Closing shots fired as decision looms

I HAVE just learned that the major application for the huge development in Huntington is going to the planning committee today without a clear officer recommendation.

This is probably the most important application to come before the council for many years, yet the officers have failed to give clear guidance.

As a former chief planning officer, I find this deplorable and nothing short of moral cowardice. Of course it is for elected members to make the final decision, but it is also the professional duty of the chief officer to give a recommendation to approve or refuse. That is what they are paid for.

Given this abject failure, I hope we can expect the early resignation of the officer from a post they are clearly unworthy to occupy.

I also fervently hope that the committee will have the sense to reject this horrendous application which could do so much to destroy the retail vitality of this wonderful city of York.

Michael Gwilliam, Norton, York.

• PLANNERS are to be congratulated for admitting they don’t know what to recommend about the proposed Monks Cross expansion. They are wise to do so. They need only look at the predictions made by their predecessors.

When Monks Cross and Clifton Moor were first on the agenda, the experts were predicting that out-of-town shopping would strangle the city centre. Yet a few years later York was proclaimed the ninth most sought after retail location in the UK and shopping was bringing in an extra £100 million a year. The city-centre traders who are behind the opposition to Monks Cross also predicted disaster when Clifton Moor and Monks Cross were built.

Planners cannot be certain any more than the critics can be. Shopping habits are changing and anyone who believes we can retain the city centre as it is now is deluding themselves.

Ask yourself this: why are big developers prepared to invest in Monks Cross while in the past ten years they have not been interested in putting money into Coppergate? The future lies in the development of the city centre as a distinctive retail and leisure destination, as many other historic cities in Europe have done.

Patrick Kelly, East Mount Road, York.

• COUN JAMES Alexander (he of the failed bid to sell off Clarence Street car park) now thinks that refusing planning permission at Monks Cross will send a “York is closed” message to business – “big” business, perhaps.

Can he please try telling this to the host of small and medium businesses in the city centre which will see their trade dissipate?

Mary Portas produced an excellent report on behalf of the Government on how to rejuvenate town and city centres. It would appear that Coun Alexander has read this and decided to do the exact opposite. Could it be Labour Party hubris?

Further development at Monks Cross or anywhere else on the outskirts of York will further condemn this city to a “Polo mint” existence for its residents – all on the outside and nothing in the middle. Do we really want this to happen?

Finally, can the Labour Party please find a safe seat for Coun Alexander to occupy at the next Parliamentary election?

Neil Raw, Oriel Grove, Clifton Without, York.

• JAMES Alexander mentions that if the stadium and two superstores are turned down it will send out a “disastrous” message that York is closed for business.

Why? Surely it sends out the correct message. It sends out the message that York wants to do what is right for the city as a whole.

Why should it stop investment in the city? It will just show how Yorkshire is leading the way in how to do things properly.

Invest in the empty areas of York first: the teardrop site, the Terry’s site, the Nestlé site, the British Sugar site, the soon-to-be empty Del Monte site, the empty Piccadilly sites.

Invest in the city centre first, invest in an historic city, invest in people and their local jobs, in the process not losing the character of a beautiful city.

Save the green belt, protect green-field sites so York can become self-sufficient, making use of the good agricultural land to feed and protect us from climate change, drought and flooding.

York is open to sensible business that wants to protect future generations.

Sally Hawkswell, Heslington, York.

• THE proposed Oakgate development is not a huge out-of-town shopping complex. It is the creation of two new flagship stores with a range of community facilities attached.

The new stores may draw away some custom from the city centre. Two independent studies have said that this may be as little as six to eight per cent, if at all. The new development may cause the development of Coppergate2/Piccadilly to be re-evaluated, although this is nowhere near the planning stage.

The refusal of planning will definitely result in York City FC going semi-professional, the cancellation of their youth and community/school programmes, the subsequent job losses and the necessary selling of Bootham Crescent, leaving the club homeless.

York City Knights’ future will definitely be compromised as the city council has previously stated that it couldn’t commit to Huntington Stadium in the long term.

The city’s athletics club would lose out on a move to upgraded facilities. Enhanced community facilities of all-weather 3G pitches, health centre and learning centre would not be built.

The estimated 1,000 jobs would definitely not be created and the boost to the city’s economy would not be enabled.

In modern terms this is a “no-brainer”. Planning permission must be given.

Ben Howard, Aspen Close, Pickering.

• NEVER a fan of bureaucracy and its administrators, for once I think that the council’s planning department is correct in not recommending aye or nay for the Monks Cross development.

With passions high on both sides, and any neutral being able to see that each have valid arguments, it is only right that the elected councillors have the responsibility of making this crucial decision. Whichever way they go, they are the ones who will eventually have to answer to the residents.

Geoff Robb, Hunters Close, Dunnington.

• I HAVE already expressed to the city planners my objections to the Monks Cross development on the grounds that large stores such as John Lewis should be in the city centre so as to keep the city centre vibrant and support local businesses, particularly small shops.

There are many questions left unanswered, particularly the costs of running the community stadium and also the number of new jobs to be created which seems to fluctuate from 300 quoted by John Lewis and 1,000 quoted by Oakgate, the developers.

There is also the problem of increased traffic, which is of concern to the council’s own transport section who quote there could be up to 4,000 extra traffic movements on Saturdays. In the interests of the city this development should be rejected.

David Mothersdale, Elmfield Terrace, York.

Comments(14)

long distance depressive says...
9:26am Thu 17 May 12

Community Stadium-nope, Good quality stores-nope, new athletics facilities-nope, tourists rejecting York as a venue-nope, vested interests of a few 'elitist' city centre traders-YES

The Great Buda says...
10:33am Thu 17 May 12

Exactly long distance depressive; those against this development are Anti-York.

