered City fan, who's club is being subsidised to the tune of £4m of tax-payers money, with a freebie new stadium also using monies (£14.35m from Oakgate) that could have been used for affordable housing. For a man that followed the stadium debacle closely, and read all the reports and quoted all the conditions etc at every point of the debate, you should do the same with this issue. Hungate are entirely correct in renegotiating the S106, because the government have decreed this. No development should be held back by unworkable S106 agreements, and councils are duty bound to reduce requirements - that's business ![/p][/quote]Knew 100% you would say that Mr C. 100%. This story is not about MX though. Also - I'm entitled to my opinion and YCFC haven't been given freebies, they are paying a six figure rent each year. Stadium is not solely for our use either, as well you know. You are right that I'm not an expert on Hungate - and I'd stress I'm just saying it how I see it. Love the 'bite' though - as night follows day. :-)[/p][/quote]Well if you say it as you see it as you say :-s, then you are wrong simple as. TheTruthHurts

Report this post »

meme says...
4:15pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Mike Slate of CoYC said.“Hungate is an important city centre development and we remain committed to working with the developers in order to continue to deliver a high quality scheme.''
What meaningless claptrap!
How about ''we want to get this scheme building and do what's necessary to make sure it does'' as something meaningful rather than wisshy washy council nonsense;

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
4:19pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Even AndyD wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
Pedro wrote: York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?
Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?
That's rich comiing from a blinkered City fan, who's club is being subsidised to the tune of £4m of tax-payers money, with a freebie new stadium also using monies (£14.35m from Oakgate) that could have been used for affordable housing. For a man that followed the stadium debacle closely, and read all the reports and quoted all the conditions etc at every point of the debate, you should do the same with this issue. Hungate are entirely correct in renegotiating the S106, because the government have decreed this. No development should be held back by unworkable S106 agreements, and councils are duty bound to reduce requirements - that's business !
Knew 100% you would say that Mr C. 100%. This story is not about MX though. Also - I'm entitled to my opinion and YCFC haven't been given freebies, they are paying a six figure rent each year. Stadium is not solely for our use either, as well you know. You are right that I'm not an expert on Hungate - and I'd stress I'm just saying it how I see it. Love the 'bite' though - as night follows day. :-)

A highly subsidised rent. Pro rata to the cost of the stadium, if it was a three-bed house, it would be like paying around £100/month, when the market rent is about £750. Even if it's a house-share with the knights, it's still a better deal than housing association tenants get.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, and even though its misinformed, and blinkered, and is about something that you clearly know little about, you feel inclined to make totally unfair criticisms. I expected more from someone who has benefitted from the good that developers do, but, like many of the begrudging left, there is no gratitude, just petty prejudice !

[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?[/p][/quote]Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?[/p][/quote]That's rich comiing from a blinkered City fan, who's club is being subsidised to the tune of £4m of tax-payers money, with a freebie new stadium also using monies (£14.35m from Oakgate) that could have been used for affordable housing. For a man that followed the stadium debacle closely, and read all the reports and quoted all the conditions etc at every point of the debate, you should do the same with this issue. Hungate are entirely correct in renegotiating the S106, because the government have decreed this. No development should be held back by unworkable S106 agreements, and councils are duty bound to reduce requirements - that's business ![/p][/quote]Knew 100% you would say that Mr C. 100%. This story is not about MX though. Also - I'm entitled to my opinion and YCFC haven't been given freebies, they are paying a six figure rent each year. Stadium is not solely for our use either, as well you know. You are right that I'm not an expert on Hungate - and I'd stress I'm just saying it how I see it. Love the 'bite' though - as night follows day. :-)[/p][/quote]A highly subsidised rent. Pro rata to the cost of the stadium, if it was a three-bed house, it would be like paying around £100/month, when the market rent is about £750. Even if it's a house-share with the knights, it's still a better deal than housing association tenants get. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, and even though its misinformed, and blinkered, and is about something that you clearly know little about, you feel inclined to make totally unfair criticisms. I expected more from someone who has benefitted from the good that developers do, but, like many of the begrudging left, there is no gratitude, just petty prejudice ! Mr Crabtree

Report this post »

york_chap says...
4:22pm Fri 20 Jul 12

It says that some 'affordable housing' is sold at a discounted price (rather than being rented). How do I get myself eligible for one of these discounted homes? Will I need to get myself a drug habit/become an ex-con/be unemployed with at least 5 kids etc, or can hard-working, respectable folks get them too?

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
4:30pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Where are the councillors, and why no comments from them ?

They will certainly be reading this thread, and will no doubt be thinking up some ridiculous excuses, for their stubborn, stupid, irresponsible, intransigence in resisting the AH target reduction requests for so long.

Since James Alexander has been leader of the council, what has his party done for housing ? Where are the increased housing completions promised in his manifesto ? What is his cabinet housing member Coun Simpson-Laing doing other than stating the obvious that there are so many who cannot afford to buy a house ? She says and does nothing constructive, and is politically useless at addressing the problem - time she was sacked ? Definitely !

Report this post »

AngryandFrustrated says...
4:35pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:
Pedro wrote: York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?
Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?
That's rich comiing from a blinkered City fan, who's club is being subsidised to the tune of £4m of tax-payers money, with a freebie new stadium also using monies (£14.35m from Oakgate) that could have been used for affordable housing. For a man that followed the stadium debacle closely, and read all the reports and quoted all the conditions etc at every point of the debate, you should do the same with this issue. Hungate are entirely correct in renegotiating the S106, because the government have decreed this. No development should be held back by unworkable S106 agreements, and councils are duty bound to reduce requirements - that's business !

I agreed with some of your postings on the MX story Mr C, but to be blunt I am beginning to find you a little patronising and overbearing with your comments.

It is clear that you are obviously involved/employed in the field of planning, development or building and therefore are more expert in these matters than the likes of me or Even AndyD. However, you do yourself no favours in the points you make by trying to bludgeon us numpties into agreeing your point of view and your point of view only. Believe it or not, you may be considered to be wrong in some of the points you make!

The fact is that at the time that this development was approved, the landowners and developers had no objection to the conditions that were imposed in respect of the Sec 106 agreement etc. Had they concerns, it was up to them to either appeal the conditions or walk away from the land and the development. They chose not to, and by their actions accepted what had been imposed, presumably on the basis that a nice fat profit was projected.

Whether you like it or not Mr C, there are a whole swathe of us planning law numpties out there that find it very difficult to accept that, just because the economy has changed, big developers and indeed businesses, should be able to bow out of committments they had previously agreed to. Essentially, what they now want to do is protect their profit at the expense of community features such as "archaeology, cycling, a car club, CCTV, education and open space."

What businesses now seem to want to do in this market (and in this instance, developers) is to guarantee no losses. Part of the gamble of being in business is try and make as much profit as is possible but sometimes that just doesn't work out. To quote you, Mr C, " that's business".

To be blunt, it is a well known fact that property prices go up as well as down - it has been a requirement to state that on every mortgage advertisement for some years now. There are plenty of people who were in the process of purchasing/had just purchased a house when the crash happened. The sellars/developers did not say, you poor things, have a discount. No, people were stuck with properties that devalued overnight, some going into negative equity. This is no different, just on a larger scale. If people don't pay their mortgage, they lose their homes. If the developers don't pay what is required under the conditions, fine. Don't develop and guarantee that you will make large losses instead of a modest profit. Their choice and their cross to bear at the end of the day.

[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?[/p][/quote]Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?[/p][/quote]That's rich comiing from a blinkered City fan, who's club is being subsidised to the tune of £4m of tax-payers money, with a freebie new stadium also using monies (£14.35m from Oakgate) that could have been used for affordable housing. For a man that followed the stadium debacle closely, and read all the reports and quoted all the conditions etc at every point of the debate, you should do the same with this issue. Hungate are entirely correct in renegotiating the S106, because the government have decreed this. No development should be held back by unworkable S106 agreements, and councils are duty bound to reduce requirements - that's business ![/p][/quote]I agreed with some of your postings on the MX story Mr C, but to be blunt I am beginning to find you a little patronising and overbearing with your comments. It is clear that you are obviously involved/employed in the field of planning, development or building and therefore are more expert in these matters than the likes of me or Even AndyD. However, you do yourself no favours in the points you make by trying to bludgeon us numpties into agreeing your point of view and your point of view only. Believe it or not, you may be considered to be wrong in some of the points you make! The fact is that at the time that this development was approved, the landowners and developers had no objection to the conditions that were imposed in respect of the Sec 106 agreement etc. Had they concerns, it was up to them to either appeal the conditions or walk away from the land and the development. They chose not to, and by their actions accepted what had been imposed, presumably on the basis that a nice fat profit was projected. Whether you like it or not Mr C, there are a whole swathe of us planning law numpties out there that find it very difficult to accept that, just because the economy has changed, big developers and indeed businesses, should be able to bow out of committments they had previously agreed to. Essentially, what they now want to do is protect their profit at the expense of community features such as "archaeology, cycling, a car club, CCTV, education and open space." What businesses now seem to want to do in this market (and in this instance, developers) is to guarantee no losses. Part of the gamble of being in business is try and make as much profit as is possible but sometimes that just doesn't work out. To quote you, Mr C, " that's business". To be blunt, it is a well known fact that property prices go up as well as down - it has been a requirement to state that on every mortgage advertisement for some years now. There are plenty of people who were in the process of purchasing/had just purchased a house when the crash happened. The sellars/developers did not say, you poor things, have a discount. No, people were stuck with properties that devalued overnight, some going into negative equity. This is no different, just on a larger scale. If people don't pay their mortgage, they lose their homes. If the developers don't pay what is required under the conditions, fine. Don't develop and guarantee that you will make large losses instead of a modest profit. Their choice and their cross to bear at the end of the day. AngryandFrustrated

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
4:55pm Fri 20 Jul 12

AngryandFrustrated

I couldn't care less how patronising or overbearing you find my comments. You and AndyD have not been affected by the affordable housing rip-off policies that the council have mercilessly bashed housebuilders in the city with. You therefore have little reason, or right, to judge those of us who have.

