A Plan for York

I’m Geoff Beacon. I have commented on plans for York since the early 1970s, with little success. One possible exception was the evidence I gave to the proposed York Inner Ring Road in 1972. My evidence had the theme “drastic traffic suppression”. The Inquiry Inspector said this was the only workable alternative to the York Council plan. He actually agreed that the Ring Road should be built – but fortunately Secretary of State, Anthony Crossland, stopped it, suggesting traffic restraint.

Since then I have given evidence to planning inquiries, written articles for a local news site and sent letters to the local press, York Council Officials and York Councillors. I have appeared before council committees and made many posts on my own websites. I have had little success. My biggest disappointment has been my failure to get evidence considered by the Inspectors for the York Local Plan Inquiry. That plan was adopted by York Council in February 2025. This plan will be referred to here as The 2025 Local Plan.

My failure in that inquiry was not for the lack of trying. My big mistake was missing the initial closing date for the submission of evidence. I tried for a late entry but was refused in circumstances that I dispute. There was a further period for the submission of evidence but my evidence was deemed unacceptable. This time, I was shocked when I was prevented from giving evidence just before I was due speak at a hearing session of the inquiry – I had already been given a seat at the table and was ready to speak.

Although my evidence contained much about climate change, the aspect that probably caused most resistance from the Council and the Inspectors was my criticism of the high housing costs in York, caused by limited supply. This limit causes building land to be very expensive but this is not caused by a shortage of land – but a shortage of the rights to have buildings on land. That’s a shortage of planning permissions, making planning permission very valuable. In York, a plot of land big enough for a house has an “unimproved value” of less than £1,000 but when planning permission is granted, its value rises to around £200,000. That means the landowner can sell land for housing at an enormous premium to its existing value.

However, since the exclusion of my evidence, the government and previous government have changed the planning scene. These changes encourage building more homes – as my evidence argued. It also cuts the cost of some building land by allowing councils to buy land at a price closer to the value of unimproved land. Green belt policy has also been revised.

The governments have addressed several of the objections raised in my excluded evidence.

Previously, when a planning authority wanted to buy land for housing they had to pay “hope value”, the extra value of land caused by an expectation that it would acquire planning permission for building. Now, in defined circumstances, when a council authority want to buy land, it can apply to purchase under a compulsory purchase order without hope value. This means it pays the value at the land’s existing value (e.g. <£1000 per plot) rather than a value enhanced by hope value (e.g. a significant proportion of £200,000 per plot).

The government has now issued guidance for Local Plans, which demand that extra homes be provided when the cost of housing is too high. The relevant measurement is the ‘affordability ratio’. This compares average house prices with average earnings. York Council have reported this ratio for the year 2024, as 8.5, well above a government target of 5.0 above which extra homes should be provided. These are extra homes additional to usual housing need projections. This new guidance means that the Local Plan must aim for many more houses to be built.

In my first submission to the Local Plan Inquiry I wrote: “This version of the Local Plan will have the effect of exiling the poor by forcing up the cost of housing by keeping the supply limited.” The government now seems to agree. Although I had other concerns, I believe that this issue of housing supply was the main reason why my evidence was refused.