Joey Rancor says...
1:07pm Thu 17 May 12

With all this "losing trade" malarkey, perhaps the city centre traders should be more considerate to the York locals who work in offices from 9-5 every day and don't want to spend they weekend fighting past tourists to get to a handful of shops.

If these shops opened into the evening, as they do at Monks Cross and Clifton Moor, they'd pull in much more trade in the long run.

Mentos says...
6:26pm Thu 17 May 12

Good grief Michael Gwilliam, did you ever make a mistake or felt ambivalent over an issue in your professional career. Your last paragraph betrays the reasons you make your previous points

Buzz Light-year says...
7:45pm Thu 17 May 12

Closing shots?
You're having a laugh!
This pointless dichotomy will give us thousands more comments and letters, like, until further notice yeah.

YorkToff says...
8:14pm Thu 17 May 12

Yawn!

Even AndyD says...
8:46am Fri 18 May 12

Mentos wrote:
Good grief Michael Gwilliam, did you ever make a mistake or felt ambivalent over an issue in your professional career. Your last paragraph betrays the reasons you make your previous points
Planning officer from the South East, now living in Malton, trying to dictate through OTT hyperbole what should happen in York. 'Moral cowardice' isn't something you should level at anyone you've never even met imho. Letter just sounds ridiculous an pompous - if he'd used measured language he'd have made his point far more effectively.

Mr Crabtree says...
11:53am Fri 18 May 12

Even AndyD wrote:
Mentos wrote: Good grief Michael Gwilliam, did you ever make a mistake or felt ambivalent over an issue in your professional career. Your last paragraph betrays the reasons you make your previous points
Planning officer from the South East, now living in Malton, trying to dictate through OTT hyperbole what should happen in York. 'Moral cowardice' isn't something you should level at anyone you've never even met imho. Letter just sounds ridiculous an pompous - if he'd used measured language he'd have made his point far more effectively.
Your criticism is ignorant. You obviously have no understanding of the professional ethics involved, and rather than respect the views of an ex-Chief Planner, you label him as 'ridiculous' and 'pompous' .

You ignored the valid point that Mr Gwilliam was making, that planning officers are paid to give guidance one way or the other. Sitting on the fence as Michael Slater has done, I am lead to understand, goes against guidance given by the RTPI, and is therefore a dereliction of duty.

Stand back, read your comment again, and you may realise that your description more accurately fits yourself, and you are the one who needs to used measured language instead of being ridiculous ? !!!

BTW, please remind us all, what part of your English Literature degree included Town Planning ethics ?

Mr Crabtree says...
12:02pm Fri 18 May 12

Mentos wrote:
Good grief Michael Gwilliam, did you ever make a mistake or felt ambivalent over an issue in your professional career. Your last paragraph betrays the reasons you make your previous points
'A mistake' - is that what you call it ?

A mistake is an error made through sloppy work, ignorance, carelessness, lack of concentration, etc etc.

This was a carefully considered, pre-meditated, politically pressured decision - it was not a mistake.

Ambivalence is a personal feeling, not a professional judgement. The planning grounds for refusal were undeniable, substantive and irrefutable, yet Michael Slater ducked making the right decision - it was professional negligence of the highest order, influenced by political interference. It certainly was moral cowardice. There is no excuse !

sperare e coraggio says...
12:21pm Fri 18 May 12

Michael Gwilliam is to be applauded for speaking out and doing so openly in a letter to the local newspaper. His comments are entirely correct. The lack of a formal recommendation may not be illegal but it is certainly malpractice. The Royal Town Planning Institute has made clear that it's members who work for local authorities in these positions have a professional duty to give full and impartial advice with a recommendation based strictly on planning issues. Michael Slater failed to do this. Why? Because he was pressured by his political masters? It would certainly seem so. It is difficult to believe he would voluntarily suggest leaving an open recommendation. (ie sitting on the fence and ducking out of his responsibility).
Councillor Alexander and his politburo certainly didn't want any recommendation of refusal did they? When this case goes to The Secretary of State (or is referred to A High Court Judge) the lack of a proper recommendation will reflect very badly on the City of York Council.

sharpish says...
4:31pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr C and s&c make valid and perceptive comments and I too applaud Mr Gwilliam for speaking out.

What was so depressing, was the lack of any debate on the implications for the LDF/Core Strategy during the meeting - a mere couple of minutes out of 8 hours - astonishing!!

These senior officers do not deserve to keep their jobs...........

Mr Crabtree says...
6:05pm Fri 18 May 12

Sharpish

Thank you for that.

The Council may have been able to duck the question of the implications this has on the LDF/Core Strategy at the planning meeting, but, it will not go away.

They will attempt to use the approval as justification for throwing it out of the window, but, it makes a complete mockery of the system. It smacks of desperation, being forced to take this development because they have failed so abysmally with the black hole they created with housing. This will not make up for it, and it's an attempt to win votes on the back of a very dodgy decision.

SHAME ON THE 11 traitors lead by Judas Alexander, who stabbed the LDF and York's future in the back in return for their 30 pieces of silver from Oakgate !

pedalling paul says...
8:18pm Fri 18 May 12

If ay of you had attended the opening of the meeting, you would have heard the Council's legal officer advising that Officers do not have to make a recommendation, and this is in fact the norm with some Planning Authorities.

Buzz Light-year says...
8:28pm Fri 18 May 12

Monday morning, I'm going to pop down to the uni and visit the literature department.
It's important for all undergraduates to know that as soon as they qualify, immediately and for the rest of their lives all their opinions, ideas, and thoughts are no longer valid, simply because of their chosen degree.

Have some manners, Crabtree. That was an unprovoked and unnecessary personal attack on Even AndyD.
And there's you always crying "but they started it!"
Hmmm.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree