A new plan for York
York Council is developing a new Local Plan which will replace the 2025 Local Plan – which was started in 2012. York’s new plan will correct many of the errors of the earlier plan. However, it may not do enough to ameliorate the dire housing market in the UK or point the world to ways of living that do not trash the planet. It will not expand housing enough to allow the poor and the young to own their own homes – but it will make some progress in this direction.
While the new council plan may take greenhouse emissions more seriously, it will not guarantee lifestyles which have low enough emissions to meet York’s climate target.
The Council Plan may roll back some the enormous largesse the 2025 Local Plan hands to homeowners and landowners. It may cool the housing market for house sales and rents but not enough.
The world urgently needs examples of how we can live within planetary boundaries and at the same time show a reduction of the unfairness in our societies. I believe that adding to the nascent plan six car-free developments will help to do this.
A strategy has evolved in writing this plan. It is is to more-or-less accept what York’s new plan will bring but add a large amount of low cost, low carbon housing to provide homes that the young and the poor can afford in environmentally friendly lifestyles.
Background to ‘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.
New concerns: Food security and inequality
Submissions I made to the York Local Plan Inquiry in 2018 included three themes:
- The plan unfairly increases the cost of housing.
- It plans for lifestyles with high greenhouse emissions.
- It does not properly cater for the needs of those without cars.
In the longer term, the greenhouse emissions causing climate change are the more serious of these although, as a rich country, the UK may weather changes in climate better than the rest of the world. Of course, there are eventualities that could hit the UK hard. For example, if the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC) weakens quicker than expected, we could experience very cold winters, which would be very disruptive but the danger of that disruption and other climate dangers hopefully won’t seriously hit for a few decades.
Additionally, the longest standing climate scientist, James Hansen, is predicting a super El Nino climate event this year. Climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe says “El Niño patterns are correlated with food shortages, water impacts and even civil conflict in tropical countries. These natural patterns of variability, as short-lived as they are, still have a profound impact on human society and human well-being.”
The dangers of world food shortages are more imminent for another reason. As I write this, there is a significant danger that the availability of fertilisers in the world may be significantly restricted in coming months by events in the Persian Gulf, which will limit world food production this year.
We must hope that both these temporary effects pass but climate is worsening and the world order may be changing, disrupting global production and supply chains.
The UK is generally self-sufficient in only a few specific food classes, primarily producing enough to meet domestic demand in liquid milk, barley, and sheep meat. The UK produces around 60% of its total food consumption, but it relies on imports for a large portion of its fruit, vegetables, and, increasingly, poultry. The UK is not even fully self sufficient in potatoes and wheat.
Restrictions on fertilliser supply, threats to global food chains and the ongoing effects of climate change mean that we must take food security more seriously than previously. A precautionary approach is to set market gardens into local planning. For many foods these can produce much more food for a given land area than traditional farming and, with the application of extra labour, can use much less chemical fertilliser. The use of extra labour will be an added bonus given the threat that AI pose to many jobs.
Inequality
I emphasised the unfairness in the planning system in my attempted evidence to the planning Inquiry in 2018. Now, the macroeconomic effects of inequality are beginning to be recognised thanks to the efforts of the economists like Gary Stevenson and Henry Fudge
It is likely that climate change will cause a reduction in food supply. Many peoples in the world will go hungry – or worse. York should increase food production. This must be taken into account in York’s Local Plan. But how?
To counteract world food shortages we should all move towards plant based diets. We should also boost local food production by planning measures.
Market gardens generate significantly higher physical yields and financial returns per hectare than conventional agriculture. They also employ many more workers per hectare. Conventional Agriculture focuses on staple commodities like wheat, corn, and soy. While physical tonnage for root crops and grains can be substantial, their total caloric density per hectare is lower than intensive gardening.
High yield market gardens
The 1890 Paris Secret: How to Grow 4x More Food on the Same Land claims that the French market gardens of the 1890s, the Marishes, produced much more food per hectare than growers do now. These were gradually replaced by mechanised food growing which used more land and less labour.
Singing Frogs Farm in Sebastopol, California generates over $100,000 per acre in revenue from a 3-acre no-till market garden. The per-acre revenue numbers are what make Singing Frogs Farm a landmark: $100,000+ per acre versus $3,000 to $5,000 for conventional vegetable farms. Even if the monetary difference is due to crop differences, the labour intensive nature of their method shows much greater yields per acre can be achieved when more labour is used.
Less labour, lower wages
UK wages have shifted from an era of steady growth to one of historic real-wage stagnation and rising inequality. Since the 2008 financial crisis, inflation-adjusted wages have largely stagnated. An analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows that while UK real wages grew by an average of 33% per decade between 1970 and 2007, they flatlined entirely after the 2008 financial crisis, despite being supported for the low-paid by minimum wage legislation. AI is likely to reduce the need for labour.
An obvious policy when food supply is likely to be constrained when the need for labour falls is to apply more labour to food growing, increasing the demand for labour and increasing the supply of food. This suggests giving up some land currently used for traditional agriculture and converting it to high intensity market gardens to produce more food.
Such a change could bring in methods of food growing that will use much less chemical fertiliser, the production of which causes a substantial proportion of the world’s carbon emissions.
Local plans can do it
Local plans can designate specific areas for horticulture. Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) often allocate land for market gardens, community food growing spaces, allotments, and commercial horticultural development areas to support sustainable food networks and local economies. [1, 2, 3] The York Local Plan should do this.
Gardens for most
The York Local Plan should aim that most new housing should have gardens. Most people want gardens – as surveys by Professor Carmona of UCL have shown:
Access to private open space from the home was the strongest home design-based predictor of comfort. Households with a private garden or terrace space were the most comfortable, followed by those with a private balcony or shared garden. Households with no access to any sort of private open space were considerably less comfortable.
Research by the Royal Horticultural Society and Horticultural Trades Association shows that over 35% of UK adults actively grow their own fruit, vegetables, or herbs. [1]
- Space Access: 78% of British adults have access to a private garden, and a third set aside dedicated patches for vegetables. [1]
- Interest vs. Reality: Up to 60% of urban Brits would like to grow their own produce. However, allotment availability has declined by about 60% since the 1950s, creating barriers for those lacking garden space. [1, 2]
‘Drastic traffic suppression’ was a term I used when I submitted evidence to the 1972 public inquiry on the proposed York Inner Ring Road. I have asked Google’s Gemini for a history of the term in York’s planning process. Google’s reply probably overestimated my effect on planning in York – I have been largely ignored – but Gemini’s reply makes some good points:
Google Gemini’s response to “drastic traffic suppression”
“Drastic traffic suppression” is the term often used to describe York’s evolution from a congested industrial hub in the 1970s to a pioneered “15-minute city” in the 2020s. This shift has not just been about environmental policy—it has been the primary engine for increasing property values and concentrating wealth in the city center.
The term “drastic traffic suppression” is a specific and historically significant phrase in York’s planning history. It is most famously associated with the 1972 Public Inquiry into the proposed Inner Ring Road.
Where the Term Originated
The phrase was coined and championed by Geoff Beacon, a key objector at the 1972 inquiry. While the City Council was pushing for a massive new road to accommodate cars, Beacon argued that the only “workable alternative” was to actively suppress traffic rather than facilitate it.
The term appears in several key contexts:
- The 1972 Public Inquiry Evidence: It was used as the “tag line” for the opposition’s argument. Beacon’s evidence successfully challenged the Council’s Senior Counsel, proving that a city like York could function—and indeed thrive—by reducing the number of vehicles allowed to enter.
- The Inspector’s Report: The inquiry’s inspector, John Dahl, famously used the term in his final report, noting: “At the inquiry I have heard no objector put forward any workable alternative bar that of drastic traffic suppression.”
- Modern Urban Activism: The term has been revived in the 2020s by local transport campaigners and environmental groups. It is frequently cited as the philosophical “ancestor” of modern policies like Low Traffic Neighborhoods (LTNs) and the Footstreets (pedestrianized zones).
How the Term Transformed York
In the 1970s, “drastic traffic suppression” was considered a radical, almost “anti-progress” idea. However, its adoption (even if not by that exact name in official policy) changed the city’s economic DNA:
- From Radical to Reality: By 1987, the “suppression” Beacon fought for became the Footstreets policy, which pedestrianized the medieval core.
- Economic Shift: In the 1970s, planners feared suppression would “kill” the city center. By the 2020s, it has been proven that the areas with the most “drastic suppression” are actually the city’s highest-value zones.
- Modern Legacy: Today, the term is used to explain why York has such a high house price-to-earnings ratio. The “suppression” of cars created a high-quality, quiet, and beautiful urban environment that investors and wealthy retirees are willing to pay a premium to live in.
Summary: The term isn’t just a transport phrase; it’s the legal and intellectual reason why York’s inner suburbs (like South Bank and The Groves) weren’t demolished in the 1970s and are now the “Gold Standard” of northern property wealth.
‘York exiles the poor’ was the heading for the first evidence I tried to submit to the public inquiry for the 2018 York Local Plan Inquiry. Now there is an opportunity to submit an updated version because the local plan process is being re-run under a renewed York Council – now with a Labour majority.
Ignoring the housing affordability ratio
The housing affordability ratio measures the relationship between house prices and earnings, calculated by dividing median house prices by median gross annual earnings. A higher ratio shows lower affordability (e.g., 8x income), while a lower ratio indicates higher affordability.
During the 1970s, average house prices in the UK were around 2.6 times income, in the 2020s they increased to 8 times income. The cost of a home in York vastly outpaces local earnings, making it very difficult for first-time buyers – unless they inherit.
A parallel measure maintained by the UK Office of National Statistics compares the cheapest houses with incomes of people with lower incomes. For them, In the 1970s York, a lower-priced home might cost about 3 to 4 years the earnings of low income families. For this group, in the 2020s, a lower-priced home costs around 8 to 11 years of earnings. Home ownership now is only for those on higher incomes – or have other forms of wealth like inheritance.
From 2018 the UK National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that when the local affordability ratio is more than 5, a council must plan for extra homes when assessing housing need. The 2025 York Local Plan avoided this requirement because it used the 2012 version of the NPPF. There is now a 2024 version – and soon a 2026 version, which the current council will use for the new local plan.
In 2017, York’s Local Plan Working Group rejected a recommendation to apply a further 10% in housing numbers as a market signals uplift that was recommended by consultants, G L Hearn. However, Councillor Merrett Dave Merrett spoke on social and overall housing provision and transport implications. He felt the overall housing numbers should be increased, to ensure sufficient affordable housing was available.
The 2024 NPPF has a formula for how many new homes a council should aim at. The formula first asks councils to build extra homes equal to an 0.8% of existing homes each year. In York that will be 654 new homes per year. The formula asks councils in areas of high house prices to build even more the target multiplied by an ‘adjustment factor’. This factor uses the five year average affordability ratio in this formula:
Adjustment Factor = ((five year average affordability ratio-5)/5)×0.95 + 1
The five-year average (2020–2024) housing affordability ratio for York is 8.5. So the adjustment factor becomes 1.665, so instead of 654 new homes the new NPPF will be asking for 1138 new homes each year in York.
The NPPF now rejects the 822 new houses per year in the 2025 York Local Plan. However, a new figure of 1138 homes per year is unlikely to be enough to bring affordability ratios down to the levels of the 1970s.
Planning gain
My first submission to the 2018 Local Plan Inquiry argued that planning permission creates very large “planning gain” from converting cheap agricultural land into much more valuable building land. Planning gain is largely captured by landowners rather than the public. I noted that limiting housing supply makes homes less affordable, especially for younger and less affluent residents, while benefiting land owners and homeowners. (In 2018, I estimated planning gain from the proposed local plan to be £2.55 billion, or around £30,000 per household in York.)
I argued that the plan enabled carbon-intensive lifestyles and did not adequately account for embodied carbon in construction. I also argued that the proposed green belt acted as a “lock” that freezes in an unfair and unsustainable pattern of development.
This particular local plan would have deepened inequality, raised housing costs, and worsened environmental outcomes. The evidence I submitted can be seen on one of my websites as York exiles the poor.
Government policy has now moved in my direction.
A call for sites and land monopolies
A Call for Sites (CFS) is a formal, early-stage consultation process where local planning authorities (LPAs) invite landowners, developers, and agents to submit land that could potentially be developed. It is not legally mandatory but is widely considered a best-practice step in preparing a local plan. The primary “Call for Sites” that informed the development of the 2025 York Local Plan was issued in August 2012.
However, according to Google’s AI, the process where local councils ask landowners and developers to submit land for potential development in local plans—can create opportunities for landowner collusion. While designed to identify available land, the process can be manipulated if not properly managed.
It is the beginning of a the plan making process which identifies specific areas of land that can be developed and which cannot. Barring the use of the new powers of compulsory purchase, it allocates large amounts of planning value to successful landowners.
The 2025 York Local Plan allocates land for an average of 822 homes per year. It specifies where these homes should be built. In doing this, the plan gives monopoly power to the land on which new homes are planned. In York, that monopoly power means land owners can demand prices for building land in the order of £200,000 per building plot. A small proportion of this must be paid to the Council as the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). In 2026, this is £123 per square metre. That is between 5% and 6% of the planning gain for a 3bed 90sq metre house.
Planning gain increases house prices to the level that only the affluent can afford.
In response to a call for sites in 2012, I sent in a proposal which identified outlined most of the undeveloped land within the York boundary to be included in the York Local Plan as possible development land. I outlined over 15,000 hectares ,which was most of the undeveloped land within the York boundary. That’s 56% of the area within York’s boundary – enough to expand the housing in York by more than four times.
I argued that it was important to avoid monopoly positions so that land or option owners did not extract monopoly prices after the Local Plan had identified which parcels of land could or could not be developed. Keeping options for development open would have given York Council a better bargaining position. This was not to say that all this land should be developed but to avoid embedding monopoly positions in the Local Plan.
My response to the 2012 call for sites can be seen at Making affordable housing possible. A plan for York.
Social renting
Social rented housing, is one aspect of the government’s affordable housing drive. Social houses are properties rented to in-need individuals at a lower cost than renting privately. Over the four years until April 2026, The Council has delivered 33 social homes.
Buying affordable homes
As well as social housing, York Council have a policy of ‘affordable housing”. These are expected to charge a higher rent than social rent but still discounted – this can be up to 80% of ‘market rents’, considerably higher than social rents. Homes are let to people from the council waiting list.
Providing ‘affordable housing’ for lower income families to buy or rent can be seen as an attempt to ameliorate the trend for the enormous house price rises that have happened since the 1970s. Then, those on lower incomes could buy a home for about three times their yearly income. Now they need to pay ten times their income.
Over the four years until April 2026, The Council has delivered 127 affordable homes. 85 of these affordable homes have been sold to residents at prices between £295,000 and £475,000 depending on property size.
Who can afford their own home?
For those with lower incomes it has become almost impossible to buy their own home in York. For the lowest quarter of income earners they must now find 10 times their salary – while in the 1970s it was only 3.5 times.
Since 1970s average rents have risen from £268 per month (inflation adjusted) to over £850 per month, meaning a greater proportion of York residents find rents unaffordable.
In the 1970s, home ownership was a ladder that most people started climbing in their early 20s. In the 2020s, home ownership has become a “waiting game,” where the largest share of the city’s housing wealth is held by the elderly, while younger residents remain in the rental sector for a decade longer than their grandparents did.
We have moved from a society where you “earned” your way into property wealth during your middle years, to one where you “wait” for it via inheritance or long-term asset holding in your later years.
House price increases have caused York to transition from a city of “Side-by-Side Classes” (where workers and managers lived in different streets but within the same ward) to a city of “Generational Enclaves,” where the centre belongs to the wealthy and the transient, and the outskirts house a dwindling population of local mortgage-holders.
A homeowner in York who bought in the 1980s has seen their property wealth grow by hundreds of percent purely through market inflation—a “passive” gain that a young worker today cannot replicate through “active” saving.
The lower quarter median income in York is now £21,200 so the cheapest of these houses would give an affordability ratio of 13.9. This and the small number of affordable houses that are being made available (21 per year) means that York Council’s policies on affordable housing are having little effect on the cost of housing in York.
Universities crowd out housing
The growth of York’s two major universities—the University of York and York St John University—has been a powerful engine behind the city’s housing shift. Between the 1970s and the 2020s, the student population has transformed from a small, campus-bound group into a dominant force in the city’s private rental market.