York council were greedy, and housebuilders got hammered. When the credit crunch hit, builders lost a fortune, some lost their jobs, others lost their businesses and billions were wiped off their balance sheets. What did the council lose ? Nothing !

It is all very well you crying foul because housebuilders want a fair crack of the whip, but, they are only asking for what they are entitled to - their 20% profit (which when you look at the way the council calculate it, does not allow for the deduction of overheads or tax which can take around 12.5% of this).

Despite your protestations, the fact remains that councils have a duty to allow housebuilders renegotiate S106, where viability has been impaired. This is the case with Hungate, and like it or not, the council will have to yield.
,

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
5:06pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Angryand Frustrated wrote, "What businesses now seem to want to do in this market (and in this instance, developers) is to guarantee no losses........... "

If you knew anything about housebuilding and the risks involved, you would not make ridiculous statements like this !

You cannot guarantee profit from housebuilding. You cannot guarantee that the rain/weather will not cost you a fortune in delays. You cannot guarantee house prices.

What you can guarantee, is that housebuilders will exercise theirr right to renegotiate S106 requirements where they are no longer affordable (pun intended).

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
5:12pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Extract from Inside Housing article dated 16 November 2011;

On Monday prime minster David Cameron announced the government’s long-awaited housing strategy which contained proposals to require local authorities to reconsider section 106 agreements put in place in ‘more prosperous’ times before April 2010.

The housing strategy, which Mr Cameron described as a ‘radical’ way to ‘get Britain building again’, estimates that there are 82,000 homes in stalled schemes across England which would benefit from renegotiation with developers.

Of these 82,000 homes, 16,000 would have been affordable, according to the National Housing Federation – the same number of homes the government hopes to see built through a separate £400 million ‘Get Britain building’ investment fund to kick-start frozen developments

Report this post »

roobarb85 says...
5:12pm Fri 20 Jul 12

This is not a column for personal comment.

However, having stated in my posting that I wasn't trying to make political or affordable housing comments, but just that in my view

the whole thing is beyond all that and just a matter of fulfilling a contract

and I actually had relations in the construction industry,

What responses get posted ?

One that was personally abusive,and in passing, mis spelt "advice", and the other just produced a huge dogmatic wodge of "facts" re AH in an attempt to steamroller an opinion through.

What's the point.............??
??

Maybe you shouldn't enter forums without expecting that kind of behaviour - and maybe people should wonder why lots of the population choose not to get involved with what responses like these imply passes as debate on public issues in York.

I'm happy to leave abuse, name calling and rampant dogmatism alone (mind you the air's pretty thin on this some-would say-prissy moral high ground, that I'm aware of inhabiting - in a self-deprecatory manner !!! TTFN !!!

Report this post »

AngryandFrustrated says...
5:14pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree wrote:
AngryandFrustrated I couldn't care less how patronising or overbearing you find my comments. You and AndyD have not been affected by the affordable housing rip-off policies that the council have mercilessly bashed housebuilders in the city with. You therefore have little reason, or right, to judge those of us who have. York council were greedy, and housebuilders got hammered. When the credit crunch hit, builders lost a fortune, some lost their jobs, others lost their businesses and billions were wiped off their balance sheets. What did the council lose ? Nothing ! It is all very well you crying foul because housebuilders want a fair crack of the whip, but, they are only asking for what they are entitled to - their 20% profit (which when you look at the way the council calculate it, does not allow for the deduction of overheads or tax which can take around 12.5% of this). Despite your protestations, the fact remains that councils have a duty to allow housebuilders renegotiate S106, where viability has been impaired. This is the case with Hungate, and like it or not, the council will have to yield. ,

You really are a hostile and aggressive little individual aren't you? Let me very blunt with you. You know NOTHING about me or who I am and contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market.

However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different.

I return to the point in my posting which I note you haven't addressed, presumably because you can't. At the time the plans were approved, the developers were more than content to accept the conditions imposed. There were none of your hysterical rants against the conditions, be it the affordable housing requirements or the money toward community projects.

There are many people and businesses that have suffered as a result of the global economic crisis. Maybe us little people are sick and tired of taking the brunt whilst bigger businesses, including these developers, whinge, whine, stamp their feet and sulk until they get their own way.

Suck it up Mr C - the rest of us have had to!

[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated I couldn't care less how patronising or overbearing you find my comments. You and AndyD have not been affected by the affordable housing rip-off policies that the council have mercilessly bashed housebuilders in the city with. You therefore have little reason, or right, to judge those of us who have. York council were greedy, and housebuilders got hammered. When the credit crunch hit, builders lost a fortune, some lost their jobs, others lost their businesses and billions were wiped off their balance sheets. What did the council lose ? Nothing ! It is all very well you crying foul because housebuilders want a fair crack of the whip, but, they are only asking for what they are entitled to - their 20% profit (which when you look at the way the council calculate it, does not allow for the deduction of overheads or tax which can take around 12.5% of this). Despite your protestations, the fact remains that councils have a duty to allow housebuilders renegotiate S106, where viability has been impaired. This is the case with Hungate, and like it or not, the council will have to yield. ,[/p][/quote]You really are a hostile and aggressive little individual aren't you? Let me very blunt with you. You know NOTHING about me or who I am and contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market. However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different. I return to the point in my posting which I note you haven't addressed, presumably because you can't. At the time the plans were approved, the developers were more than content to accept the conditions imposed. There were none of your hysterical rants against the conditions, be it the affordable housing requirements or the money toward community projects. There are many people and businesses that have suffered as a result of the global economic crisis. Maybe us little people are sick and tired of taking the brunt whilst bigger businesses, including these developers, whinge, whine, stamp their feet and sulk until they get their own way. Suck it up Mr C - the rest of us have had to! AngryandFrustrated

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
5:19pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
Pedro wrote: York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?
Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?
That's rich comiing from a blinkered City fan, who's club is being subsidised to the tune of £4m of tax-payers money, with a freebie new stadium also using monies (£14.35m from Oakgate) that could have been used for affordable housing. For a man that followed the stadium debacle closely, and read all the reports and quoted all the conditions etc at every point of the debate, you should do the same with this issue. Hungate are entirely correct in renegotiating the S106, because the government have decreed this. No development should be held back by unworkable S106 agreements, and councils are duty bound to reduce requirements - that's business !
Knew 100% you would say that Mr C. 100%. This story is not about MX though. Also - I'm entitled to my opinion and YCFC haven't been given freebies, they are paying a six figure rent each year. Stadium is not solely for our use either, as well you know. You are right that I'm not an expert on Hungate - and I'd stress I'm just saying it how I see it. Love the 'bite' though - as night follows day. :-)
A highly subsidised rent. Pro rata to the cost of the stadium, if it was a three-bed house, it would be like paying around £100/month, when the market rent is about £750. Even if it's a house-share with the knights, it's still a better deal than housing association tenants get.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, and even though its misinformed, and blinkered, and is about something that you clearly know little about, you feel inclined to make totally unfair criticisms. I expected more from someone who has benefitted from the good that developers do, but, like many of the begrudging left, there is no gratitude, just petty prejudice !

A little OTT there. I'm not petty, I go out of my way to show no prejudice - hence always trying to meet you halfway with the AH stuff and having a laugh making you an honorary YCFC fan some weeks back. And sharing things about life, disability and the rest. I don't think I'm 'begrudging left' - whatever that means and I'm not generally blinkered. I can be wrong of course - but I suspect that goes for most of us!

[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?[/p][/quote]Spot on. Sorry - but business is business. If you sign a contract and can't deliver then you are in trouble in any industry. Why should this be any different just because its the good old tax payer picking up the tab?[/p][/quote]That's rich comiing from a blinkered City fan, who's club is being subsidised to the tune of £4m of tax-payers money, with a freebie new stadium also using monies (£14.35m from Oakgate) that could have been used for affordable housing. For a man that followed the stadium debacle closely, and read all the reports and quoted all the conditions etc at every point of the debate, you should do the same with this issue. Hungate are entirely correct in renegotiating the S106, because the government have decreed this. No development should be held back by unworkable S106 agreements, and councils are duty bound to reduce requirements - that's business ![/p][/quote]Knew 100% you would say that Mr C. 100%. This story is not about MX though. Also - I'm entitled to my opinion and YCFC haven't been given freebies, they are paying a six figure rent each year. Stadium is not solely for our use either, as well you know. You are right that I'm not an expert on Hungate - and I'd stress I'm just saying it how I see it. Love the 'bite' though - as night follows day. :-)[/p][/quote]A highly subsidised rent. Pro rata to the cost of the stadium, if it was a three-bed house, it would be like paying around £100/month, when the market rent is about £750. Even if it's a house-share with the knights, it's still a better deal than housing association tenants get. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, and even though its misinformed, and blinkered, and is about something that you clearly know little about, you feel inclined to make totally unfair criticisms. I expected more from someone who has benefitted from the good that developers do, but, like many of the begrudging left, there is no gratitude, just petty prejudice ![/p][/quote]A little OTT there. I'm not petty, I go out of my way to show no prejudice - hence always trying to meet you halfway with the AH stuff and having a laugh making you an honorary YCFC fan some weeks back. And sharing things about life, disability and the rest. I don't think I'm 'begrudging left' - whatever that means and I'm not generally blinkered. I can be wrong of course - but I suspect that goes for most of us! Even AndyD

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
5:33pm Fri 20 Jul 12

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote: AngryandFrustrated I couldn't care less how patronising or overbearing you find my comments. You and AndyD have not been affected by the affordable housing rip-off policies that the council have mercilessly bashed housebuilders in the city with. You therefore have little reason, or right, to judge those of us who have. York council were greedy, and housebuilders got hammered. When the credit crunch hit, builders lost a fortune, some lost their jobs, others lost their businesses and billions were wiped off their balance sheets. What did the council lose ? Nothing ! It is all very well you crying foul because housebuilders want a fair crack of the whip, but, they are only asking for what they are entitled to - their 20% profit (which when you look at the way the council calculate it, does not allow for the deduction of overheads or tax which can take around 12.5% of this). Despite your protestations, the fact remains that councils have a duty to allow housebuilders renegotiate S106, where viability has been impaired. This is the case with Hungate, and like it or not, the council will have to yield. ,
You really are a hostile and aggressive little individual aren't you? Let me very blunt with you. You know NOTHING about me or who I am and contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market. However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different. I return to the point in my posting which I note you haven't addressed, presumably because you can't. At the time the plans were approved, the developers were more than content to accept the conditions imposed. There were none of your hysterical rants against the conditions, be it the affordable housing requirements or the money toward community projects. There are many people and businesses that have suffered as a result of the global economic crisis. Maybe us little people are sick and tired of taking the brunt whilst bigger businesses, including these developers, whinge, whine, stamp their feet and sulk until they get their own way. Suck it up Mr C - the rest of us have had to!

