Cheltenham council boss blames politicians for housing crisis

“Scorpio2010 - I have yet to see officers take the blame on anything even when incompetent officers goad ignorant councillors into making damn fool decisions. The blind leading the deaf and dumb in many instances - don't forget the officers are in a more powerful position in local authorities as most councillors don't want to admit their shortcomings and go along like sheep in a herd. The officers are permanent residents but councillors transient visitors.”

“Ms_Superstar - that is what strategic planning is all about - looking at present and future needs, existing situation, discussing with developers and the public, charting out a strategy to achieve what you want - may not be 100% perfect but helps charts the road ahead.

The main problem here seems to be the general reluctance of elected members to allow development - prompted no doubt by the vocal minority that object to any development. Those sitting pretty on their garden houses should realise there is a huge demand out there and that they themselves spoilt the countryside by buying or building their house their in the first place.”

“Totally agree with you Bonkim 2003. If you care to research the Council's website you will see that Mr North has done exactly as you suggest. "Forward Plan and Cabinet Work Programme November 2011 to Feb 2012. Decision to be taken by Council. Decision due 10/11/2011." The decision by the Council is overdue by some nine months. Little wonder that Mr North is becoming frustrated with his elected members. By the way your reference to "silly explanation regards the Government not clear on what to do" is Councillor McKinley's and not Mr North's. And, with regards to your comment - "Localism mate - it is for the council to decide" - that's exactly Mr North's and my point!”

“Surely as Head of services it is for Mr North to have a forward plan and get polticians a programme to work to - and silly explanation regards the Government not clear on what to do - Localism mate - it is for the council to decide what it and the people of Cheltenham want and work to get it.

If they don't want houses to be built - so be it. Developers will make hay out of this uncertainty - and the new planning regime - is 'deemed consent' so procastrination will get you nowhere.”

“Two points:
My first is that there are housebuilding targets, and if the council does not decide where the developers may build, then they will cherry-pick the best sites and go to appeal over them, and will often win simply because the council has not offered them anywhere at all.
There are in fact a number of potential brown-field sites in Cheltenham, though they do not offer the clear ground and economies of scale that the green-field sites have.

Examples that spring readily to mind:
The former Haines & Strange site in Gloucester Place. This is a massive area right in the town centre. The former Gloucestershire Small Business Centre on the corner of this site is in a dangerous condition; the roof has fallen in, one wall is being held up with scaffolding and another is in fear of collapsing. It is also a fitting advertisement for Cheltenham's attitude towards small business. If this area started to be developed, it might also encourage someone to do something useful with the former Odeon (perhaps a large, prestigious nightclub and live music venue) before the NIMBYs move in and try to stop them.

The former Greyhound Inn site in Hewlett Road. This is in a dangerous state and urgently needs clearing up.

The empty site next to the Ace Bingo hall in the High Street. This, I'm informed, is currently frequented by under-age drinkers.

There are, I'm sure, many sites like this which the council could promote as suitable for residential redevelopment.

Secondly, the unaffordability of homes has nothing to do with shortage of supply. House prices are artificially inflated by various government initiatives to help people overcommit themselves. And I'm not referring to our present government in particular - the Blair/Brown administration is probably more guilty than anyone. No government wants to rule over a catastrophic growth in negative equity, which is what would happen if the housing market were allowed to find its natural level. So we have seen temporary suspension of stamp duty, Homebuy schemes, low start schemes for key workers, low interest rates, huge income multipliers, dual incomes taken into account, free or subsidised state childcare to enable both parents to work.
So here we are at a dead end in a one-way street. Interest rates can't get any lower, couples can't work any more hours, salaries can't rise because industry is on its knees, yet house prices can't be allowed to fall because that would cost votes. Ideas, anyone?”

“Takeaway22 - Mr North is not part of the Executive decision making body. That role rests with the Council and its elected members. Mr North, as the Head of paid service, is there to advise the executive and to implement its decisions. Basically I interpret his actions as saying to the executive body "get your finger out" and tell us what you want so that we can get on and do it. He has no authority or power to go it alone. He is doing the job he is paid to do. If you read the article carefully you would see that Councillor McKinley recognizes Mr North's position is his comments And contrary to your assertion that "when things go right you take the credit. When things go wrong it's down to someone else", my experience is that when things go right the elected Members take the credit and when things go wrong the officers take the blame.”

“Mr North, you slippery fish. When things go right, you take the credit. When things do not go to plan, it is down to someone else. Whatever happened to taking responsibility? It appears to us that part of your role as Chief Executive is to be responsible. If you side stepping this part of your job, should you actually be in the job?”