15% of York’s total population is now comprised of students. This demographic surge created a massive, demand for housing that the city’s traditional stock was never designed to handle.
Because university-owned halls of residence could not keep pace with this growth, students moved into the private rented sector . This led to a process called “studentification.” Thousands of Victorian terraced houses in areas like Tang Hall, Hull Road, and The Groves—which in the 1970s were the “entry-level” homes for young York families—were converted into Houses in Multiple Occupation.
Much of the land where the University of York is built is owned by Halifax Estates. The largest site for housing development in the 2018 York Local Plan, the Langwith Garden Village, is on land mostly owned by the Halifax Estates. Halifax Estates benefit from increased student numbers and a limited target for new housing in York.
It’s time the Universities did more to house the students they attract to avoid banishing more of the poor from York.
Carbon emissions of students
For students, the biggest contributors to their footprint are often travel (commuting and flying) and food consumption. In York students have relatively short distances for commuting but flying will increase their greenhouse emissions. Younger students are driving increased flight demand, often prioritising travel despite environmental concerns. However, flying for pleasure cannot easily be affected by a Local Plan.
Urban core, urban trendy and suburban lifestyles
Housing within and near York’s City Walls has become a place where affluent people who like city life choose to live. Claude AI notes:
York’s city centre (the YO1 postcode, which covers the area enclosed by the Roman walls) is a highly desirable and expensive place to live.
The area’s appeal is rooted in heritage and lifestyle. York is one of the UK’s most historic and desirable cities, and the combination of high demand, limited space, and protected historic areas means prices remain strong. The medieval streetscape, proximity to the Minster, cobbled lanes, and independent restaurants and shops are exactly the kind of urban amenity that attracts affluent professionals who want “city life.”
But within the walled city specifically, car ownership among residents is likely lower than York’s average. People who choose to live inside the walls — precisely because they value walkable urban life — tend to rely less on cars. Everything is within walking or cycling distance, and parking is scarce and expensive. York is very susceptible to traffic congestion due to its historic layout, and visitors and commuters are encouraged to use six Park & Ride sites around the city instead.
So the picture is somewhat paradoxical: affluent residents who can easily afford cars tend not to need or use them day-to-day if they live within the walls, making it one of those rare UK urban environments where low car dependency is a lifestyle choice rather than a sign of deprivation.
Two of York’s wards contain the city centre, Guildhall and Micklegate. Compare these with another ward on the outskirts of York, near the outer ring road, Copmanthorpe. Guildhall has the highest proportion of social housing at 22%; Micklegate has 12% and Copmanthorpe has 4%.
Housing types differ with Copmanthorpe having more larger detached and semi detached houses. They are described by Google’s AI Assistant:
| Ward | Description |
| Guildhall | Urban Core |
| Micklegate | Urban Trendy |
| Copmanthorpe | Suburban |
The Urban Core are the high-density central business district and historic inner-city neighbourhoods.
The Urban Trendy are gentrified neighbourhoods with distinct cultural identities.
The Suburban are residential communities on the periphery of the urban area.
Carbon Footprints
Here are estimated consumption carbon footprints for these wards.
| Ward | Tonnes CO2e per year | Comment |
Guildhall | 6.6 to 7.0 | Well Below Average |
Micklegate | 8.5 to 9.5 | Slightly Above Average |
Copmanthorpe | 10.5 to 12.0 | Highly Elevated |
Carbon footprints are lower for areas that appreciate urban life, Micklegate and Guildhall - but higher in the wealthier Micklegate. They are significantly higher in the suburban Copmanthorpe.
There are three main areas of municipal housing built in York – built the 20th Century. Tang Hall, Clifton and Westfield.
Before World War 2, the Tang Hall Housing Estate was built. Tang Hall was York’s first massive, purpose-built council estate, with construction starting in 1921 under the “Homes for Heroes” initiative. Design followed an early 20th-century “Garden City” design. It gave working-class families access to air, green space, and indoor bathrooms. Over 1000 homes were built.
A further 360 homes were built in the Clifton area of York before WW2. Both Tang Hall and Clifton were influenced by architects Barry Parker and Raymond Unwin:
Housing development in Westfield was started before WW2 but most of this was completed after the war. Westfield represented a shift toward high-density, rapid mass production to accommodate the post-WW2 slum clearances of York’s dense urban core. In 2002, parts of the Chapelfields estate, in Westfield, particularly the area around Sanderson House, were referred to by some locals as “Beirut” due to issues with vandalism, derelict areas, and an unsightly block of flats. Following this, City of York Council announced million-pound projects to demolish the derelict buildings and replace them with new, affordable family homes to revitalize the community.
Areas of council-built housing have the highest level of deprivation in York – all above 50%. However, only about a quarter of this housing is now for social tenants in these areas, as home ownership and private landlords have increased due to the effects of the right to buy legislation of 1985.
Council prefabs in Westfield
World War 2 halted development of housing one side of Kingsway West, a road that was to be part of a Ring Road for York – a scheme that was never completed. Post-war the site was used for prefabs as emergency housing. Alderman Burke, leader of York Council in the early 1970s boasted York was the first council to get rid of prefabs. They were replaced in the 1960s.
Resistance to demolishing prefabs
There was great resistance from prefab residents. Google Assistant describes…
While the York Corporation viewed the clearance of the prefabs as a necessary step toward building modern, permanent brick housing, the families who actually lived in them felt very differently.
Why Residents Fought to Stay
Social history archives and local memories from The Prefab Museum and York community archives show that residents strongly resisted demolition for several key reasons:
- Unmatched Layout and “Luxury”: Despite being built out of asbestos sheets, timber, or surplus aircraft aluminum, the interiors were exceptionally well-designed. Families moving out of cramped, damp Victorian terraces suddenly had fitted kitchens, indoor plumbing, a private bath, and a built-in refrigerator. For many, moving into a 1960s council maisonette or flat felt like a step backward in layout and personal freedom.
- The “Little Castle” Gardens: Because the prefabs on Kingsway West were built across uncompleted dual-carriageway road plots and open fields, they were given massive garden plots. Residents took immense pride in their gardens, growing vegetables and creating beautiful flower beds. Giving up a large, detached plot for a communal estate setup was heavily disliked.
- An Intense Community Spirit: The physical layout of the prefab estate fostered a tight-knit, egalitarian community where everyone was in the same boat. Neighbors literally lived on the same level, doors were left unlocked, and children played across the connected green strips.
The Reality of Leaving
By the early 1960s, the temporary structures were approaching 20 years of use—well past their intended 10-year lifespan. They were increasingly difficult to heat, suffered from condensation, and the local council argued they were an inefficient use of valuable urban land.
When the demolition crews finally arrived to make way for the Windsor Garth development, it was met with widespread heartbreak. Many of the first generation of children born on Kingsway West still look back at the prefabs as a “paradise” compared to the high-density brick estates that replaced them.
More prefab residents
Similarly residents were reluctant to leave another estate of prefabs (Discus bungalows) that were erected in the 1970s on the site of yet another failed ring road scheme. Google Assistant says of these:
Many residents were highly reluctant and deeply concerned about leaving the 100 prefabricated Discus bungalows in York when demolition plans emerged in the mid-2000s.
Because the vast majority of the occupants were elderly, the prospect of being forced out of their close-knit communities caused significant distress.
Google Assistant continued …
Why Residents Were Reluctant to Leave
- Stress on Elderly Occupants: Outraged residents publicly criticized the council, stating that forcing elderly people out of their homes at an advanced stage in their lives was “very wrong” and highly stressful.
- Fear of Losing Their Community: Official City of York Council consultation records from 2006 show that a core group of households flatly stated they would “never move.” The majority only agreed to leave reluctantly because they understood the buildings were failing safety standards.
- Dislike of Flats: Residents voiced a very strong negative perception of moving into multi-storey flats, which were rapidly being built across York at the time. They overwhelmingly demanded to stay in single-storey bungalows.
- The Practical Burden of Moving: Many tenants were deeply worried about the physical and financial strain of relocating, including the high costs of buying new carpets, curtains, and furniture for an unfamiliar layout.
- Affection for the Space: The 1970s-built prefab bungalows were widely appreciated for their unique wide structures, individual colours, and peaceful, open communal gardens.
Detached houses
Detached houses usually have larger floor areas than other types and are the most expensive option, typically occupied by wealthier residents. They sit in their own plot — garden front and back, garage to one side — producing low-density neighbourhoods with high levels of privacy.
Interactions between neighbours are deliberate rather than accidental. Residents must actively step outside to engage with the street; spontaneous contact is rare by design. They have high car ownership.
Semi-detached houses
Semi-detached houses are typically home to less wealthy residents than detached properties. They share a party wall with one neighbour and usually have space for one or more cars on the opposite side. Gardens front and back are the norm.
Car ownership is high — though lower on municipal housing estates. A notable feature is the high rate of convenience neighbouring: minding pets, taking in parcels, and similar small acts of mutual help with the immediately attached neighbour.
Terraced houses
Terraced houses are typically older, dense, and urban — many in York date from the Victorian era. Fifty years ago they were considered less desirable than semis;. Today, particularly in York, they are actively sought after by those who value urban living. Most in York have back yards rather than full gardens.
Shallow front thresholds and shared rear boundaries generate a particular kind of street sociability: frequent, spontaneous greetings and over-the-fence conversations. Neighbourliness here is structural, built into the geometry of the street.
They are high density, with spontaneous sociability, many of Victorian stock.
Car ownership is typically lower than the national average. Across Great Britain, about 76% of households own a vehicle, but in dense terraced areas, this drops significantly to 40-60%.
Multi-storey flats
Multi-storey flats achieve high densities but produce low social interaction. Relationships are dominated by weak ties— a casual nod in a corridor. Meaningful contact typically happens only between residents sharing the same floor.
Shared spaces like lifts and lobbies can feel awkward, prompting residents to actively avoid eye contact to preserve a sense of private space in public. Isolation in crowds is a recurring feature of high-rise life.
Car ownership in multi-storey flats and apartments is significantly lower than in traditional houses. Recent UK data shows that fewer than half of households living in flats have access to a car or van.
Embodied carbon note: Concrete and steel construction carries high embodied carbon. The taller the structure, the greater the embodied carbon per flat.
Prefab estates
Prefab estates were built to provide emergency housing after World War Two. Driven by uniform layouts and shared infrastructure, they have historically fostered a strong egalitarian community spirit — high internal equity and collective resilience have been consistent features.
They also carry a persistent burden: external social stigma, particularly where the estate looks visibly temporary or cheaper than traditional brick housing, which can tip community spirit into insularity.
Prefab estates are frequently designed with high population densities and limited or heavily restricted off-street parking. With lower-income demographics, they have shown lower car ownership rates, often utilising more public transport or active travel options.
Park homes (Modern prefabs)
Park homes are detached, single-storey residences on rural or semi-rural parks, occupied mainly by residents over 50 with a high level of car ownership. They are manufactured off-site and transported to their plots — a modern parallel to post-war prefabs, but oriented towards an older generation with cars.
Surveys consistently describe daily life as peaceful, friendly, and community-minded. However, satisfaction is clouded by concerns about site management: pitch fees, mis-selling, resale commissions, and poor operator communication are the most-cited national grievances.
Modern park homes are built to the BS3632residential standard and are typically more energy-efficient than newly built conventional homes. Those with a wooden chassis — rather than a steel one — can carry very low embodied carbon, significantly below traditional brick-and-mortar construction.
Greenhouse emissions from park home living depend heavily on location. Rural residents face longer travel distances, higher car dependency, and greater fuel use. Those in well-connected locations can achieve genuinely low — and potentially very low — carbon footprints.
| Housing type | Interaction style | Interaction style |
| Multi-storey flats | Avoidance; same-floor ties only | Isolation in crowds |
| Semi-detached | Targeted convenience neighbouring | Boundary / driveway friction |
| Detached houses | Planned, low-frequency contact | Suburban isolation |
| Terraced houses | Spontaneous street-level bonding | Acoustic privacy loss |
| Prefab estates | High equity and peer support | External class stigma |
| Park homes | Peaceful, friendly community life | Site management disputes |
Different construction methods can be applied to the range of housing types e.g. A detached house with bricks and mortar construction, a concrete framed flat, a wooden park home. MS Copilot compiled a list of 33 housing type/construction method combinations for homes with areas of 90m2.
Brick houses were highest in embodied carbon. Using more timber and less brick cut embodied carbon.
Some construction methods store carbon rather than emit it during construction (e.g. when hempcrete is used). They are often carbon negative when biogenic carbon storage is taken into account. The term biogenic carbon storage is used for the storage of carbon in building materials.
Some argue that biogenic storage should be discounted because, at the end of the dwellings life, the stored carbon is likely to enter the atmosphere e.g. when the dwelling is demolished, and wood & etc will be burnt. This assumes future generations will be as careless of climate change as we have been. If that’s true humanity and the natural world really are doomed.
MS Copilot gave this table for construction methods and embodied carbon for a 3bed 90m2 dwelling.
| Construction method. | Gross upfront embodied. kgCO₂e/m² | Biogenic storage. kgCO₂e/m² | Net total for 3 bed (90 m²). tonnes CO2e | |
| Brick and mortar | 450–550 | ~0 | 40–50 | |
| Timber frame + brick façade | 300–400 | 80–150 | 18–29 | |
| Timber + hempcrete | 180–260 | 220–350 | −15 to +4 | |
| Straw bale + timber | 120–200 | 260–420 | −27 to −5 | |
| CLT + solid timber | 250–350 | 200–350 | −9 to +14 |
As mentioned above, the world’s remaining carbon budget is critically low. The budget left for 8.3 billion people works out at 16 tonnes CO2 per person. It is irresponsible to emit tens of tonnes of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere to build a house.
The cost of building varies across construction methods and types. The cost of building a timber-framed with brick facade averages about £180,000. The construction cost of a wooden park home averages less than half of this.
Since prefabs and park homes are typically single storey, they may be able to use screw-in foundations reducing cost and carbon footprints.
Many of the construction methods are relatively new. Their costs may decrease in the future.
City of York Council has explicitly required and integrated embodied carbon measurements in its own public housing developments and flagship eco-projects However, City of York Council does not currently make the measurement or reduction of embodied carbon a strict, mandatory requirement at the planning stage for standard private developments.
However, City of York Council can ask for the estimated embodied carbon of a building to accompany planning applications. (Under their climate emergency response and local plan frameworks, the council requires developers to detail the sustainability and whole-life carbon impact of their schemes.)
Sadly, under current planning law in England, City of York Council cannot legally make the estimation of prospective residents’ personal consumption footprints a mandatory condition or validation requirement for planning approval.
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) are residential areas where through-traffic is restricted using measures like planters, bollards, or cameras to reduce vehicle traffic, noise, and air pollution, while improving safety for walking and cycling. They allow residents access to their homes by car, though through-routes are closed off, fostering quieter environments.
Studies have indicated a reduction in car ownership within established LTNs. Increased cycling and walking increases demand in local shops. Research suggests that reducing road capacity for motor vehicles does not simply displace traffic to surrounding areas, it can lead to “traffic evaporation”, where car use decreases.
Cyclists and pedestrians spend more in local shops than motorists. A study on town centres showed that improved infrastructure led to a 17 per cent decline in empty shops.
In York, the Groves is a permanent Low Traffic Neighbourhood implemented by City of York Council in 2022 following a 2020 trial, restricting through-traffic using bollards and planters. While reducing traffic and improving air quality internally, the scheme has split opinion, with increased congestion reported on surrounding boundary roads.
There are also smaller areas of York where bollards have been erected to restrict traffic movement such as Vyner Street, Fontayne Street, Navigation Road and Melrosegate.
York’s pedestrian areas are designed to create a safer, more pleasant environment that enhances the historic city centre’s charm, allowing visitors to enjoy areas like The Shambles, Stonegate, and Petergate without the disruption of traffic. The city centre may be considered a low traffic neighbourhood for the many people that live there.
Research by Bentham and Reeves point out a disadvantage of LTNs – although they “may be bringing a boost to house prices for homeowners who live within them, the additional strain they place on surrounding roads with respect to increased traffic congestion is a deterrent to many homebuyers.”
Traffic evaporation needed.
Car ownership
Here are the effects of car ownership..
Carbon Footprint
A report published by Zemo gives estimates for the carbon footprint of cars:
[A] typical medium sized family car will create around 24 tonnes of CO2 during its life cycle, while an electric vehicle (EV) will produce around 18 tonnes over its life. For a battery EV, 46% of its total carbon footprint is generated at the factory, before it has travelled a single mile.
More local amenities means less cars and vice versa
In Car ownership: Evidence review, the National Centre for Social Research Report:
DfT’s Transport User Personas study (2023a) linked lower levels of car ownership in urban areas with the availability of public transport, and with proximity to shops, amenities, and recreational facilities .
Conversely more cars means less amenities. (Historically: Shops move out as cars mode in.)
Car costs for the poorest households
Research by IPPR finds that car ownership eats up a quarter of poorest households’ incomes.
Local pollution and car ownership
In How can local authorities manage traffic-caused air pollution?, WSP say:
Sources of air pollution vary, from heavy industry to wood burning stoves, but, for many, traffic-related air pollution has the most significant impact on their lives. These impacts disproportionately fall on poorer, urban residents who live closer to busier roads despite producing the least pollution.
Car-free neighbourhoods tend to be friendlier
In Making streets people friendly: the rise of car free communities, the Rapid Transition Alliance say:
Long before the rise of low-traffic neighbourhoods, in 1981, US urban designer Donald Appleyard showed in his book Livable Streets how residents on streets (in 1969 San Francisco) with low traffic had more friends and acquaintances than others.
Car-free neighbourhoods have better layouts
Google’s AI overview says:
By removing private vehicles and prioritising people, car-free neighbourhoods unlock better, more cohesive layouts. This approach reclaims massive amounts of land otherwise wasted on parking lots and wide roads. It allows for enhanced green spaces, safer environments for children to play, and tighter-knit communities.
Summary
Car-free developments have many advantages for residents that can’t or don’t want to own a car. This plan will champion them. Fewer cars will also benefit York as a whole.
Very low traffic neighbourhoods
Low traffic neighbourhoods are residential areas where traffic flow is restricted through one-way systems, road closures or other traffic calming measures encouraging greener living through walking, cycling or public transport. Increased cycling and walking increases demand in local shops making neighbourhoods more vibrant (to use a favourite term of the planners). Low traffic neighbourhoods raise property values. However, they can put additional strain on surrounding roads. This can increase traffic and so depress property values in surrounding areas.
Residents of LTNs do not usually face any legal restrictions or limits on car ownership. They are free to buy, own, and register as many vehicles as they like. However, LTNs severely restrict how cars can be driven, which has a effect on whether residents choose to own them. In addition, if local services improve, there advantages of having a car diminish.
The residents of LTNs benefit from traffic being canalised away from their streets, without many restrictions on their own car ownership – but on-street parking is likely to be restricted.
People on low incomes have less cars.
Car ownership per household rises sharply with income, ranging from roughly 40% in the fifth of the population with lowest income to over 86% in the top fifth. The least wealthy are unlikely to live in Low Traffic Neighbourhoods to reap the benefit of restrained traffic levels despite their lower car ownership.
For those households that do not own cars, it would be a bonus to live in areas where their neighbours have fewer cars. They can have better local services, a more peaceful environment and be freer from the dangers of motor traffic. Call these areas Very Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.
Two groups that could benefit from neighbourhoods where car ownership is restricted are the car-less poor and the urban trendy. In York another group that would be candidate residents for VLTNs are, of course, students of the Universities and colleges in and around York.
Under current UK planning frameworks, councils can legally approve new housing developments with covenants that legally prohibit buyers from obtaining parking permits, though they cannot stop them from buying the car itself.
Recent years have seen diminished concern about climate change. Public support for climate policies and urgency around achieving net zero has declined. Despite this, a significant majority still believe in the importance of addressing climate change. I am in this significant majority.
The Union of Concerned Scientists list twelve of the effects of climate change:
- Global temperatures are increasing
- Ocean temperatures are increasing
- Soil temperatures are increasing.
- Oceans are more acidic
- Humidity is increasing
- Arctic sea ice extent is diminishing
- Springtime snow cover is going down
- Glaciers are shrinking
- Forest fire season is longer
- The seas are rising
- Weather is becoming more extreme
- Plants’ and animals’ ranges are shifting
For the UK there is another effect that should concern us – the slowing of the massive flows of warm water that come up from the tropics to make our climate much milder that other lands at the same latitude. These flows are slowing. If they slow further or stop, we will suffer a severe cooling of our local climate despite the global warming trend.
An obligation to reduce our greenhouse emissions
Climate change should be a major consideration in housing policy. First is our obligation to reduce our carbon footprint – our emissions of greenhouse gases.
The remaining carbon budget—the maximum amount of CO2 humanity can emit to stay within specific global warming limits—is critically low. As of 2026, the Potsdam Institute estimate that within three years of current emissions, a rise in global temperatures 1.5C will be locked in. The budget left for 8.3 billion people works out at 16 tonnes CO2 per person.
When the embodied carbon in the goods and services we import is counted, the carbon footprint of UK citizens is near the world average. It is 8.6 tonnes CO2 per UK citizen per year. Globally that’s three years left before the budget for 1.5C is exhausted and only 20 years before the budget for 2.0C is also exhausted.
Global warming of 1.5°C is associated with significant risks and impacts, and exceeding 2.0°C would pose even larger and escalating risks to ecosystems and human life. A 1.5C temperature rise is considered dangerous, while a 2.0C,rise is generally viewed as catastrophic. The difference between the two is significant, representing a step-change in the severity of climate impacts rather than just a small increase.
A growing attitude seems to be that as the UK is a small proportion of world population, and therefore a small proportion of global greenhouse emissions, we should let bigger countries shoulder the burden of cutting emissions. Our government, ostensibly at least, has a policy of cutting UK emissions to “net-zero” by 2050. However, critics, environmental researchers, and opposition figures have frequently accused the UK government of showing reluctance to count certain emission sources—specifically international aviation, shipping, and imported goods.
We should do better and design ways of life that place little burden on the Earth’s climate- not just for the relatively small global impact the UK’s restraint would make but to show other nations how low carbon living can be attained.
Planning for a changing climate
The acceptance of the reality of a changing climate is not universal in the UK, although it is widespread but there is an increasing minority, who believe that the threat is exaggerated.
Whether exaggerated or not, there are potential risks, such as heat waves, much colder winters and global food shortages. We should plan for them. We must design homes that do not overheat or get too cold. We should plan for local food production.
I wrote earlier:
The UK is generally self-sufficient in only a few specific food classes, primarily producing enough to meet domestic demand in liquid milk, barley, and sheep meat. The UK produces around 60% of its total food consumption, but it relies on imports for a large portion of its fruit, vegetables, and, increasingly, poultry. The UK is not even fully self sufficient in potatoes and wheat.
The new version of the York Local Plan should aim at increasing local food production. Various thinkers have considered this approach. For example, Place 54 Architects, won a Wolfson Prize examining the idea of Market Garden CIties, where market gardens are incorporated into urban designs.
Local food production is rapidly evolving in 2026, driven by technological innovations in vertical farming, the localization of supply chains, and a shift toward sustainable, urban-centric agriculture. These methods are designed to minimise transport, enhance food security, and offer year-round, nutrient-rich produce while reducing environmental impacts.
The York Local Plan should incorporate food production.
AI, the retreat from globalisation and economic growth
Google AI Assistant says:
Artificial Intelligence is simultaneously accelerating the retreat from traditional, hyper-globalized supply chains while creating a new, more fragmented form of digital globalization. While 2026 data suggests trade is not disappearing, it is “rewiring” away from centralized, low-cost sourcing toward regional ecosystems driven by AI-enabled automation and national security imperatives.
A question for the moment is will these trends mean a fall in the need for human labour and a crisis in the jobs market. There are various national mechanisms that have been suggested for creating employment. I suggested one in the 1980s, A macroprudential proposal for employment.
A recent government report, Young people and work, finds the number of young people Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEETs) has risen to more than one million, the highest it’s been in 12 years, and there are fewer entry-level jobs.
Local plans should create local jobs, preferably ones that have a beneficial climate and other impacts – such as jobs in local food production.
York is an affluent city with large wealth inequality. High property prices and corporate wealth hide the fact that many residents struggle with a high cost of living and low-wage jobs. York is one of the richest cities in Northern England. However, a 10-year life expectancy gap exists between rich and poor areas.
York’s population of 209,301 is made up of 85,459 households. Just over two thirds live in the built up area of the city, the rest in outlying villages and settlements. The population consists of working people (45%), retired (18%), children (15%), students (13%) and the economically inactive (8%), who may be carers, disabled or simply unemployed.
65% of York’s households are owner occupiers, with 37% owning their homes outright with no mortgage. These are slightly higher than averages for England and Wales. 14% of York’s households are socially renting and 20% are renting privately. 0.8% have shared ownership and 0.1% pay no rent.
Typically outright owners are aged 65+. Those with mortgages are in the 35-49 age range. Social renters are typically under 50, with a large proportion in the 16-34 range. Private renters are in the 16-34 age range.
Voting intensity varies by age and the type of housing tenure. Young renters vote least. Middle-aged mortgage owners have moderate to high turnout. Older outright owners dominate the electorate that actually votes.
Conflicts of interest
There is a conflict between poorer and younger York citizens and the more affluent and older citizens. The young and the poor would benefit from cheaper housing. Older and affluent home owners benefit from higher housing prices – so do land owners.
York homeowners benefit if house building targets are low because that helps to keep the value of their houses high. Landowners earmarked for housing on their land under a local plan also benefit. The York that was approved in 2025 kept to a low target for house building. Minutes of the Local Plan Working Group in July 2017 included:
“The housing figure of 867 dwellings per annum was accepted, based on ONS and DCLG population and household projections. The recommendation by GL Hearn to apply a further 10% market signals uplift (to 953 dwellings per annum) was rejected as speculative and attaching insufficient weight to York’s special character.”
With the update of the National Planning Policy Framework, the government has made new housing targets mandatory and raised them, removing the previous flexibility. This will include a substantial rise in targets where the Housing Affordability Ratio is high. This ratio is very high in York. York plans will need to have higher targets for home building.
Government targets
The current UK government has pledged to deliver 1.5 million new homes in England within five years. That’s 300,000 per year, equal to 1.2% of the housing stock per year. The 2025 York Local Plan is for 1% per year.
However, are government targets good enough? A recent estimate suggests a UK deficit of approximately 6.5 million homes compared to European averages. To bridge this gap by 2040, the construction about 565,000 homes annually would be needed. That’s expanding the housing supply by 1.9% per year. If that was applied to York, it would increase the yearly target to from 1138 (see above) to 1,801 new homes per year, over twice the 882 houses per year in the version of the Local Plan adopted in February 2025.
The idea of a green belt has and enormous emotional pulls on most of us. Green belts are associated with peace, beauty and the production food that sustains us. We hold images in our minds like the landscapes of Van Gogh, Cezanne and Constable. For me, the archetypal image is the view from the ridge of Burham Downs looking south over the fields of the Weald of Kent. (However, this area isn’t actually designated as green belt.)
In our minds green belts prevent the sprawl of the urbanisation that pollutes the natural world. They transcend everyday perceptions. They are not in the eye of the beholders but are “things of beauty that are a joy forever”. They are ideals, independent of who perceives them. Designating an areas as greenbelt land sanctifies it making rational reasoning difficult.
We do not ask the question “Who benefits from green belt policies?” Timothy Worstall of the Adam Smith Institute gives an answer. The benefits of green belts are mostly to the upper middle class:
“But that’s the whole point of the green belt(s). In order to stop any housing or other economic growth anywhere near where upper middle class people who make their living in our most important cities might want to live. That’s the whole point of it all.”
As I said in Greenbelt in the York Local Plan (December 2018):
“The proposed green belt in The York Local Plan creates a lock on large scale housing development, making changes difficult for the next twenty years or more. It has the effect of preserving the planning gain captured by land owners and rewarding home owners by increasing the value of their property.”
I also noted that in the survey the Barker Report commissioned, greenbelt is ‘Land on the edge of towns and cities’. This survey found this was of concern to just 15% of respondents while ‘urban parks and playing fields’ were a concern to 48%. The survey method – three votes for each respondent – blunted the message: Parks, local to where people live, are very much more valued than green belt land.
In 2024 the government made proposals to define a subset of Green Belt land that is suitable for development. It called it “grey belt land” to describe “low quality” green belt land. It was introduced to address the UK’s housing shortage and the rigidity of existing green belt protections. It weakens the grip that green belt policy has on a new version of the York Local Plan.
In 2003 I wrote Greening the greenbelt. Here is an extract:
“The problem
Green belts are mechanisms for restricting the supply of planning permission. Green belt policy is usually regarded as the one strong weapon planners have against developers who would destroy our environment; our environment which is free for us all, rich and poor, to enjoy. But, in reality, it:
— Increases in the value of land with planning permission
— Gives massive rewards to the affluent (owners of property and land)
— Penalises the poor and the young
— Rewards those that pollute the most – the affluent
— Protects green fields of monoculture with little biodiversity”
For a fuller discussion see Greenbelt in the York Local Plan (2018).
Should we the trust the plans of planners? Planners have a poor record. York avoided some of the planning horrors of the 20th Century, like the multi-storey flats and tower blocks of the 1960s that were demolished within a couple of decades. However, there have been several abandoned road schemes: the 1930s ring road (including Kingsways North and West), the Fishergate Loop and the 1966 Inner Ring Road and then the 1972 Inner Ring Road proposals.
The mood for 20th Century town planning in the UK was set by SIr Patrick Abbercrombie whose plans were used in the post-war building of Plymouth, Hull and Bath, amongst others. Of his post-war re-planning of Plymouth, Sir Simon Jenkins has written:
“Poor Plymouth. It was badly blitzed in the Second World War and then subjected to slash and burn by its city fathers. The modern visitor will find it a maze of concrete blocks, ill-sited towers and ruthless road schemes. Most of this damage was done by one man, Patrick Abercrombie, in the 1950s. The old Barbican district would, in France or Germany, have had its façades restored or rebuilt. Here new buildings were inserted with no feeling for the texture of the old lanes and alleys.”
In the 1960s the plans for multi-storey flats and tower blocks were turned into a dreadful reality for the less-affluent residents who were moved into them. However, York avoided the high-rise, multi-story horror blocks built in the 1960s. Council Leader Alderman Bill Burke successfully resisted the trend, famously declaring in a council meeting: “Over my dead body will we have bloody tower blocks in York”. This was despite substantial government subsidies to the tower blocks government that planners had recommended. But, as noted above, Alderman Burke dismissed the success of prefabs as noted earlier.
Are Local Plans necessary?
Local plans like the one York ratified last year had the disadvantage of giving up bargaining power by pre-allocating areas which will get planning permission for housing (and so handing enormous rewards to landowners). The inspectors for the York Plan also insisted that York’s approach to the green belt was strengthened, placing restrictions on the areas allowed for housing until 2038.
Planning applications are judged against the Local Plan. If a proposed development aligns with the plan, it usually gets approved; if it conflicts, it can be rejected. It is claimed that a local plan gives the planning authority more power to reject planning applications that are not in the plan. But conversely, once a site is included in a local plan it is much harder to refuse a planning application. This diminishes the bargaining power of the local authority to get more affordable or environmentally sound housing.
Some urban theorists have advocated that planners embrace the idea of 15-minute cities. Ratti and Florida have written for the World Economic Forum saying:
“Developed by French urbanist Carlos Moreno, 15-minute city refers to a place where all the necessities of daily life – shops, schools, workplaces, doctor’s offices, parks, libraries, restaurants and other amenities – are located in a short 15-minute walk or bike ride from home.”
This gives all residents access to their needs a convenient walk away. However, the concept of a 15 minute city can too easily lead to layouts where larger areas are made up from separate residential bubbles – like Patrick Abercrombie’s 1944 plan for London. This was made up of separate residential neighbourhoods that did not interact with each other. In mathematical language this structure is a tree structure, where the leaves do not interact with each other.
Christopher Alexander’s, A city is not a tree opposed this type of thinking, emphasising how neighbouring elements share facilities in a graph-like structure. This work profoundly changed urban planning. Published in 1965, it served as a major theoretical catalyst shifting planning away from rigid, top-down modernism toward more organic, interconnected, and human-centric design.