Let me be blunt with you.
YOU KNOW NOTHING about this issue, or me, so stop making ignorant comments about both.

The facts are :-

1. There is no breach of any contract in respect of Hungate refusing to provide 20% affordable housing.
2. The Council are duty bound to renegotiate the S106.

Accept it, and get over it.

[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated I couldn't care less how patronising or overbearing you find my comments. You and AndyD have not been affected by the affordable housing rip-off policies that the council have mercilessly bashed housebuilders in the city with. You therefore have little reason, or right, to judge those of us who have. York council were greedy, and housebuilders got hammered. When the credit crunch hit, builders lost a fortune, some lost their jobs, others lost their businesses and billions were wiped off their balance sheets. What did the council lose ? Nothing ! It is all very well you crying foul because housebuilders want a fair crack of the whip, but, they are only asking for what they are entitled to - their 20% profit (which when you look at the way the council calculate it, does not allow for the deduction of overheads or tax which can take around 12.5% of this). Despite your protestations, the fact remains that councils have a duty to allow housebuilders renegotiate S106, where viability has been impaired. This is the case with Hungate, and like it or not, the council will have to yield. ,[/p][/quote]You really are a hostile and aggressive little individual aren't you? Let me very blunt with you. You know NOTHING about me or who I am and contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market. However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different. I return to the point in my posting which I note you haven't addressed, presumably because you can't. At the time the plans were approved, the developers were more than content to accept the conditions imposed. There were none of your hysterical rants against the conditions, be it the affordable housing requirements or the money toward community projects. There are many people and businesses that have suffered as a result of the global economic crisis. Maybe us little people are sick and tired of taking the brunt whilst bigger businesses, including these developers, whinge, whine, stamp their feet and sulk until they get their own way. Suck it up Mr C - the rest of us have had to![/p][/quote]Let me be blunt with you. YOU KNOW NOTHING about this issue, or me, so stop making ignorant comments about both. The facts are :- 1. There is no breach of any contract in respect of Hungate refusing to provide 20% affordable housing. 2. The Council are duty bound to renegotiate the S106. Accept it, and get over it. Mr Crabtree

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
5:48pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Agree to disagree. It is the weekend - enjoy and have a good 'un.

Report this post »

Sillybillies says...
6:24pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Better still - get the taxpayers to foot the bill for those items which are everyone's responsibility - starting with social housing.

Get lost, I'm responsible only for my own home, no one else's.

Report this post »

highhat says...
6:50pm Fri 20 Jul 12

I think you will find your council tax is squandered on all sorts of crap beyond your control so keep paying mate and keep james happy

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
7:35pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Sillybillies wrote:

Better still - get the taxpayers to foot the bill for those items which are everyone's responsibility - starting with social housing.

Get lost, I'm responsible only for my own home, no one else's.

You have at least that in common with Councillors and Officers. The difference is, they expect housebuilders to be responsible for providing ALL homes, even for those who don't pay for them !

Report this post »

AngryandFrustrated says...
8:29pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree wrote:

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote: AngryandFrustrated I couldn't care less how patronising or overbearing you find my comments. You and AndyD have not been affected by the affordable housing rip-off policies that the council have mercilessly bashed housebuilders in the city with. You therefore have little reason, or right, to judge those of us who have. York council were greedy, and housebuilders got hammered. When the credit crunch hit, builders lost a fortune, some lost their jobs, others lost their businesses and billions were wiped off their balance sheets. What did the council lose ? Nothing ! It is all very well you crying foul because housebuilders want a fair crack of the whip, but, they are only asking for what they are entitled to - their 20% profit (which when you look at the way the council calculate it, does not allow for the deduction of overheads or tax which can take around 12.5% of this). Despite your protestations, the fact remains that councils have a duty to allow housebuilders renegotiate S106, where viability has been impaired. This is the case with Hungate, and like it or not, the council will have to yield. ,
You really are a hostile and aggressive little individual aren't you? Let me very blunt with you. You know NOTHING about me or who I am and contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market. However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different. I return to the point in my posting which I note you haven't addressed, presumably because you can't. At the time the plans were approved, the developers were more than content to accept the conditions imposed. There were none of your hysterical rants against the conditions, be it the affordable housing requirements or the money toward community projects. There are many people and businesses that have suffered as a result of the global economic crisis. Maybe us little people are sick and tired of taking the brunt whilst bigger businesses, including these developers, whinge, whine, stamp their feet and sulk until they get their own way. Suck it up Mr C - the rest of us have had to!
Let me be blunt with you.
YOU KNOW NOTHING about this issue, or me, so stop making ignorant comments about both.

The facts are :-

1. There is no breach of any contract in respect of Hungate refusing to provide 20% affordable housing.
2. The Council are duty bound to renegotiate the S106.

Accept it, and get over it.

I did not pretend to know anything about you - I was merely commenting on your zealot postings and the fact that you are bordering on being offensive to anyone who has the timerity to disagree with you.

I suggest you read my postings before berating me. Not once have I said that the developers were in breach of contract. I quite agree that there is no contract because there has not been offer, acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations. However, if the developers want to continue their development without being in breach of the planning conditions, then in my opinion, and some others who have posted on this, they should be held to the conditions THEY AGREED TO AT THE TIME PLANNING WAS GRANTED. I have no recollection of them squealing to the Press, like you do on these comments about the Sec 106 agreement and the affordable housing quota. They were quite happy to put up with it when the profit margins were large enough.

As for the sec 106, the Council are under a duty to talk to the developers. They are certainly under no duty to give in to their demands.

I suggest you consider counselling given the fact that you are clearly unable to enter into reasoned debate on this issue without belittling or being offensive to those who do not agree with you. Your blood pressure must be sky high!!

[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated I couldn't care less how patronising or overbearing you find my comments. You and AndyD have not been affected by the affordable housing rip-off policies that the council have mercilessly bashed housebuilders in the city with. You therefore have little reason, or right, to judge those of us who have. York council were greedy, and housebuilders got hammered. When the credit crunch hit, builders lost a fortune, some lost their jobs, others lost their businesses and billions were wiped off their balance sheets. What did the council lose ? Nothing ! It is all very well you crying foul because housebuilders want a fair crack of the whip, but, they are only asking for what they are entitled to - their 20% profit (which when you look at the way the council calculate it, does not allow for the deduction of overheads or tax which can take around 12.5% of this). Despite your protestations, the fact remains that councils have a duty to allow housebuilders renegotiate S106, where viability has been impaired. This is the case with Hungate, and like it or not, the council will have to yield. ,[/p][/quote]You really are a hostile and aggressive little individual aren't you? Let me very blunt with you. You know NOTHING about me or who I am and contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market. However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different. I return to the point in my posting which I note you haven't addressed, presumably because you can't. At the time the plans were approved, the developers were more than content to accept the conditions imposed. There were none of your hysterical rants against the conditions, be it the affordable housing requirements or the money toward community projects. There are many people and businesses that have suffered as a result of the global economic crisis. Maybe us little people are sick and tired of taking the brunt whilst bigger businesses, including these developers, whinge, whine, stamp their feet and sulk until they get their own way. Suck it up Mr C - the rest of us have had to![/p][/quote]Let me be blunt with you. YOU KNOW NOTHING about this issue, or me, so stop making ignorant comments about both. The facts are :- 1. There is no breach of any contract in respect of Hungate refusing to provide 20% affordable housing. 2. The Council are duty bound to renegotiate the S106. Accept it, and get over it.[/p][/quote]I did not pretend to know anything about you - I was merely commenting on your zealot postings and the fact that you are bordering on being offensive to anyone who has the timerity to disagree with you. I suggest you read my postings before berating me. Not once have I said that the developers were in breach of contract. I quite agree that there is no contract because there has not been offer, acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations. However, if the developers want to continue their development without being in breach of the planning conditions, then in my opinion, and some others who have posted on this, they should be held to the conditions THEY AGREED TO AT THE TIME PLANNING WAS GRANTED. I have no recollection of them squealing to the Press, like you do on these comments about the Sec 106 agreement and the affordable housing quota. They were quite happy to put up with it when the profit margins were large enough. As for the sec 106, the Council are under a duty to talk to the developers. They are certainly under no duty to give in to their demands. I suggest you consider counselling given the fact that you are clearly unable to enter into reasoned debate on this issue without belittling or being offensive to those who do not agree with you. Your blood pressure must be sky high!! AngryandFrustrated

Report this post »

Buzz Light-year says...
8:32pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Well here we are again more comments than merited, many of them saying just the same thing over and over and being said by the same person(s). But mostly the same person.
Here we are again with the same people (but mainly just the same one) being obsessive, full of attitude and happy to abuse anyone even those who may be partially supportive and who might think they had made a bit of a connection.

The campaign's going just as well as ever, winning hearts and minds hand over fist.
No wonder you guys are so popular.

Report this post »

arglemcgee says...
10:10pm Fri 20 Jul 12

...and where there's no threat of exposing anything.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
10:37pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Well here we are again more comments than merited, many of them saying just the same thing over and over and being said by the same person(s). But mostly the same person.
Here we are again with the same people (but mainly just the same one) being obsessive, full of attitude and happy to abuse anyone even those who may be partially supportive and who might think they had made a bit of a connection.

The campaign's going just as well as ever, winning hearts and minds hand over fist.
No wonder you guys are so popular.

It's called being committed and passionate about something you believe in. In this case, a belief that a great wrong has been committed against an industry that has been discriminated against, through a campaign of deceit, manipulation, and spin to retain an arguably illegal target that was unfairly inflated. The individuals behind this, have been found out, and they should answer for the harm and damage they have done to businesses and York's economy.

Instead of ridiculing those who have been innocent victims, you should be showing concern that politicians have acted in such an insidious manner.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
10:40pm Fri 20 Jul 12

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote: AngryandFrustrated I couldn't care less how patronising or overbearing you find my comments. You and AndyD have not been affected by the affordable housing rip-off policies that the council have mercilessly bashed housebuilders in the city with. You therefore have little reason, or right, to judge those of us who have. York council were greedy, and housebuilders got hammered. When the credit crunch hit, builders lost a fortune, some lost their jobs, others lost their businesses and billions were wiped off their balance sheets. What did the council lose ? Nothing ! It is all very well you crying foul because housebuilders want a fair crack of the whip, but, they are only asking for what they are entitled to - their 20% profit (which when you look at the way the council calculate it, does not allow for the deduction of overheads or tax which can take around 12.5% of this). Despite your protestations, the fact remains that councils have a duty to allow housebuilders renegotiate S106, where viability has been impaired. This is the case with Hungate, and like it or not, the council will have to yield. ,
You really are a hostile and aggressive little individual aren't you? Let me very blunt with you. You know NOTHING about me or who I am and contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market. However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different. I return to the point in my posting which I note you haven't addressed, presumably because you can't. At the time the plans were approved, the developers were more than content to accept the conditions imposed. There were none of your hysterical rants against the conditions, be it the affordable housing requirements or the money toward community projects. There are many people and businesses that have suffered as a result of the global economic crisis. Maybe us little people are sick and tired of taking the brunt whilst bigger businesses, including these developers, whinge, whine, stamp their feet and sulk until they get their own way. Suck it up Mr C - the rest of us have had to!
Let me be blunt with you.
YOU KNOW NOTHING about this issue, or me, so stop making ignorant comments about both.

The facts are :-

1. There is no breach of any contract in respect of Hungate refusing to provide 20% affordable housing.
2. The Council are duty bound to renegotiate the S106.

Accept it, and get over it.
I did not pretend to know anything about you - I was merely commenting on your zealot postings and the fact that you are bordering on being offensive to anyone who has the timerity to disagree with you.

I suggest you read my postings before berating me. Not once have I said that the developers were in breach of contract. I quite agree that there is no contract because there has not been offer, acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations. However, if the developers want to continue their development without being in breach of the planning conditions, then in my opinion, and some others who have posted on this, they should be held to the conditions THEY AGREED TO AT THE TIME PLANNING WAS GRANTED. I have no recollection of them squealing to the Press, like you do on these comments about the Sec 106 agreement and the affordable housing quota. They were quite happy to put up with it when the profit margins were large enough.

As for the sec 106, the Council are under a duty to talk to the developers. They are certainly under no duty to give in to their demands.

I suggest you consider counselling given the fact that you are clearly unable to enter into reasoned debate on this issue without belittling or being offensive to those who do not agree with you. Your blood pressure must be sky high!!

Actually, your opinion doesn't matter, because you are just plainly wrong, full stop.

[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated I couldn't care less how patronising or overbearing you find my comments. You and AndyD have not been affected by the affordable housing rip-off policies that the council have mercilessly bashed housebuilders in the city with. You therefore have little reason, or right, to judge those of us who have. York council were greedy, and housebuilders got hammered. When the credit crunch hit, builders lost a fortune, some lost their jobs, others lost their businesses and billions were wiped off their balance sheets. What did the council lose ? Nothing ! It is all very well you crying foul because housebuilders want a fair crack of the whip, but, they are only asking for what they are entitled to - their 20% profit (which when you look at the way the council calculate it, does not allow for the deduction of overheads or tax which can take around 12.5% of this). Despite your protestations, the fact remains that councils have a duty to allow housebuilders renegotiate S106, where viability has been impaired. This is the case with Hungate, and like it or not, the council will have to yield. ,[/p][/quote]You really are a hostile and aggressive little individual aren't you? Let me very blunt with you. You know NOTHING about me or who I am and contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market. However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different. I return to the point in my posting which I note you haven't addressed, presumably because you can't. At the time the plans were approved, the developers were more than content to accept the conditions imposed. There were none of your hysterical rants against the conditions, be it the affordable housing requirements or the money toward community projects. There are many people and businesses that have suffered as a result of the global economic crisis. Maybe us little people are sick and tired of taking the brunt whilst bigger businesses, including these developers, whinge, whine, stamp their feet and sulk until they get their own way. Suck it up Mr C - the rest of us have had to![/p][/quote]Let me be blunt with you. YOU KNOW NOTHING about this issue, or me, so stop making ignorant comments about both. The facts are :- 1. There is no breach of any contract in respect of Hungate refusing to provide 20% affordable housing. 2. The Council are duty bound to renegotiate the S106. Accept it, and get over it.[/p][/quote]I did not pretend to know anything about you - I was merely commenting on your zealot postings and the fact that you are bordering on being offensive to anyone who has the timerity to disagree with you. I suggest you read my postings before berating me. Not once have I said that the developers were in breach of contract. I quite agree that there is no contract because there has not been offer, acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations. However, if the developers want to continue their development without being in breach of the planning conditions, then in my opinion, and some others who have posted on this, they should be held to the conditions THEY AGREED TO AT THE TIME PLANNING WAS GRANTED. I have no recollection of them squealing to the Press, like you do on these comments about the Sec 106 agreement and the affordable housing quota. They were quite happy to put up with it when the profit margins were large enough. As for the sec 106, the Council are under a duty to talk to the developers. They are certainly under no duty to give in to their demands. I suggest you consider counselling given the fact that you are clearly unable to enter into reasoned debate on this issue without belittling or being offensive to those who do not agree with you. Your blood pressure must be sky high!![/p][/quote]Actually, your opinion doesn't matter, because you are just plainly wrong, full stop. Mr Crabtree

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
11:09pm Fri 20 Jul 12

AngryandFrustrated wrote,
"........ contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market.

However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different."

So how do you explain these FACTS ?

The top twenty UK housebuilders had a combined turnover of £38billion for 2009, 2010 and 2011, and made a net loss of £5.3billion .

For the six-year period from 2007 - 2012, Barratt built and sold 84,000 homes for a combined turnover of £15.3billion and made a net loss of £193million.

I doubt that you and your family have suffered the losses that many in housebuilding have. Rather than make a profit Mr Barratt has paid £193m to build 84,000 houses in the last six years, and yet some of you think that Hungate should not be able to renegotiate the giveaways, after being at a standstill for almost four years - UNBELIEVEABLE !

Report this post »

Magicman! says...
12:58am Sat 21 Jul 12

Eric Style wrote:
2024!

We'll probably have a high speed rail line before Hungate is finished!!

I wonder if the Hungate developers know anybody in the Westfield Bradford development perhaps.... because York is sharing a common theme with Bradford right at the monent, a big hole!

Report this post »

sixtyfourfive says...
2:07am Sat 21 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree wrote:

AngryandFrustrated wrote, "........ contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market. However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different."
So how do you explain these FACTS ? The top twenty UK housebuilders had a combined turnover of £38billion for 2009, 2010 and 2011, and made a net loss of £5.3billion . For the six-year period from 2007 - 2012, Barratt built and sold 84,000 homes for a combined turnover of £15.3billion and made a net loss of £193million. I doubt that you and your family have suffered the losses that many in housebuilding have. Rather than make a profit Mr Barratt has paid £193m to build 84,000 houses in the last six years, and yet some of you think that Hungate should not be able to renegotiate the giveaways, after being at a standstill for almost four years - UNBELIEVEABLE !

Have really just been following this debate as an interested reader and don't really wish to get involved in the slanging matches!. The above comments did however remind me of someting I read the other day on one of the National's sites which surprised me and at face value seems to contradict the loss situation outlined above? - to quote from the article :- "Just how are they doing it? After rivals Taylor Wimpey, Galliford Try and Bovis updated the market in recent days, Barratt Developments on Wednesday told the same story.

The sector is growing – its sales, selling prices and profit margins - despite a stagnant UK housing market.

Barratt maintained the trend, reporting that pre-tax profit for the year to the end of June should come in at £110m, a rise of more than 150pc, with sales up 20pc to 7,520 homes in the last six months.

That the industry is on the up, amid constant reminders that the UK housing market remains in the doldrums, may surprise some. “I fully understand why, looking at it outside the sector, people may say, 'How could that be?’,” says Pete Redfern, chief executive of Taylor Wimpey.

But the view from the inside is that it is not the end of the world if the market is slow, so long as it is steady. “You can be bullish on the sector without needing to be bullish on house prices,” note analysts at Liberum Capital."

[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote] AngryandFrustrated wrote, "........ contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market. However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different." [/quote] So how do you explain these FACTS ? The top twenty UK housebuilders had a combined turnover of £38billion for 2009, 2010 and 2011, and made a net loss of £5.3billion . For the six-year period from 2007 - 2012, Barratt built and sold 84,000 homes for a combined turnover of £15.3billion and made a net loss of £193million. I doubt that you and your family have suffered the losses that many in housebuilding have. Rather than make a profit Mr Barratt has paid £193m to build 84,000 houses in the last six years, and yet some of you think that Hungate should not be able to renegotiate the giveaways, after being at a standstill for almost four years - UNBELIEVEABLE ![/p][/quote]Have really just been following this debate as an interested reader and don't really wish to get involved in the slanging matches!. The above comments did however remind me of someting I read the other day on one of the National's sites which surprised me and at face value seems to contradict the loss situation outlined above? - to quote from the article :- "Just how are they doing it? After rivals Taylor Wimpey, Galliford Try and Bovis updated the market in recent days, Barratt Developments on Wednesday told the same story. The sector is growing – its sales, selling prices and profit margins - despite a stagnant UK housing market. Barratt maintained the trend, reporting that pre-tax profit for the year to the end of June should come in at £110m, a rise of more than 150pc, with sales up 20pc to 7,520 homes in the last six months. That the industry is on the up, amid constant reminders that the UK housing market remains in the doldrums, may surprise some. “I fully understand why, looking at it outside the sector, people may say, 'How could that be?’,” says Pete Redfern, chief executive of Taylor Wimpey. But the view from the inside is that it is not the end of the world if the market is slow, so long as it is steady. “You can be bullish on the sector without needing to be bullish on house prices,” note analysts at Liberum Capital." sixtyfourfive

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
6:31am Sat 21 Jul 12

sixtyfourfive wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote, "........ contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market. However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different."
So how do you explain these FACTS ? The top twenty UK housebuilders had a combined turnover of £38billion for 2009, 2010 and 2011, and made a net loss of £5.3billion . For the six-year period from 2007 - 2012, Barratt built and sold 84,000 homes for a combined turnover of £15.3billion and made a net loss of £193million. I doubt that you and your family have suffered the losses that many in housebuilding have. Rather than make a profit Mr Barratt has paid £193m to build 84,000 houses in the last six years, and yet some of you think that Hungate should not be able to renegotiate the giveaways, after being at a standstill for almost four years - UNBELIEVEABLE !
Have really just been following this debate as an interested reader and don't really wish to get involved in the slanging matches!. The above comments did however remind me of someting I read the other day on one of the National's sites which surprised me and at face value seems to contradict the loss situation outlined above? - to quote from the article :- "Just how are they doing it? After rivals Taylor Wimpey, Galliford Try and Bovis updated the market in recent days, Barratt Developments on Wednesday told the same story. The sector is growing – its sales, selling prices and profit margins - despite a stagnant UK housing market. Barratt maintained the trend, reporting that pre-tax profit for the year to the end of June should come in at £110m, a rise of more than 150pc, with sales up 20pc to 7,520 homes in the last six months. That the industry is on the up, amid constant reminders that the UK housing market remains in the doldrums, may surprise some. “I fully understand why, looking at it outside the sector, people may say, 'How could that be?’,” says Pete Redfern, chief executive of Taylor Wimpey. But the view from the inside is that it is not the end of the world if the market is slow, so long as it is steady. “You can be bullish on the sector without needing to be bullish on house prices,” note analysts at Liberum Capital."

You should also consider the following facts to put things into context:-

1. The industry took massive hits during the credit crunch; Persimmon recorded a loss of £780m in 2008, and Barratt a loss of £679m in 2009.
2. The current improved results are a result of mainly opportunistic land purchasing, due in many cases to forced sales. These low prices will not be sustainable, but, will be aided for a while by positions similar to York's where the LDF withdrawal will provoke unallocated land coming forward. Barratt are proposing 85 homes in New Lane, Huntington on this basis offering 35% AH.
3. The profit levels now being achieved are historically still way behind long-term averages. Barratt's last results achieved 4.3% at the pre-tax level, and Persimmon 9.4%. The average pre-tax results for these companies over 5-15 year periods, pre-credit crunch, were in the range of 12% and 20% respectively.
4. From an investment perspective, returns on equity paint a very gloomy picture. Barratt are now achieving 3.3% and Persimmon 7.8%, compared with pre-credit crunch ranges of 20-25%.
Barratt's share price is trading on a discount to NAV (tangible) of 35%, whilst Persimmon is a more healthy premium to NAV of 10% reflecting the better performance. In better times, both would be expected to be at substantial premiums through higher profits (P/E ratios).
5. Smaller companies are still finding trading conditions very difficult, with reduced turnovers and many still losing money.
Conclusion: The housebuilding sector has recovered to a degree, but, it still remains fragile and has shrunk. It is far from healthy, and pressure from regulatory burden continues to constrain and affect viability. It is far from the rosy picture 'sixtyfourfive' paints. Hungate's position is not unusual, and some councils, like York are resisting making AH target reductions purely on politically ideological (left wing) grounds. Growth will remain constrained unless there is a stimulus, as investors/entreprene
urs will not enter the market with the level of risk that prevails. It is up to government and councils to relax regulation, and invest in council/housing, otherwise the housing crisis will continue, just like it has in York, where it has no chance of hitting it's five-year trajectory. YOU READ IT HERE FIRST - Remeber this WARNING !

[quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote] AngryandFrustrated wrote, "........ contary to your comments me and my family have suffered as a result of the crisis in the housing/building market. However, there are those of us out there that have to work on profit margins smaller than 20%. Any business that believes that anything less than a 20% profit margin is not worth considering, in the current economy, is living in cloud cuckoo land quite frankly, and these developers are no different." [/quote] So how do you explain these FACTS ? The top twenty UK housebuilders had a combined turnover of £38billion for 2009, 2010 and 2011, and made a net loss of £5.3billion . For the six-year period from 2007 - 2012, Barratt built and sold 84,000 homes for a combined turnover of £15.3billion and made a net loss of £193million. I doubt that you and your family have suffered the losses that many in housebuilding have. Rather than make a profit Mr Barratt has paid £193m to build 84,000 houses in the last six years, and yet some of you think that Hungate should not be able to renegotiate the giveaways, after being at a standstill for almost four years - UNBELIEVEABLE ![/p][/quote]Have really just been following this debate as an interested reader and don't really wish to get involved in the slanging matches!. The above comments did however remind me of someting I read the other day on one of the National's sites which surprised me and at face value seems to contradict the loss situation outlined above? - to quote from the article :- "Just how are they doing it? After rivals Taylor Wimpey, Galliford Try and Bovis updated the market in recent days, Barratt Developments on Wednesday told the same story. The sector is growing – its sales, selling prices and profit margins - despite a stagnant UK housing market. Barratt maintained the trend, reporting that pre-tax profit for the year to the end of June should come in at £110m, a rise of more than 150pc, with sales up 20pc to 7,520 homes in the last six months. That the industry is on the up, amid constant reminders that the UK housing market remains in the doldrums, may surprise some. “I fully understand why, looking at it outside the sector, people may say, 'How could that be?’,” says Pete Redfern, chief executive of Taylor Wimpey. But the view from the inside is that it is not the end of the world if the market is slow, so long as it is steady. “You can be bullish on the sector without needing to be bullish on house prices,” note analysts at Liberum Capital."[/p][/quote]You should also consider the following facts to put things into context:- 1. The industry took massive hits during the credit crunch; Persimmon recorded a loss of £780m in 2008, and Barratt a loss of £679m in 2009. 2. The current improved results are a result of mainly opportunistic land purchasing, due in many cases to forced sales. These low prices will not be sustainable, but, will be aided for a while by positions similar to York's where the LDF withdrawal will provoke unallocated land coming forward. Barratt are proposing 85 homes in New Lane, Huntington on this basis offering 35% AH. 3. The profit levels now being achieved are historically still way behind long-term averages. Barratt's last results achieved 4.3% at the pre-tax level, and Persimmon 9.4%. The average pre-tax results for these companies over 5-15 year periods, pre-credit crunch, were in the range of 12% and 20% respectively. 4. From an investment perspective, returns on equity paint a very gloomy picture. Barratt are now achieving 3.3% and Persimmon 7.8%, compared with pre-credit crunch ranges of 20-25%. Barratt's share price is trading on a discount to NAV (tangible) of 35%, whilst Persimmon is a more healthy premium to NAV of 10% reflecting the better performance. In better times, both would be expected to be at substantial premiums through higher profits (P/E ratios). 5. Smaller companies are still finding trading conditions very difficult, with reduced turnovers and many still losing money. Conclusion: The housebuilding sector has recovered to a degree, but, it still remains fragile and has shrunk. It is far from healthy, and pressure from regulatory burden continues to constrain and affect viability. It is far from the rosy picture 'sixtyfourfive' paints. Hungate's position is not unusual, and some councils, like York are resisting making AH target reductions purely on politically ideological (left wing) grounds. Growth will remain constrained unless there is a stimulus, as investors/entreprene urs will not enter the market with the level of risk that prevails. It is up to government and councils to relax regulation, and invest in council/housing, otherwise the housing crisis will continue, just like it has in York, where it has no chance of hitting it's five-year trajectory. YOU READ IT HERE FIRST - [bold] Remeber this WARNING ! [/bold] Mr Crabtree

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
6:44am Sat 21 Jul 12

Footnote:

The industry is talking up it's game. It's a PR exercise to calm/attract/reassur
e investors. Compared with the massive losses and turmoil suffered immediately during and immediately after the credit crunch, there has been a marked improvement/recovery
, and Barratt and Persimmon have managed/adjusted their positions well in re-structuring, de-gearing and down-sizing. This should not be seen as a total recovery however, and as any experienced industry watchers will tell you, it is a long way off being back to normal. It's very much a case of, one swallow does not a summer make !

If things were bouyant and booming, Terry's, Nestle, Germany Beck, Water Lane and Hungate would all be under construction. Until they are, York's housing crisis will not be on the long road to recovery !

I hope Coun Simpson-Laing is reading this thread, and taking note. Would it be too much to ask, for her or a councillor to respond to my analysis ?

Report this post »

highhat says...
8:46am Sat 21 Jul 12

Dont hold your breath mate.

Report this post »

mickrick says...
9:37am Sat 21 Jul 12

So everything is honky dory. Builders are creaming it and profits are sky high.

So why are no builders taking on ,

Terrys
Nestle
Germanybeck
Water Lane
and now Hungate cos Tracy and Merritt have completely lost the plot and made it impossible to continue.

Well done.

An illiterate blind beggar could have done better.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
12:17pm Sat 21 Jul 12

mickrick wrote:
So everything is honky dory. Builders are creaming it and profits are sky high. So why are no builders taking on , Terrys Nestle Germanybeck Water Lane and now Hungate cos Tracy and Merritt have completely lost the plot and made it impossible to continue. Well done. An illiterate blind beggar could have done better.

We all know why these sites are not going ahead, mickrick, and Hungate have confirmed it. If the Council had listened to messrs Laverack, Jones, Reeves and Cordock and dropped the target to 10%, the sites you mentioned would either attracting buyers or starting. The malaise is all the fault of the Council, and the biggest culprits are Merrett and Simpson-Laing plus the left-wing officers in their cabal.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
12:36pm Sat 21 Jul 12

I have just looked at James Alexander's and Tracey Simpson-Laing's twitter pages, and not a dicky-bird about the Hungate issue. This is a major housing issue for York, and they have nothing to say about it ? They tweet about all things political; local, regional and national, yet when it comes to housing..... not a word !

They are clearly not interested - what an absolute disgrace !

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
12:36pm Sat 21 Jul 12

I have just looked at James Alexander's and Tracey Simpson-Laing's twitter pages, and not a dicky-bird about the Hungate issue. This is a major housing issue for York, and they have nothing to say about it ? They tweet about all things political; local, regional and national, yet when it comes to housing..... not a word !

They are clearly not interested - what an absolute disgrace !

Report this post »

RoseD says...
5:45pm Sat 21 Jul 12

Pedro wrote:
York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?

Nope they would not have done.

Report this post »

bloodaxe says...
6:41pm Sat 21 Jul 12

Pedro wrote:
York Council do not set the rules. They are obliged to play poker against the builders getting the best deal they can. I personally believe that all central land in York will - in the long term - l be developed for housing, office and retail. The pressures of population, popularity and convenience will see to it. The council should hold them to the deal - if the situation had been reversed (the property had become more popular that otherwise predicted and could bring a higher price per unit) would the builders want to renegotiate to give more back?

Quite right on the point that the council do not set the rules, though HMG are now looking to change the requiements on councils to provide social/"affordable" housing. The idea is to release land to builders and associations for nothing ; they would then build the houses and sell them to pension funds, thus using money from the houses to pay back HMG and keep a profit for themseoves. The pension funds use the rents to augment their funds. The model seems to work elsewhere and has the potential to galvanise the market.

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
7:23pm Sat 21 Jul 12

Serious question. Is there a possibility that house builders could buy land at X price, but then see the market plummet and sell houses at only Y-40%? Its a dodgy old time after all. The average price a home is marketed for is about £240k, whilst the average selling price is £161k (ref recent Halifax figs).
Now I imagine some of that is skewed because more houses are sold at the cheaper end, but its clear to me that a housing market correction (of some size) is being delayed rather than avoided.
Our neighbour is stubbornly refusing to lower his asking price and has consequently been trying to sell for well over a year. Decent house too, no problems and in sought after area. And its not us, before some wag pipes up!

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
11:20pm Sat 21 Jul 12

Even AndyD wrote:
Serious question. Is there a possibility that house builders could buy land at X price, but then see the market plummet and sell houses at only Y-40%? Its a dodgy old time after all. The average price a home is marketed for is about £240k, whilst the average selling price is £161k (ref recent Halifax figs).
Now I imagine some of that is skewed because more houses are sold at the cheaper end, but its clear to me that a housing market correction (of some size) is being delayed rather than avoided.
Our neighbour is stubbornly refusing to lower his asking price and has consequently been trying to sell for well over a year. Decent house too, no problems and in sought after area. And its not us, before some wag pipes up!

That is what happened in 2008/09. House prices fell around 25% from their peak, and housebuilders discounted their prices and wrote down the value of their land banks, which resulted in losses of several billion wiped off housebuilders balance sheets.

Report this post »

Matt_S says...
12:52am Sun 22 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree wrote:
I have just looked at James Alexander's and Tracey Simpson-Laing's twitter pages, and not a dicky-bird about the Hungate issue. This is a major housing issue for York, and they have nothing to say about it ? They tweet about all things political; local, regional and national, yet when it comes to housing..... not a word !

They are clearly not interested - what an absolute disgrace !

Have you tried messaging them on twitter and pointing them in the direction of this discussion?

Report this post »

mickrick says...
8:19am Sun 22 Jul 12

You mean like they dont know?

Bunker mentality..........h
eads down till it goes away. Well they got that wrong as well . This isnt going to go away untill they eat some humble pie and release builders from the bondage of AF and sect 106.............only a matter of time now
.
Oh and I recall, David Vickery told them if they didnt shape up he would do it for them.
I bet thats where this is going.

Report this post »

mickrick says...
8:27am Sun 22 Jul 12

They didnt hear that first hand because the cowards werent there.

The most important meeting this city has had since the war and they couldnt be bothered to attend.

Thats right isnt it Tracie. Wooley legged it half way through and Merrett left when things started getting uncomfortable, you know when the truth came out.
Alexander hid in the bog I was told.

Report this post »

sperare e coraggio says...
9:45am Sun 22 Jul 12

It is a nonsense to suggest that Hungate Developers be taken to court for "breach of contract" and people who say such things demonstrate their ignorance of the subject.
There is no contract as such between the council and the developers. There is a legal agreement (blackmail) which was foisted onto the developers at a time when the economic situation was far better than it is now. That legal agreement was imposed under the auspices of central government planning regulations. The present central government realises that things have changed and that it is necessary to look again at those legal agreements.
That is all that the Hungate developers are doing.
The council have a choice - renegotiate as required by central government and get some housing - or be obstinate and get nothing!

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
1:11pm Sun 22 Jul 12

They can run (do they ever ?), but, they cannot hide - not from this issue !

Hungate is a massively important, key strategic site - a big piece of York's housing master plan. A plan that has been wrecked by a council obsessed with ideological unworkable policies. If it remains derelict, it sends out the message:-

YORK IS NOT OPEN FOR BUSINESS !

It's a big toothless grin in the middle of York, or put another way, a puss-filled zit on a beautiful face - it sticks out like a sore thumb ! It serves to remind all who come here that York is a builders graveyard - if the credit crunch didn't kill them, York Council will finish you off !!!

Consider the joined-up thinking of the council, by buying the ambulance station next to their peaseholme hostel and knocking it all down, then wasting £5m on another failed plan for their offices there. They invested in a prime site next to a high quality housing scheme, and now they are faced with being stuck in the middle of something that resembles a bomb site.

Alexander may try and hide in the bog again, hoping it will blow over, but, not this time. He knows that when he has finished sh*tting himself, he wioll have to come out and face the music. Time to flush that failed affordable housing policy down the pan, with all of it's insidious cabal of conspirators !

It's time to get York building housing again !

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
1:27pm Sun 22 Jul 12

York Council's handling of housing policy reminds me of the song 'Where Have All The Flowers Gone ?'

Here's a new verse, written just for James, Tracey and Dave....

Where have all the houses gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the houses gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the houses gone?
CYC policies stopped them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Report this post »

mickrick says...
2:18pm Sun 22 Jul 12

Marlene Deitreich as I recall.

Report this post »

mickrick says...
2:30pm Sun 22 Jul 12

Falling in love again never wanted to, what am I to do, Cant help it.

York council crowd me like moths to a flame, the left wing cabal just sign up to the same.
Destroying the housing market at the stroke of an idea.

Indoctrination of marxism pervades all around , but what are we to do, cant help it.

Weve been here before 1914 ?

Come on Tracie time to move with the times. Get realistic.

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
2:45pm Sun 22 Jul 12

mickrick wrote:
Falling in love again never wanted to, what am I to do, Cant help it.

York council crowd me like moths to a flame, the left wing cabal just sign up to the same.
Destroying the housing market at the stroke of an idea.

Indoctrination of marxism pervades all around , but what are we to do, cant help it.

Weve been here before 1914 ?

Come on Tracie time to move with the times. Get realistic.

In fairness, Marlene's version scanned.

Report this post »

Lord_Ray says...
4:10pm Sun 22 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree,

Quite frankly your posts clearly show knowledge and experience of the construction business, and you also look to be a bit of johnny bean counter with your quick and dirty financial analysis.

So come on... Let's let this little rabbit out of the bag... Are you a prominent York businessman? Or even Councillor ? Developer ? ...

Best regards,

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
4:55pm Sun 22 Jul 12

Lord_Ray wrote:
Mr Crabtree, Quite frankly your posts clearly show knowledge and experience of the construction business, and you also look to be a bit of johnny bean counter with your quick and dirty financial analysis. So come on... Let's let this little rabbit out of the bag... Are you a prominent York businessman? Or even Councillor ? Developer ? ... Best regards,

I'm many things Lord_Ray...

Ex-builder, ex-developer, but, still an investor in that sector, but, nursing losses from the credit crunch, which have set me back ten years, and my prospects of a recovery, like housebuilding in York are being severely hampered by regulatory burden.

I just hope these Johnny Councillor chaps will at last see sense and reduce their dirty affordable targets which are supported by dirty half-truths and dirty misleading reports by dirty officers - but, as we all know, politics is a very dirty business !!!