Alexander’s analysis is echoed in the reservations that Ratti and Florida made about 15 minute cities :
“Instead of a complete 15-minute city, we propose to think of something akin to a “15-minute baseline”. That more circumscribed term can serve to remind us of the important fact that the truly vibrant parts of the city often begin when the first 15 minutes end. With easy access to the essentials, we can save our longer trips for where we need them: to encounter and participate in that diversity and specialization that are only possible at the scale of a real city and metro area.”
The key ideas in 15 minute are to make life more pleasant by providing local services and minimise the pollution and anti-social effects of traffic. Who would argue with that?
However, Ratti and Florida point out that 15 minute cities do little for the less advantaged. They characterise residents of 15 minute cities as “urban gentry”:
“15-minute communities do little to alter the harsh realities of economic and geographic inequality. They promise close-by amenities and luxurious walkability for the well-to-do urban gentry. They are mainly a fit for affluent urban neighbourhoods and far less a fit in the disadvantaged parts of our cities. As Harvard University’s Ed Glaeser points out, less advantaged groups are hardly able to live their life in their own disadvantaged neighbourhoods, which lack jobs, grocery stores and amenities found in more upscale communities.”
See also A guide to 15-minute cities: why are they so controversial?
Local plans like the one York ratified last year have the disadvantage of giving up bargaining power by pre-allocating areas which will get planning permission for housing (and so handing enormous rewards to landowners). In addition, The inspectors for the York Plan also insisted that York’s approach to the green belt was strengthened, which could have restricted the areas allowed for housing until 2038.
Planning applications are judged against the Local Plan. If a proposed development aligns with the plan, it usually gets approved; if it conflicts, it can be rejected. It is claimed that a local plan gives the planning authority more power to reject planning applications that are not in the plan. But conversely, once a site is included in a local plan it is much harder to refuse a planning application so the bargaining power of the local authority to get more affordable or environmentally sound housing is diminished.
A possible solution to this conflict is for the Local Plan to identify a surplus of sites for possible housing so that York Council is not stripped of bargaining power at the time the next Local Plan is adopted.
Compulsory purchase is the legal power of a public authority to force the sale of land or property for a project considered to be in the public interest – for purposes such as utilities, housing development, road or rail schemes, regeneration and schools or hospitals.
Recent changes to compulsory purchase for housing in England can be summarised in four main points:
- councils can now acquire some land more cheaply,
- “hope value” can be excluded from compensation,
- CPO procedures are being streamlined,
- government is pushing councils to use CPOs more actively for housing and regeneration.
The biggest change came through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (by a Conservative Government) and regulations brought into force in April 2024. Since the 2024 election, the Labour government has proposed going further by:
- simplifying CPO procedures,
- allowing wider routine use of no-hope-value compensation,
- reducing ministerial sign-off requirements,
- and accelerating land assembly for its housing targets and proposed new towns.
The authority using compulsory purchase must usually show:
- a clear public benefit,
- that the scheme is realistic and deliverable,
- and that compulsory purchase is necessary rather than merely convenient.
People affected can object, and some cases go to public inquiry before confirmation by ministers or inspectors.
There is now a Labour Government (which has strengthened compulsory purchase), a Labour Mayor in North Allerton, and a Labour controlled council in York. The previous Conservative Government started the strengthening and the Reform Party promises to strengthen compulsory purchase even more.
The City of York Council could even use a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to acquire land designated for housing in the adopted 2025 York Local Plan, provided they can demonstrate a “compelling case in the public interest”. The compulsory purchase of other land will be less trouble. If enough land is captured for new homes the exorbitant value of a building plot, (~£200,000 per new house) will fall and homes will become cheaper. The plan here will be for them to be much cheaper.
The version of the York Local Plan approved by York Council in February 2025, was governed by the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework. The new version of the plan will be governed by a new version of the NPPF. This introduces a recommendation that housing targets should be increased when the housing affordability ratio is high.
The 2012 NPPF allowed the interests of those with the most local political power to drive the aims of the 2025 York Local Plan. That was existing home owners and land owners. The plan allowed for a modest number of new houses to be built thus rewarding existing home owners and certain land owners by ensuring the value of new housing remained high.
The effect of the new NPPF is to increase the number of new houses that must be in the Local Plan, and eventually reduce the cost of housing in York.. This will benefit other sections of society like the poor, the young – and those people that want to move to York because York reflects their lifestyles.
Lowering the importance green belts by introducing the concept of grey belt land also helps any plans for building new homes. I believe the insistence of the inspectors of the 2025 Plan to lock York Green Belt to 2038 had the effect of also locking in the windfalls to homeowners and landowners. Now the mood on green belts has changed – albeit partially – so the new plan must be more sympathetic to renters and aspiring home owners.
However, the arguments here are not to just implement the provisions of the new NPPF in York. I will try to follow a wider perspective: one which shows the world one way in which human lifestyles could develop to be pleasant without bringing environmental catastrophes. This is wildly optimistic – but what else is worth-while?
Aims …
- To reduce inequality
- To promote environmental living
- To increase neighbourliness
- To plan good local services
- To make York an example for the world
Reducing inequality
In much of the world, inequality is increasing. According to economist Gary Stevenson, the 70 years since World War II have been an anomaly: in most eras, across most advanced civilisations, a small proportion of society has been very rich while the majority has been poor. High taxation on the wealthy after WW2 helped make societies less unequal.
Stevenson argues that rising inequality has driven the surge in house prices. As the rich accumulate more wealth, they invest heavily in assets—particularly housing—bidding up the prices that everyone else must pay in rents and home purchases.
However, it is important to note that a large proportion of property value reflects the right to have a building on a plot of land, rather than the value of the structure itself (the “bricks and mortar”) or the land’s value for any alternative use. In the UK, these property-location rights are created through planning permission, issued mostly by local councils. In many areas, large landholdings mean that these rights are concentrated among a small number of landowners, who can then demand monopoly prices for any development.
If the value of property-location rights could be reduced, the cost of housing could fall. This will happen if more such rights are created (i.e., more planning permissions are issued), and if monopoly positions are challenged through the threat or use of compulsory purchase. While this would make housing cheaper, it would also reduce the asset values of existing property owners. Inequality would fall as a result.
A political danger
Economist Henry Fudge describes the many historical conjunctions of high property prices and the development of more extreme politics – both left and right. As a first example cites the time when the Roman Empire was failing. Land prices soared as a rich few acquired large holdings evicting small farmers, who moved to the cities to become the urban poor. We are similarly creating an under-employed underclass.
Promoting environmental living
In 2019, York Council adopted a policy of net-zero emissions by 2030. The motion specified that emissions should be measured on a consumption basis. Now the policy is to measure emissions on a territorial basis.
Based on York’s estimated population of 209,301 residents and the latest local inventory data, a citizen of York has an estimated annual territorial footprint of 3.62 tonnes of CO2e, and an estimated annual consumption footprint of 11.04 tonnes of CO2e.
York Council does not disclose when the change from consumption emissions to territorial emissions was made. Microsoft’s Copilot AI notes:
“York’s climate policy effectively switched from consumption-based emissions accounting to territorial emissions between 2019 and 2022, with the decisive break occurring during the development of the York Climate Change Strategy 2022–2032.
“However — and this is crucial — no publicly available source explicitly states the moment of the switch. The shift must be inferred from the documentary record.“
By choosing a measure of emissions that happen in the vicinity of York citizens rather than a measure of the emissions they cause, York Council is aware of the optics of climate change mitigation but does not want to confront the reality.
Promoting neighbourliness
There is a tendency for people to form friendships with those whom they encounter often. This was studied by Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Beck in the 1950s in prefab estates that housed mature student families at MIT. It helped explain the the development of neighbourliness in different housing types.
Frequent informal encounters between neighbours can promote friendships and neighbourliness but privacy is also a consideration. In The impact of design on privacy and social interaction between neighbours …, Morag Linsay writes:
“Reduced levels of privacy have been shown to have a detrimental effect on a person’s mental health: levels of social withdrawal increase as people avoid social interaction, engage more in solitary pursuits and use more cues of withdrawal such as reduced levels of eye contact.”
Neighbours standing just outside just outside your kitchen window are invading your privacy but when they are, say, 15 metres distant, they are a neighbourly wave and a smile away. There are, of course, difficulties when neighbours are not the kind of people you want to know. The choice of good neighbours may be outside the scope of planners but can be affected by other actions of the local authority.
Neighbourliness is affected by housing type. As noted above, the propensity for neighbourliness varies from sparse for multi-storey flats to a close sense of community in traditional prefab estates.
Providing good local services
Local services are in decline – a trend pushed along by the rise in car ownership. (Local shops close as cars move in.) When residents get in their cars and drive to regional shopping centres, rather than walking to local facilities, traffic is generated and the informal meetings between locals at local services is reduced. Localities become traffic bound and community spirit declines.
York Council should explore ways to support local services. For example by rewarding the social work some local shops do e.g. replacing light bulbs for elderly neighbours.
The UK has a housing crisis which is taking from the young and the poor to give to the older and affluent.
In the 1970s, During the 1970s, average house prices in the UK were around 2.6 times income, in the 2020s they increased to almost 8 times income. In York, with the highest house prices in Yorkshire and the Humber, it is over 8. Here are the estimates of the housing affordability ratio for three Yorkshire towns (Costs are average of prices give by different AI bots):
| Town | Affordability Ratio (2025) | Cost of 3bed House | Meaning |
| York | 9.0 to 9.5 | £350,000.00 | Very unaffordable |
| Bradford | 5.0 to 5.5 | £250,000.00 | Moderately affordable |
| Middlesbrough | 4.0 to 4.5 | £200,000.00 | Among lowest in England |
House prices are a social emergency. Climate change is an existential emergency, where the UK has set a target to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. (However, this target uses territorial emissions so counts about half the UK’s consumption emissions.)
This plan here aims to cut both house prices and carbon emissions.
Planners make mistakes that become evident decades after their plans have been implemented. The interval between implementation and the evidence of success or failure is usually too long for any change in course. A new local plan must be very flexible and begin evolving from day one. A rigid plan that marks out exactly where development is to be located should be avoided.
I begin with the assumption that any plan should be in the national interest – not just the interests of politically powerful groups in York, such as ageing home owners and land owners. This is a contrast with the plan adopted in 2025, which favours these groups The new plan must have many more new homes than are projected in that local plan. New homes on the market in sufficient quantity will stabilise the cost of housing in York. This plan will do this in an environmentally friendly way.
This plan will avoid multi-storey flats. They create high carbon emissions when they are built and, in general, discourage neighbourliness. On a per-square-metre basis, they are more expensive to build than houses. They were subsidised by the government through the Housing Subsidies Act in 1956. That became a disaster for many of their residents. Judgements about other housing types will be made with regard to considerations of greenhouse emissions and encouragement of neighbourliness.
Park homes and custom built homes
On the current housing market, the housing type that has the smallest carbon footprint is the park home. Park homes are currently the cheapest form of construction and have a good record for neighbourliness and community spirit. They are the current default form of prefab homes. After site preparation, they are available “off the peg” so can enable a rapid response to the housing crisis. In this emergency they are the quickest way to satisfy demand.
Acquiring land at existing use value, installing services and buying a factory built park home could cut the cost of a new home in York by a factor of three or more. The council should plan to acquire a first site of 150 hectares as soon as possible to provide space to locate 4500 plots for park homes and environmentally friendly homes. That will show an intent to set right the wrongs the planning system has inflicted on the poor and the young. Such a development could house over 10,000 people. The development should be more-or-less car-free.
A proportion of the plots should be sold as freehold so that prospective residents can commission their own homes. Although the aim of this plan is to cool property prices, buyers could feel secure that they are “on the property ladder”.
At present, York has a self build and custom build scheme, where plots with services installed are sold for prices in the region of £100,000 – a profit to York Council of more than £80,000 for each plot sold. Under this plans, where the aim is to cut the prices of new houses, the profit will be much less but will be enough to help in financing the development of the site. Of course, if there are financing problems for developments in this plan, the council should partner with a suitable financial institution.
The map I compiled in 2004 shown earlier shows that 150 hectares is about than 1% of the open land covered by York Council. There are several locations where these car-free developments could be placed. For example near York University either side of the Outer Ring Road, to the west of Poppleton railway station and across the River Foss from Haxby to take advantage of the proposed new railway station.
The plan could also to use the ideas of American/Austrian architect, Victor Gruen. He designed several shopping centres in North America., which had substantial car parking for the shoppers. However he came to hate the sprawl he had helped to create. He wanted to create new centres where people could socialise and experience culture together. So he proposed that shopping malls could become urban centres with population moving in next to them to them. In York there are three shopping centres where car-free developments could be placed: Monks Cross, Clifton Moor and the McArthur Glenn Designer Outlet.
List of possible locations:
- Near York University
- Poppleton
- Haxby
- Monks Cross
- Clifton Moor
- Designer Outlet
This is a flexible plan and any of these sites should be a good start. The development Near York University will reduce the pressure students put on Yorks housing. The sites near stations will considerably increase rail passenger numbers. The developments near retail outlets have existing infrastructure to hand.
If these are developed without subtracting too much from the developments in the nascent Local Plan, this could make York a centre for population growth – as my deceased friend Dennis Martin once suggested.
Local services for new developments
New sites should have local shops, cafes&pubs, recreation space – and good public transport. They should also incorporate car clubs, market gardens and private gardens.
Local shops
A typical local corner shop needs a primary catchment population of about 1,000 to 1,500 residents (or roughly 400 to 600 households) to remain financially viable. New development, as envisaged above should be able to support local shops.
Cafes and pubs
A single local café generally requires a trade area of 1,000 to 2,500 residents to survive. Cafes are likely to be viable in new developments.
Recreation space
The Barker Review of Housing Supply (2004), reported that urban parks were valued 60 times as much as urban fringe green belt by the public. These developments should include parks and recreation space.
Public transport
For high-frequency, all-day service, transit guidelines suggest a threshold closer to 4,000 people per square kilometre. [1, 2] In the locations noted above public transport to the site will serve neighbouring locations so will benefit them too.
Where the transport is using bus services, waiting areas should be provided with live arrival and departure boards. If possible these should be combined with local shops or cafes.
Car clubs
Sites should have a Car Clubs – a residential base of 50 to 100 households is typically required to make vehicle rotation, maintenance, and booking management viable. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Car clubs provide residents, visitors or businesses with access to a vehicle as a short-term rental, usually by the hour. Car clubs may also include other vehicles such as vans alongside cars.
Car club operating models include commercial car clubs, peer-to-peer commercial car sharing and community car clubs.
Commercial car clubs, such as Co-Wheels, Enterprise, Hertz and Zipcar, own their own fleet of vehicles which they rent out to users. These clubs manage the vehicle tax, insurance and maintenance and may cover fuel costs. Typically, members pay a monthly or annual fee and an hourly rate to hire a vehicle.
Market gardens and community orchards
As mentioned earlier climate change and other global effects may make feeding the population a difficulty. In an AI-world employment opportunities may be scarce. Local market gardens will provide enhanced food security as well as local employment.
City of York Council has pushed for increased greenery, aiming to boost the city’s tree cover. Contemporary community-led organisations like Edible York manage local orchards, and housing providers like the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust continue to plant community orchards in new developments. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Private gardens
Professor Matthew Carmona of the Bartlett School, UCL, did a survey after the Covid Pandemic,of how residents coped in different types of housing. He found
Access to private open space from the home was the strongest home design-based predictor of comfort. Households with a private garden or terrace space were the most comfortable, followed by those with a private balcony or shared garden.
Schools
These developments will house about 10,000 residents. Normally, a population that size would have approximately 350 nursery age children, 400 infants, 750 juniors and 700 at secondary school aged children. That might require 3 nursery schools, 2 infants schools, 2 junior schools and supply over half the catchment for a secondary school. Of course, the projected population may not be a microcosm of the UK population, particularly in the early years but more schools are obviously necessary.
Planting and landscaping
Climate change means severe weather will increase: more heatwaves, more droughts, storms and heavy rainfall. If the Atlantic Meridional Overturning current slows substantially, the changes may bring very cold blasts to the UK. If the AMOC collapsed, York and the UK would lose the warm water conveyor that keeps the region much milder than its high latitude implies. Average winter temperatures could drop drastically by 5°C to 10°C, with extreme winter lows potentially plunging to near -20°C. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Tree planting should provide shade, wind breaks and local microclimates in developments. Water features should provide additional help. Plantings should include fruit trees and nut trees.
Geoff Beacon
11th July 2026
A Plan for York
Leave a comment