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
10:01pm Sun 22 Jul 12

Matt_S wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:
I have just looked at James Alexander's and Tracey Simpson-Laing's twitter pages, and not a dicky-bird about the Hungate issue. This is a major housing issue for York, and they have nothing to say about it ? They tweet about all things political; local, regional and national, yet when it comes to housing..... not a word !

They are clearly not interested - what an absolute disgrace !
Have you tried messaging them on twitter and pointing them in the direction of this discussion?

They will have been following this thread, or will have been briefed by their some of their cohorts.

They are followers of Mr Crabtree........ ;-)

Report this post »

sperare e coraggio says...
10:51pm Sun 22 Jul 12

No developer "freely" enters into Section 106 Agreements. They are all extracted by extortion - accept this "agreement" or you will not get planning permission!
These agreements are NOT contracts between the council and developers to construct houses. They are an imposition on the planning consent that obliges the developer to hand over a proprtion of the built dwellings at a financial loss. There is no requirement that can FORCE the developer to proceed. If at Hungate the developers decide they will not build Phase Two or Three because of the affordable demands and the risk of big losses there is absolutely nothing the council can do to force them to proceed.

The idea that they could be taken to court and forced to build the houses and give a quarter of them away is just bunkum.

Thise that state otherwise have no understanding of the subject.

The situation is simple - the council can reduce its affordable demands and see some progress at Hungate or it can dig its heels in and see the land empty for years, even decades to come.

It is time for a bit of pragmatism.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
12:36am Mon 23 Jul 12

Lord_Ray wrote:
Mr Crabtree, Quite frankly your posts clearly show knowledge and experience of the construction business, and you also look to be a bit of johnny bean counter with your quick and dirty financial analysis. So come on... Let's let this little rabbit out of the bag... Are you a prominent York businessman? Or even Councillor ? Developer ? ... Best regards,

BTW, what is 'dirty' about the statistics that I quote ? Is it 'dirty' to quote honest, truthful, factual figures, as I do ? What then, do you call the counting of replacement hostel bed spaces as affordable houses, which council officers have done ?

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
6:03am Mon 23 Jul 12

Well, well...... only two tweets (both on 21 July) from Coun Simpson-Laing on her Twitter page, since the Hungate story broke on Friday. Very interesting - has this news sillenced her ? Is she gutted that the wheels have finally come off the council's monumentally flawed and failed affordable housing policy ? She should be, as this has caused massive damage to Yorjk's economy, losing homes, jobs and businesses worth hundreds of millions !

Now waiting for her comments, her admission of guilt, her apology (to York residents), and contrition....... ? !!!!

Report this post »

sperare e coraggio says...
7:52am Mon 23 Jul 12

There is nothing "dirty" about financial appraisals which are honest and correct.

The "dirt" is in the minds of those that regard any form of profit making activity as repugnant.

Of course they forget that collecting wages or salaries is their own profit from their own labour. They also forget that self employed small local builers do NOT receive a salary - it is the profit they make that puts food on the table and clothes on the backs of themselves and their families. If they dont make a profit they dont eat. They go bust.

So when planning regulations demand that 25/35% of their gross income must be wiped out at a stroke before anything else is considered this is a huge burden and in effect a punitive tax imposed only on them. Planning officers, government minister, MP's and Councillors are not giving up 25/35% of their top line are they?

If the affordable housing obligation was fairly distributed throughout the entire population (like income tax) and everyone had to chip in there would not be so many people clammering to keep the 25/35% targets would there?

Report this post »

meme says...
10:46am Mon 23 Jul 12

Times/economics have changed and we have to change with them if we want to see things happen
We are seeing the biggest economic turmoil of a generation and if we are to avoid a depression we need to see our economy grow.
Now is not the time to throw insults and blame around. now is the time to get people working and produce the homes that are needed so YORK CITY COUNCIL wake up; swallow what you will think is a bitter pill ; do a deal and get York working for the good of us all. .After all Labour support work for all so get on and help us get it
If that means ditching affordable policies so be it. if it means reducing the section 106 claim so be it. if it means thinking on your feet for once then start thinking NOW

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
11:43am Mon 23 Jul 12

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Matt_S wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:
I have just looked at James Alexander's and Tracey Simpson-Laing's twitter pages, and not a dicky-bird about the Hungate issue. This is a major housing issue for York, and they have nothing to say about it ? They tweet about all things political; local, regional and national, yet when it comes to housing..... not a word !

They are clearly not interested - what an absolute disgrace !
Have you tried messaging them on twitter and pointing them in the direction of this discussion?
They will have been following this thread, or will have been briefed by their some of their cohorts.

They are followers of Mr Crabtree........ ;-)

What is your Twitter address? Only fair we should get the chance to follow you too! :-)

Report this post »

mickrick says...
1:27pm Mon 23 Jul 12

twitter is for twits

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
3:38pm Mon 23 Jul 12

And commenting on the Press forum is for us well-rounded folk!? If only I could agree.....! And don't call Mr Crabtree a twit, it is unkind. :-)

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
4:33pm Mon 23 Jul 12

Even AndyD wrote:
And commenting on the Press forum is for us well-rounded folk!? If only I could agree.....! And don't call Mr Crabtree a twit, it is unkind. :-)

Oh, don't worry, I have been called far worse ;-)

I'm not actually on Twitter, but, have to admit that I do watch what certain councillors have to say on their twitter pages. Although Coun Simpson-Laing is cabinet member for housing at York, she rarely mentions housing, other than to criticise Grant Shapps and the coalitoion government for the lack of housing being built - which is a bit rich given York Council's record ? !!!

I'm pleased that I have made the 100th post on this thread..........

Keep up the good work, all you posters !

Report this post »

Ichabod76 says...
5:00pm Mon 23 Jul 12

Quick Question

If the developer decides to sell off Hungate and by some miracle a new developer is found, would the new developer have to stick to the terms imposed in the original planning.
Or would they have to resubmit for new planning ?

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
5:01pm Mon 23 Jul 12

Okay. Can't see you as a Facebook person somehow either! :-)

Report this post »

meme says...
5:03pm Mon 23 Jul 12

Planning goes with the land NOT the owner so they can sell it and the planning is binding on new buyer unless they get it changed
But and pigs may fly..who would buy it?

Report this post »

Lord_Ray says...
5:03pm Mon 23 Jul 12

Mr C, One would think it is common practice to report such items E.g hostel beds as affordable homes right across the country. I would also assume COYC has to follow a standard reporting structure as advised by Central government.

In my view you deserve a medal for this thread, not for only for reaching the milestone post, but for been up and logged on at 06.03 hours this morning.

replacement hostel bed spaces as affordable houses, which council officers have done ?”

Report this post »

sperare e coraggio says...
7:31pm Mon 23 Jul 12

Lord Ray

York council made no mention of the fact that some of the so-called affordable homes were actually hostel bed spaces.

This fact was exposed by others investigating their published statistics.

The council were quite happy for people to assume that every one of the claimed affordable units was a house or flat.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
9:20pm Mon 23 Jul 12

The concept of council's using the planning system, as a means of insisting that private housebuilders build and handover a substantial percentage of their stock, as social housing to a housing association, where they receive less tan the cost and throw in the land for free, is punitive, discriminatory and just plain wrong. It has no parallel in any other industry. It is the biggest injustice to any industry, that had previous to 1997, operated independantly without this method of extortion.

There is nothing more stupid than this abominable system, other than perhaps the stupidity of the industry for not putting it's foot down, and resisting the imposition of it by government and the councils who's officers have got carried away with the power delegated to them to set their own targets. I personally will never accept it. I despise it and the ignorant arrogant councillors and officers who act like gangsters in applying it sadistically and ideologically. IT MAKES ME SICK !

Report this post »

aa42john says...
9:35am Tue 24 Jul 12

Some authors have said that the restrictions should be reduced and the state should pay for the social housing etc..
The basic question relates to the "planning gain" i.e. the gain in value due to the obtaining of planning permission - who should this belong to? Does it all belong to the lucky person or company who owns the land, or should it be socially shared?
Nowadays it is generally believed that the planning gain should be socially shared - and this is what the restrictions and social payments are intended for.
So the answer is (if you accept that planning gains should be socially shared), that society is ALREADY paying for these things, via the developed, out of planning gain.
Anyhow, a deal is a deal - the company should not have agreed to these terms if they did not want to abide by them. (If the market had changed in their favour, you can be sure they would not have been bleating, wanting to pay more to society: no, they would have just run laughing all the way to the bank.)

Report this post »

aa42john says...
9:37am Tue 24 Jul 12

One thing I don;t understand is why the original agreement did not put some timescale into the agreement, so that the developers were OBLIGED to build within a certain time-frame. That would have avoided the planning blight now evident over a large part of central York, and would have meant that the developers could not get the council over a barrel and threaten them as they are now doing.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
11:48am Tue 24 Jul 12

aa42john wrote:
One thing I don;t understand is why the original agreement did not put some timescale into the agreement, so that the developers were OBLIGED to build within a certain time-frame. That would have avoided the planning blight now evident over a large part of central York, and would have meant that the developers could not get the council over a barrel and threaten them as they are now doing.

It's not the council who are being put over a barrel - any fair minded person can see that !

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
12:00pm Tue 24 Jul 12

aa42john wrote:
Some authors have said that the restrictions should be reduced and the state should pay for the social housing etc.. The basic question relates to the "planning gain" i.e. the gain in value due to the obtaining of planning permission - who should this belong to? Does it all belong to the lucky person or company who owns the land, or should it be socially shared? Nowadays it is generally believed that the planning gain should be socially shared - and this is what the restrictions and social payments are intended for. So the answer is (if you accept that planning gains should be socially shared), that society is ALREADY paying for these things, via the developed, out of planning gain. Anyhow, a deal is a deal - the company should not have agreed to these terms if they did not want to abide by them. (If the market had changed in their favour, you can be sure they would not have been bleating, wanting to pay more to society: no, they would have just run laughing all the way to the bank.)

One step away from communism ?

The gain in value is the property of the landowner, no one elses. The landowner is taxed for the capital gain, and 'society' benefits from the tax deducted. The system of piling up these planning gain levies/charges is self defeating because it ends up with landowners not selling their land.

Affordable housing extorted through S106/planning is discriminatory, and you do not see society getting it's greedy hands on the same levels of planning gain with student housing, which by the way, is far more profitable than housebuilding. Why aren't the University being forced to provide this, and why aren't the University being hammered like housebuilders with planning gain charges ? Same question about hotel developers ? One rule for housebuilders and easy street for the councils friends in education and tourism - IT STINKS !

[quote][p][bold]aa42john[/bold] wrote: Some authors have said that the restrictions should be reduced and the state should pay for the social housing etc.. The basic question relates to the "planning gain" i.e. the gain in value due to the obtaining of planning permission - who should this belong to? Does it all belong to the lucky person or company who owns the land, or should it be socially shared? Nowadays it is generally believed that the planning gain should be socially shared - and this is what the restrictions and social payments are intended for. So the answer is (if you accept that planning gains should be socially shared), that society is ALREADY paying for these things, via the developed, out of planning gain. Anyhow, a deal is a deal - the company should not have agreed to these terms if they did not want to abide by them. (If the market had changed in their favour, you can be sure they would not have been bleating, wanting to pay more to society: no, they would have just run laughing all the way to the bank.)[/p][/quote]One step away from communism ? The gain in value is the property of the landowner, no one elses. The landowner is taxed for the capital gain, and 'society' benefits from the tax deducted. The system of piling up these planning gain levies/charges is self defeating because it ends up with landowners not selling their land. Affordable housing extorted through S106/planning is discriminatory, and you do not see society getting it's greedy hands on the same levels of planning gain with student housing, which by the way, is far more profitable than housebuilding. Why aren't the University being forced to provide this, and why aren't the University being hammered like housebuilders with planning gain charges ? Same question about hotel developers ? One rule for housebuilders and easy street for the councils friends in education and tourism - [bold] IT STINKS ! [/bold] Mr Crabtree

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
3:45pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Landowners pay capital gains tax on the uplift in value of their land, resulting from planning permission. Housebuilders pay corporation tax on their profits (if there are any left, after the S106 rip-offs are handed over ?). In addition income tax and national insurance is paid on the jobs provided by the industry and vat on the materials. The industry is already taxed to the hilt without th socially shared out, planning gain blackmail monies are extorted.

Housebuilders took an almighty hammering from the credit crunch, and it's time greedy, ideological politicians backed off, and abandoned this affordable housing rip-off system. If they don't, they won't get the houses that are needed, and the resulting mess/crisis is all of their own making !

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
6:27pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Any of the AH-brigade (you know who you all are) doing the York 10k? Surprised you haven't got a team - raise some cash for charity and up the profile of your cause. Kind of be nice to meet the faces behind the user names too.
Go on - you know you want to say hi. ;-)

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
10:05pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Just read that Bill Woolley's replacement has been announced. His successor is a Darren Richardson who was one of four assistant directors in the Development, Environment, & Culture department at Barnsley Council, where he was responsible for Environmental Services, but not Planning & Regulatory Services or Strategy, Growth & Regeneration Services. So York select someone with an emphasis on the lesser of the three areas, and the wrong one in terms of where York's needs are in developing the new Local Plan, and growth. Why have the Council gone for a lightweight rookie ? Is it because of his political leanings rather than his intellect and experience ? It certainly looks that way, because Barnsley is hardly a council that is trail blazing economic growth ? !!!

Is this guy really the best of a bunch of 70 applicants ?

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
10:38pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Well well, guess what the political build-up of Barnsley Council looks like ?

Councillors; (total - 63)
Labour - 52
Conservative - 5
Independant - 5
Non-aligned - 1

Darren Richardson will feel very at home at York !

Report this post »

highhat says...
1:32pm Wed 25 Jul 12

I have relatives in Barnsley ! I know lots.

Report this post »

MouseHouse says...
11:14pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Are the poor capitalists not making enough profit? awww - bless them. Has the nasty economic mess (they caused) upset them? aww there there there it'll be alright, you'll see.

Capitalists bellyache non-stop. Too many regulations they cried, so regulations were removed. That's when they started to fix rates to their own advantage.

The construction industry has a dreadful health and safety record. The construction industry has a history of running illegal blacklists of trade union members, members who take the responsibility to enforce the health and safety regulations. Those two facts are related very closely in my opinion.

Capitalist are the last people who should be running construction. Hungate should be 100% affordable, quality social housing. Built by the City, owned by the City, for the people of the City.

Report this post »

meme says...
9:17am Thu 26 Jul 12

MouseHouse with these views i think you would be better off in Russia/North Korea etc and then after a year please come back and tell us how great it is when everything is run by the state

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
11:07am Thu 26 Jul 12

Russia??? Have we entered a time warp?
Interestingly, the Russians had a huge housing problem in the 50s and early 60s, which they solved in a single decade with social housing. Sadly, it was dreadfully built social housing and most of it fell to pieces.
As for capitalism - well, its fair to say this version of it needs fixing. When countries go bust, something is badly wrong. Bring on the Co-operatives.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
12:13pm Thu 26 Jul 12

MouseHouse wrote:
Are the poor capitalists not making enough profit? awww - bless them. Has the nasty economic mess (they caused) upset them? aww there there there it'll be alright, you'll see. Capitalists bellyache non-stop. Too many regulations they cried, so regulations were removed. That's when they started to fix rates to their own advantage. The construction industry has a dreadful health and safety record. The construction industry has a history of running illegal blacklists of trade union members, members who take the responsibility to enforce the health and safety regulations. Those two facts are related very closely in my opinion. Capitalist are the last people who should be running construction. Hungate should be 100% affordable, quality social housing. Built by the City, owned by the City, for the people of the City.

What planet are you on ?

Report this post »

Jezreel says...
1:33pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Waiter, please prepare a large slice of humble pie for Mr Laverack to eat when the Hungate developers ploy fails.

Report this post »

meme says...
5:07pm Thu 26 Jul 12

I have been to Russia and anyone who believes their social housing projects worked is living in cuckoo land

Report this post »

MouseHouse says...
5:11pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Russia - you should catch-up! They threw off the shackles of communism decades ago. Russia now appears to have a highly corrupt government, with a democratic veneer.

North Korea is a human rights abusing, aggressive state happy to starve its own people whilst the idiot president lives in luxury. A disgrace of a country.

I note that Mr. Crabtree hasn't challenged my assertion that the construction industry has an appalling health and safety record, nor that it has a history of illegal blacklists. Please use any reputable website and search for 'Consulting Association Illegal Blacklist".

The elements crucial to society must be in the control of the people. This includes housing, education, food supply, construction, health, transport and personal banking.

For the trivial stuff, where you get your tennis racket from, where you buy a handbag, a new set of plates, a horse, a camera, a hosepipe etc. can be left to the vagaries and whims of "the market".

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
10:32pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Jezreel wrote:
Waiter, please prepare a large slice of humble pie for Mr Laverack to eat when the Hungate developers ploy fails.

If the council won't back down, it will result in no houses from this site. York Council cannot afford this to happen, as their housing numbers have hit a critical level, and if they don't recover soon there will be trouble........ ? !!!

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
10:35pm Thu 26 Jul 12

MouseHouse wrote:
Russia - you should catch-up! They threw off the shackles of communism decades ago. Russia now appears to have a highly corrupt government, with a democratic veneer.

North Korea is a human rights abusing, aggressive state happy to starve its own people whilst the idiot president lives in luxury. A disgrace of a country.

I note that Mr. Crabtree hasn't challenged my assertion that the construction industry has an appalling health and safety record, nor that it has a history of illegal blacklists. Please use any reputable website and search for 'Consulting Association Illegal Blacklist".

The elements crucial to society must be in the control of the people. This includes housing, education, food supply, construction, health, transport and personal banking.

For the trivial stuff, where you get your tennis racket from, where you buy a handbag, a new set of plates, a horse, a camera, a hosepipe etc. can be left to the vagaries and whims of "the market".

Totally meaningless rant, which adds nothing constructive to the debate.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
10:38pm Thu 26 Jul 12

The rumour on the street is, that 'MouseHouse' is James Alexander's alter ego ? !!!!!

Report this post »

Lord_Ray says...
10:41pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Stop! Stop! Stop!... Let's be absolutely clear here... This thread has clearly lost it's way.

Report this post »

sperare e coraggio says...
10:55pm Thu 26 Jul 12

I've been to Russia too. And been in those state built and owned apartment blocks that "solved" the housing crisis. They would be perfect accommodation for MouseHouse and Jezreel.
I would be happy to pay the air fares.
One way only.

Report this post »

Mr Crabtree says...
11:20pm Thu 26 Jul 12

The latest from the street......

James Alexander has just tweeted, that two planning applications for Derwenthorpe were approved today, and he added that, York is open for business.

Could someone please point out to him that this site already has planning consent. The applications are 'reserved matters' applications for details only, not extra dwellings.

Isn't this typical of the spin and double counting that Alexander and his ragtag band are famous (infamous ?) for ?

Same old Labour - always lying and cheating !

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
9:18am Fri 27 Jul 12

sperare e coraggio wrote:
I've been to Russia too. And been in those state built and owned apartment blocks that "solved" the housing crisis. They would be perfect accommodation for MouseHouse and Jezreel.
I would be happy to pay the air fares.
One way only.

I did say they were 'falling down'. Personally I prefer the Chicago (and elsewhere in the US) Balloon Housing option. Would appeal to our DIY ethic too. :-)

Report this post »

@yorkpress

The Press, York

Developer seeks to renegotiate terms for Hungate site (From York Press)

News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

Hungate (York) Regeneration Ltd seeks to renegotiate terms for city centre site

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies