£10m approved for York 'teardrop' bridge

York Press: £10m approved for York 'teardrop' bridge £10m approved for York 'teardrop' bridge

CITY leaders have rubber-stamped £10 million in funding for a new bridge allowing York’s key “teardrop” site to finally be developed.

The money from City of York Council’s Economic Infrastructure Fund (EIF) will pay for an access route opening up the York Central site – ultimately earmarked for 1,083 new homes as well as offices, restaurants, shops and a hotel – from the city’s former carriageworks.

The authority’s Labour cabinet approved the funding allocation last night. The council says the 26-hectare York Central scheme – which stalled in 2009 during the credit crunch – will create more than 8,000 full-time jobs and 6,700 construction roles, injecting about £600 million a year into York’s economy.

All the £28.5 million in the EIF – introduced in February 2012 and funded through borrowing and New Homes Bonus money – has now been committed to projects.

Some £500,000 of the York Central allocation will cover immediate costs, including transport, legal and consultancy fees, with details of how the remaining £9.5 million will be spent emerging early next year.

A land swap will result in a council-owned site next to Holgate Park being sold to Network Rail, which will in turn sell land next to the carriageworks to the authority for the bridge and access routes from the A59.

Work on the first new homes could start in 2015, with the final phase of the overall scheme beginning in 2019.

Council leader James Alexander said York Central had “phenomenal potential” as one of Europe’s largest city-centre brownfield development sites, but its landlocked nature had caused major difficulties.

He said: “It is the right time to allocate this funding, and it is a huge, huge step forward.”

Coun Alexander said the access point may not be permanent, but will mean construction traffic could enter the site for the development’s opening stages, including up to 400 homes.

He said the scheme must be “flexible” and adapt to market conditions, rather than following a “grand masterplan” approach.

Conservative councillor Chris Steward said he was glad EIF money was being used for “proper, tangible infrastructure”, but specific details were needed about what the £10 million would achieve and whether developers would provide match-funding.

He said: “Whatever its rights and wrongs, this scheme has lingered for years and hopefully it can now be done with proper cross-party involvement.”

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:27am Wed 4 Dec 13

roadwars says...

"Coun Alexander said the access point may not be permanent"
He could always make it a busses and taxis route after the development, then fine motorists £60 for using it, it would pay for itself in no time...
"Coun Alexander said the access point may not be permanent" He could always make it a busses and taxis route after the development, then fine motorists £60 for using it, it would pay for itself in no time... roadwars

9:42am Wed 4 Dec 13

uriahh says...

Would someone please direct us to a map showing where the bridge will be, the various phased areas for development and land swaps and the actual access route onto the A59. Is it on some York website? Why can't The Press produce such a detail - without it everyone's in the dark about what is intended and the consequences!
Would someone please direct us to a map showing where the bridge will be, the various phased areas for development and land swaps and the actual access route onto the A59. Is it on some York website? Why can't The Press produce such a detail - without it everyone's in the dark about what is intended and the consequences! uriahh

9:54am Wed 4 Dec 13

The OX says...

So much for the reason for the Lendal Bridge closing for better air and less traffic, 1100 new homes in Central so 2000 more cars something wrong somewhere
So much for the reason for the Lendal Bridge closing for better air and less traffic, 1100 new homes in Central so 2000 more cars something wrong somewhere The OX

10:14am Wed 4 Dec 13

uriahh says...

The OX wrote:
So much for the reason for the Lendal Bridge closing for better air and less traffic, 1100 new homes in Central so 2000 more cars something wrong somewhere
Or do they insist that all householders and even shoppers and businesses on this Site undertake not to use cars?

Why the provision for an altered access in the future? Is the initial access for construction traffic and the scheme will eventually have a totally new access?If so, where are the details of both these access routes?
[quote][p][bold]The OX[/bold] wrote: So much for the reason for the Lendal Bridge closing for better air and less traffic, 1100 new homes in Central so 2000 more cars something wrong somewhere[/p][/quote]Or do they insist that all householders and even shoppers and businesses on this Site undertake not to use cars? Why the provision for an altered access in the future? Is the initial access for construction traffic and the scheme will eventually have a totally new access?If so, where are the details of both these access routes? uriahh

10:25am Wed 4 Dec 13

asd says...

This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so.
This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so. asd

10:45am Wed 4 Dec 13

Jonthan says...

The OX wrote:
So much for the reason for the Lendal Bridge closing for better air and less traffic, 1100 new homes in Central so 2000 more cars something wrong somewhere
A bit of confused thinking here. The homes on the site will probably generate less traffic than if the site was entitely offices employing staff who commute by car.
I lives in central york, so I never need to drive to the city to shop and because my home is central, whenever I do use the car it is always to drive away from the city.
[quote][p][bold]The OX[/bold] wrote: So much for the reason for the Lendal Bridge closing for better air and less traffic, 1100 new homes in Central so 2000 more cars something wrong somewhere[/p][/quote]A bit of confused thinking here. The homes on the site will probably generate less traffic than if the site was entitely offices employing staff who commute by car. I lives in central york, so I never need to drive to the city to shop and because my home is central, whenever I do use the car it is always to drive away from the city. Jonthan

10:47am Wed 4 Dec 13

JasBro says...

So, 1,000 new homes, 8,000 new jobs, £10m on a temporary bridge, but no overall plan, and no ideas as to how all the extra traffic will access the area?

Surely a project of this size needs a little more thought?
So, 1,000 new homes, 8,000 new jobs, £10m on a temporary bridge, but no overall plan, and no ideas as to how all the extra traffic will access the area? Surely a project of this size needs a little more thought? JasBro

11:05am Wed 4 Dec 13

uriahh says...

asd wrote:
This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so.
So, trust us we're politicians! LOL
Why don't they publish the outline details and maps for public appraisal to illustrate the scheme before committing taxpayer money to the Project. Who's to say we are not buying yet another pig in a poke, and free gifts to developers!
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so.[/p][/quote]So, trust us we're politicians! LOL Why don't they publish the outline details and maps for public appraisal to illustrate the scheme before committing taxpayer money to the Project. Who's to say we are not buying yet another pig in a poke, and free gifts to developers! uriahh

11:08am Wed 4 Dec 13

The OX says...

Jonthan wrote:
The OX wrote:
So much for the reason for the Lendal Bridge closing for better air and less traffic, 1100 new homes in Central so 2000 more cars something wrong somewhere
A bit of confused thinking here. The homes on the site will probably generate less traffic than if the site was entitely offices employing staff who commute by car.
I lives in central york, so I never need to drive to the city to shop and because my home is central, whenever I do use the car it is always to drive away from the city.
!100 new homes and 8000 new jobs for the new shops and offices the qoute for 2000 cars was a bit on the low side dont you think, I live in central and have a car as I am a blue badge holder, and only go in to town once in a blue moon, I shop out of York, how do you think the 8000 new jobs ppl will get to work ? and when planing you must have one parking space per house, so thats 1100 more
[quote][p][bold]Jonthan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The OX[/bold] wrote: So much for the reason for the Lendal Bridge closing for better air and less traffic, 1100 new homes in Central so 2000 more cars something wrong somewhere[/p][/quote]A bit of confused thinking here. The homes on the site will probably generate less traffic than if the site was entitely offices employing staff who commute by car. I lives in central york, so I never need to drive to the city to shop and because my home is central, whenever I do use the car it is always to drive away from the city.[/p][/quote]!100 new homes and 8000 new jobs for the new shops and offices the qoute for 2000 cars was a bit on the low side dont you think, I live in central and have a car as I am a blue badge holder, and only go in to town once in a blue moon, I shop out of York, how do you think the 8000 new jobs ppl will get to work ? and when planing you must have one parking space per house, so thats 1100 more The OX

11:25am Wed 4 Dec 13

Kevin Turvey says...

It is a large area that is proposed to be re-developed and someone is going to make a lot of money however:
It is an example of yet another asset owned by the country this time in the form of unused railway infrastructure that has been abandoned to be sold off to the greater god of quick return rather than long term retention for the good of the country as a whole that paid for it in the first place.
It could have been redeveloped as a major goods/freight area giving the obvious green improvements of getting more long distance lorry journeys off the roads freeing them up for car drivers and motorcyclists.
Who in their right minds wants to spend their own money on a property that is flanked on at least two sides by a railway line that is built on asbestos, PCB’s, Oil, diesel and god knows what else contaminated ground? I would not be planting any vegetables in the back garden!
Think of the noise all night long from freight trains sat idle ticking over at a red signal outside the open window of your flat on a summer’s night!
The constant noise of traffic from the close proximity roads and rail traffic, train announcements from the station and accelerating and braking HST’s going past.
My prediction it will be built mainly of crammed in soulless flats filled with people who some have bought but mostly part owned or rented and the obviously social issues this brings.
There again as a used car salesman friend once said to me ‘there is a sucker for every seat!’
I suppose they are better there fenced in where you know where they are than near me.
I wonder is James Alexander has his eyes on one of the no doubt listed as top properties?
Although I suggest with his past evidential financial acumen it will be rented but by then he will be back working part time at the camera shop after his mayhem causing misadventure in local politics comes to the inevitable conclusion faster than he thinks.
It is a large area that is proposed to be re-developed and someone is going to make a lot of money however: It is an example of yet another asset owned by the country this time in the form of unused railway infrastructure that has been abandoned to be sold off to the greater god of quick return rather than long term retention for the good of the country as a whole that paid for it in the first place. It could have been redeveloped as a major goods/freight area giving the obvious green improvements of getting more long distance lorry journeys off the roads freeing them up for car drivers and motorcyclists. Who in their right minds wants to spend their own money on a property that is flanked on at least two sides by a railway line that is built on asbestos, PCB’s, Oil, diesel and god knows what else contaminated ground? I would not be planting any vegetables in the back garden! Think of the noise all night long from freight trains sat idle ticking over at a red signal outside the open window of your flat on a summer’s night! The constant noise of traffic from the close proximity roads and rail traffic, train announcements from the station and accelerating and braking HST’s going past. My prediction it will be built mainly of crammed in soulless flats filled with people who some have bought but mostly part owned or rented and the obviously social issues this brings. There again as a used car salesman friend once said to me ‘there is a sucker for every seat!’ I suppose they are better there fenced in where you know where they are than near me. I wonder is James Alexander has his eyes on one of the no doubt listed as top properties? Although I suggest with his past evidential financial acumen it will be rented but by then he will be back working part time at the camera shop after his mayhem causing misadventure in local politics comes to the inevitable conclusion faster than he thinks. Kevin Turvey

11:53am Wed 4 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

Jonthan wrote:
The OX wrote: So much for the reason for the Lendal Bridge closing for better air and less traffic, 1100 new homes in Central so 2000 more cars something wrong somewhere
A bit of confused thinking here. The homes on the site will probably generate less traffic than if the site was entitely offices employing staff who commute by car. I lives in central york, so I never need to drive to the city to shop and because my home is central, whenever I do use the car it is always to drive away from the city.
How do you get back ?
[quote][p][bold]Jonthan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The OX[/bold] wrote: So much for the reason for the Lendal Bridge closing for better air and less traffic, 1100 new homes in Central so 2000 more cars something wrong somewhere[/p][/quote]A bit of confused thinking here. The homes on the site will probably generate less traffic than if the site was entitely offices employing staff who commute by car. I lives in central york, so I never need to drive to the city to shop and because my home is central, whenever I do use the car it is always to drive away from the city.[/p][/quote]How do you get back ? Rocking Horse

11:56am Wed 4 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

asd wrote:
This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so.
Actually it's only good news if there are guarantees that it leads to investment and development, otherwise it's just a blind punt, and IMO likely to fail !
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so.[/p][/quote]Actually it's only good news if there are guarantees that it leads to investment and development, otherwise it's just a blind punt, and IMO likely to fail ! Rocking Horse

12:08pm Wed 4 Dec 13

yorkie71 says...

All for development initiatives, but why does a Bridge that is temporary cost £10million ???

"Coun Alexander said the access point may not be permanent, but will mean construction traffic could enter the site for the development’s opening stages, including up to 400 homes."
All for development initiatives, but why does a Bridge that is temporary cost £10million ??? "Coun Alexander said the access point may not be permanent, but will mean construction traffic could enter the site for the development’s opening stages, including up to 400 homes." yorkie71

12:12pm Wed 4 Dec 13

anti-rant says...

Inject £600 million a year into the York economy? Really? I'd like to know how they came about that figure.
Inject £600 million a year into the York economy? Really? I'd like to know how they came about that figure. anti-rant

12:23pm Wed 4 Dec 13

sukh says...

Some sort of adequate permanent access to the new homes will be needed. I well remember the distress when we had to hire another vehicle and decant our belongings when we moved into Martin's Court and our Scottish removal van discovered it could get under neither of the bridges on Leeman road!
Some sort of adequate permanent access to the new homes will be needed. I well remember the distress when we had to hire another vehicle and decant our belongings when we moved into Martin's Court and our Scottish removal van discovered it could get under neither of the bridges on Leeman road! sukh

12:46pm Wed 4 Dec 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

JasBro wrote:
So, 1,000 new homes, 8,000 new jobs, £10m on a temporary bridge, but no overall plan, and no ideas as to how all the extra traffic will access the area?

Surely a project of this size needs a little more thought?
I'm willing to be convinced but have similar questions to JasBro.

£10 Million bridge.

8,000 jobs (Local unemployment less than 3,000 before Primark, John Lewis etc).

1083 homes, whats the likelyhood of office, restaurant, shop and hotel workers being able to afford to buy them.

Needs some serious looking at unless of course there is some magical infrastructure solution.
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: So, 1,000 new homes, 8,000 new jobs, £10m on a temporary bridge, but no overall plan, and no ideas as to how all the extra traffic will access the area? Surely a project of this size needs a little more thought?[/p][/quote]I'm willing to be convinced but have similar questions to JasBro. £10 Million bridge. 8,000 jobs (Local unemployment less than 3,000 before Primark, John Lewis etc). 1083 homes, whats the likelyhood of office, restaurant, shop and hotel workers being able to afford to buy them. Needs some serious looking at unless of course there is some magical infrastructure solution. YOUWILLDOASISAY

1:05pm Wed 4 Dec 13

mersaultdies says...

uriahh wrote:
Would someone please direct us to a map showing where the bridge will be, the various phased areas for development and land swaps and the actual access route onto the A59. Is it on some York website? Why can't The Press produce such a detail - without it everyone's in the dark about what is intended and the consequences!
Somewhere on the CYC website there is a document with the initial plans for York Central. It is, in general, as vague as these council morons appear to be when giving the go-ahead for spending lots of money. However, it does show two possible locations for a permanent bridge to be erected across the rail tracks. I can't remember exact details of where to find it and (theoretically) there should be updated plans (otherwise why would the council green light 10 million quid) but the bridge options drawn up then were very clear.

The first option left the A59 somewhere around Holgate Park Drive, to the west of the old carriageworks. The second option left the A59 around Chancery Rise, east of the carriageworks, looking like it would join on to the back end of Cleveland Street on its way over (hence why I didn't move to Cleveland Street). Aside from these two options it may well be that they decide to just build a temporary bridge somewhere else, so as to pour more public money into the hands of whatever private contractors are given free reign with this, backslapping all around.

I hope that I am not the only person who finds it very disturbing that money is being promised without public consultation around a planning document (resurrecting one from over 5 years ago if anyone happens to bring it up surely doesn't count).

On top of this, the talk of being flexible and adapting to market conditions as usual means building companies will be promised whatever they need to meet their bottom line profit percentage margin so that someone will take on the different elements of creating the final site. That will be our money subsidising their shareholders. It also means that the developers and then the multi-national chain retail and service companies that get the opportunity to make lots of money from the site will be able to do whatever they want - no 'grand masterplan' needed, because why bother creating the right sort of housing, the right amount of green space, the right local travel connections and everything else that goes into proper development of brownfield sites when you can just farm the whole thing to businesses whose raison d'etre is profit - NOT PEOPLE.

One final thing (this time based on gut instinct rather than experience or facts): This development will feature low-cost housing and flats to ensure that the west and south-west of York continues its ghettoisation. At the same time, the gentrification of Piccadilly and Walmgate will continue apace, so that there becomes a true corridor of safety for rich people, sweeping from the river, through Fishergate and Fulford and out to the University. If you live in a housing-association-
maintained building in either of those areas now - see you in west York in a few years!

FCYC.
[quote][p][bold]uriahh[/bold] wrote: Would someone please direct us to a map showing where the bridge will be, the various phased areas for development and land swaps and the actual access route onto the A59. Is it on some York website? Why can't The Press produce such a detail - without it everyone's in the dark about what is intended and the consequences![/p][/quote]Somewhere on the CYC website there is a document with the initial plans for York Central. It is, in general, as vague as these council morons appear to be when giving the go-ahead for spending lots of money. However, it does show two possible locations for a permanent bridge to be erected across the rail tracks. I can't remember exact details of where to find it and (theoretically) there should be updated plans (otherwise why would the council green light 10 million quid) but the bridge options drawn up then were very clear. The first option left the A59 somewhere around Holgate Park Drive, to the west of the old carriageworks. The second option left the A59 around Chancery Rise, east of the carriageworks, looking like it would join on to the back end of Cleveland Street on its way over (hence why I didn't move to Cleveland Street). Aside from these two options it may well be that they decide to just build a temporary bridge somewhere else, so as to pour more public money into the hands of whatever private contractors are given free reign with this, backslapping all around. I hope that I am not the only person who finds it very disturbing that money is being promised without public consultation around a planning document (resurrecting one from over 5 years ago if anyone happens to bring it up surely doesn't count). On top of this, the talk of being flexible and adapting to market conditions as usual means building companies will be promised whatever they need to meet their bottom line profit percentage margin so that someone will take on the different elements of creating the final site. That will be our money subsidising their shareholders. It also means that the developers and then the multi-national chain retail and service companies that get the opportunity to make lots of money from the site will be able to do whatever they want - no 'grand masterplan' needed, because why bother creating the right sort of housing, the right amount of green space, the right local travel connections and everything else that goes into proper development of brownfield sites when you can just farm the whole thing to businesses whose raison d'etre is profit - NOT PEOPLE. One final thing (this time based on gut instinct rather than experience or facts): This development will feature low-cost housing and flats to ensure that the west and south-west of York continues its ghettoisation. At the same time, the gentrification of Piccadilly and Walmgate will continue apace, so that there becomes a true corridor of safety for rich people, sweeping from the river, through Fishergate and Fulford and out to the University. If you live in a housing-association- maintained building in either of those areas now - see you in west York in a few years! FCYC. mersaultdies

1:18pm Wed 4 Dec 13

AB- says...

Public inquiry called for, like Community Stadium will take years to get going if ever. If I lived near this site I would start breeding crested newts, that should sort things out ??
Public inquiry called for, like Community Stadium will take years to get going if ever. If I lived near this site I would start breeding crested newts, that should sort things out ?? AB-

1:36pm Wed 4 Dec 13

asd says...

uriahh wrote:
asd wrote: This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so.
So, trust us we're politicians! LOL Why don't they publish the outline details and maps for public appraisal to illustrate the scheme before committing taxpayer money to the Project. Who's to say we are not buying yet another pig in a poke, and free gifts to developers!
You could put yourself forward in the elections if you think its going to be such a bad thing for York. Everyone moans but who will actually do anything hmmmmm.
[quote][p][bold]uriahh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so.[/p][/quote]So, trust us we're politicians! LOL Why don't they publish the outline details and maps for public appraisal to illustrate the scheme before committing taxpayer money to the Project. Who's to say we are not buying yet another pig in a poke, and free gifts to developers![/p][/quote]You could put yourself forward in the elections if you think its going to be such a bad thing for York. Everyone moans but who will actually do anything hmmmmm. asd

1:38pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Fulfordian says...

Whatever happens, there will need to be permanent access to the site as even if all the non-operational sidings are removed for the development (which we can only assume they will), the area is still land-locked by operational lines.

The only available option has to be the A59, as the two overbridges on Leeman Road (Marble Arch & the junction with Kingsland Terrace are height restricted and not viable for the type of vehicles the development will attract - HGVs for deliveries to the retail area, etc. - not to mention removal vans for the residential areas. Off the A59, the 'road that goes to nowhere' (the SE corner of Holgate Park Drive) is the most sensible option for the bridge, but even in its temporary or permanent state, the additional traffic the development will create is going to lead to hell on Boroughbride Road.

Having said that, I don't fully understand the 'land swap' that will happen - previous articles have shown photographs of the access through the old carriageworks site adjacent to Alliance House. God only knows what the residents of Cleveland Street will make of that.

In principle, I'm for this development, but there is so little transparency in the Council that I cannot be sure what, if any, forethought has gone into this other than "We need a bridge, ok?". That I fear is closer to reality than I originally thought.
Whatever happens, there will need to be permanent access to the site as even if all the non-operational sidings are removed for the development (which we can only assume they will), the area is still land-locked by operational lines. The only available option has to be the A59, as the two overbridges on Leeman Road (Marble Arch & the junction with Kingsland Terrace are height restricted and not viable for the type of vehicles the development will attract - HGVs for deliveries to the retail area, etc. - not to mention removal vans for the residential areas. Off the A59, the 'road that goes to nowhere' (the SE corner of Holgate Park Drive) is the most sensible option for the bridge, but even in its temporary or permanent state, the additional traffic the development will create is going to lead to hell on Boroughbride Road. Having said that, I don't fully understand the 'land swap' that will happen - previous articles have shown photographs of the access through the old carriageworks site adjacent to Alliance House. God only knows what the residents of Cleveland Street will make of that. In principle, I'm for this development, but there is so little transparency in the Council that I cannot be sure what, if any, forethought has gone into this other than "We need a bridge, ok?". That I fear is closer to reality than I originally thought. Fulfordian

1:44pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Lastv8 says...

Can anyone show me a map of which areas inside the teardrop are to be redeveloped?
Can anyone show me a map of which areas inside the teardrop are to be redeveloped? Lastv8

2:13pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Bo Jolly says...

"£10 million in funding for a new bridge..." Good, sensible move. "...Coun Alexander said the access point may not be permanent..." Oh.

Is this for real? Are they *really* planning to use our money to build a bridge just so that they can then close it to traffic? It's like a Kafkaesque nightmare.
"£10 million in funding for a new bridge..." Good, sensible move. "...Coun Alexander said the access point may not be permanent..." Oh. Is this for real? Are they *really* planning to use our money to build a bridge just so that they can then close it to traffic? It's like a Kafkaesque nightmare. Bo Jolly

2:20pm Wed 4 Dec 13

pedalling paul says...

There is provision on the internal roads of Holgate Park (CPP etc) estate for a future bridge over the rail lines. Look for the roundabout that currently has an "arm to nowhere"
There is provision on the internal roads of Holgate Park (CPP etc) estate for a future bridge over the rail lines. Look for the roundabout that currently has an "arm to nowhere" pedalling paul

2:20pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Lastv8 says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
"£10 million in funding for a new bridge..." Good, sensible move. "...Coun Alexander said the access point may not be permanent..." Oh.

Is this for real? Are they *really* planning to use our money to build a bridge just so that they can then close it to traffic? It's like a Kafkaesque nightmare.
Sounds good to me, we're about to buy a house in Holgate so it will be nice to have a few things closer to hand.
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: "£10 million in funding for a new bridge..." Good, sensible move. "...Coun Alexander said the access point may not be permanent..." Oh. Is this for real? Are they *really* planning to use our money to build a bridge just so that they can then close it to traffic? It's like a Kafkaesque nightmare.[/p][/quote]Sounds good to me, we're about to buy a house in Holgate so it will be nice to have a few things closer to hand. Lastv8

2:22pm Wed 4 Dec 13

uriahh says...

asd wrote:
uriahh wrote:
asd wrote: This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so.
So, trust us we're politicians! LOL Why don't they publish the outline details and maps for public appraisal to illustrate the scheme before committing taxpayer money to the Project. Who's to say we are not buying yet another pig in a poke, and free gifts to developers!
You could put yourself forward in the elections if you think its going to be such a bad thing for York. Everyone moans but who will actually do anything hmmmmm.
Genuinely, I'm too honest to be a politician!
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uriahh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so.[/p][/quote]So, trust us we're politicians! LOL Why don't they publish the outline details and maps for public appraisal to illustrate the scheme before committing taxpayer money to the Project. Who's to say we are not buying yet another pig in a poke, and free gifts to developers![/p][/quote]You could put yourself forward in the elections if you think its going to be such a bad thing for York. Everyone moans but who will actually do anything hmmmmm.[/p][/quote]Genuinely, I'm too honest to be a politician! uriahh

2:30pm Wed 4 Dec 13

dafmeuk says...

Anything new always seems to bring out the "nay-sayers", but ultimatley this has to be good for the City of York.

York is extremely constrained by old architecture and infrastructure, which makes it very difficult for any significant development to ever happen. For a city to thrive, it needs to evolve with the times, and this area of land is York's one and only chance for significant city centre development. A good mix of homes, offices and retail in walking distance of the city centre and next to the station is just what is needed to keep the city alive, relevant in the UK and attractive to inward investment.

It is good news that this is moving again. The fact that the bridge may be temporary is a sign that there are bigger plans afoot as the site evolves and devlops. There's still the feasibility at a later date of further road development through the old British Sugar site and up to the ring road at the Great North Way on the ring road (Honda dealership / BP petrol station roundabout), for example. This bridge is just 'cracking the nut' of this area being inpenetrable for significant development.
Anything new always seems to bring out the "nay-sayers", but ultimatley this has to be good for the City of York. York is extremely constrained by old architecture and infrastructure, which makes it very difficult for any significant development to ever happen. For a city to thrive, it needs to evolve with the times, and this area of land is York's one and only chance for significant city centre development. A good mix of homes, offices and retail in walking distance of the city centre and next to the station is just what is needed to keep the city alive, relevant in the UK and attractive to inward investment. It is good news that this is moving again. The fact that the bridge may be temporary is a sign that there are bigger plans afoot as the site evolves and devlops. There's still the feasibility at a later date of further road development through the old British Sugar site and up to the ring road at the Great North Way on the ring road (Honda dealership / BP petrol station roundabout), for example. This bridge is just 'cracking the nut' of this area being inpenetrable for significant development. dafmeuk

3:12pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Dave Ruddock says...

As i have said before re site access,. if this brodge is now NOT going to be used after the building then wat build it, what access roads are going to b built, I tale it no Plans or any clue as to accessafter, there ar asccess on the Leaman road sideand at the area next to NRM. also I believe only the frieght line would be bridged , redirect frieght movements outside york, as it does not unload here, to passanger line is on the other edge, £10 M for a parttime bridge come on move the lines.
As i have said before re site access,. if this brodge is now NOT going to be used after the building then wat build it, what access roads are going to b built, I tale it no Plans or any clue as to accessafter, there ar asccess on the Leaman road sideand at the area next to NRM. also I believe only the frieght line would be bridged , redirect frieght movements outside york, as it does not unload here, to passanger line is on the other edge, £10 M for a parttime bridge come on move the lines. Dave Ruddock

3:58pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Lastv8 says...

uriahh wrote:
Would someone please direct us to a map showing where the bridge will be, the various phased areas for development and land swaps and the actual access route onto the A59. Is it on some York website? Why can't The Press produce such a detail - without it everyone's in the dark about what is intended and the consequences!
I've found this: http://stevegalloway
.mycouncillor.org.uk
/2011/11/30/york-nor
th-west-development-
%E2%80%93-transport-
arrangements-publish
ed-but-hidden-from-r
esidents/
[quote][p][bold]uriahh[/bold] wrote: Would someone please direct us to a map showing where the bridge will be, the various phased areas for development and land swaps and the actual access route onto the A59. Is it on some York website? Why can't The Press produce such a detail - without it everyone's in the dark about what is intended and the consequences![/p][/quote]I've found this: http://stevegalloway .mycouncillor.org.uk /2011/11/30/york-nor th-west-development- %E2%80%93-transport- arrangements-publish ed-but-hidden-from-r esidents/ Lastv8

4:03pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Fulfordian says...

pedalling paul wrote:
There is provision on the internal roads of Holgate Park (CPP etc) estate for a future bridge over the rail lines. Look for the roundabout that currently has an "arm to nowhere"
That's exactly what I said Paul and I agree with you - BUT; the article suggests the land swap is for a different piece of land, quote:

'A land swap will result in a council-owned site next to Holgate Park being sold to Network Rail, which will in turn sell land next to the carriageworks to the authority for the bridge and access routes from the A59.'

The photos that accompanied the original article showed the access road (Chancery Rise) through the former time office and alongside Alliance House. Construction of an access bridge at that point is virtually impossible due to the difference in levels between Alliance House & Cleveland Street; there is a huge retaining wall in that position - unless Alliance House is to be demolished for the bridge. So little detail available. Look at the satellite view on Google Maps. The alignment is very, very tight.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: There is provision on the internal roads of Holgate Park (CPP etc) estate for a future bridge over the rail lines. Look for the roundabout that currently has an "arm to nowhere"[/p][/quote]That's exactly what I said Paul and I agree with you - BUT; the article suggests the land swap is for a different piece of land, quote: 'A land swap will result in a council-owned site next to Holgate Park being sold to Network Rail, which will in turn sell land next to the carriageworks to the authority for the bridge and access routes from the A59.' The photos that accompanied the original article showed the access road (Chancery Rise) through the former time office and alongside Alliance House. Construction of an access bridge at that point is virtually impossible due to the difference in levels between Alliance House & Cleveland Street; there is a huge retaining wall in that position - unless Alliance House is to be demolished for the bridge. So little detail available. Look at the satellite view on Google Maps. The alignment is very, very tight. Fulfordian

4:16pm Wed 4 Dec 13

uriahh says...

dafmeuk wrote:
Anything new always seems to bring out the "nay-sayers", but ultimatley this has to be good for the City of York.

York is extremely constrained by old architecture and infrastructure, which makes it very difficult for any significant development to ever happen. For a city to thrive, it needs to evolve with the times, and this area of land is York's one and only chance for significant city centre development. A good mix of homes, offices and retail in walking distance of the city centre and next to the station is just what is needed to keep the city alive, relevant in the UK and attractive to inward investment.

It is good news that this is moving again. The fact that the bridge may be temporary is a sign that there are bigger plans afoot as the site evolves and devlops. There's still the feasibility at a later date of further road development through the old British Sugar site and up to the ring road at the Great North Way on the ring road (Honda dealership / BP petrol station roundabout), for example. This bridge is just 'cracking the nut' of this area being inpenetrable for significant development.
I think you are missing the point! No one is suggesting that this land should not be developed. It should - otherwise it's an unaffordable wasted asset. The problem is York's record on infrastructure developments and transport planning which in the passt has been abysmal and provides no confidence for the future. Note:

1. the original P&R Schemes (a very good idea but badly managed and detailed and some now requiring expensive modifications and too often located too near existing roundabouts causing complex traffic movements and congestion),
2. the Ring Road (undersized from the start in the 80's, particularly the number of lanes at roundabout entries and exits, the 3 attempts to get the Rawcliffe roundabout right, and others undersized)
3. the Bendy Buses saga
4. road under-capacities within the roads feeding the Ring Road to and from York, and particularly the improvements needed to accommodate the intended new businesses, shopping malls and housing developments intended within these areas.
5. etc. etc.

At the moment there is little trust in our local politicians, particularly in the way money is being wasted on grand projects. York's performance and premature commitments and contributions to contracts and taxation funded costs/damages on the Allerton Incinerator is also another example of the environment in which such Projects are being poorly managed and taxpayers are exposed to ever increasing costs.

In these circumstances the Council Tax Payers and others using York facilities have a reasonable right to expect some assurances before further commitments are made that this project will being carried through and not be a white elephant or a freebie for developers, will not involve any significant public funding except possibly monies for the low cost housing provided via Housing Associations, and details of accesses and how the new development's traffic will not further congest the roads around it. We need to see the consequences and total costs of what is intended, and not some PR glossy brochure wish lists and schedules of laudable but very general attributes.
[quote][p][bold]dafmeuk[/bold] wrote: Anything new always seems to bring out the "nay-sayers", but ultimatley this has to be good for the City of York. York is extremely constrained by old architecture and infrastructure, which makes it very difficult for any significant development to ever happen. For a city to thrive, it needs to evolve with the times, and this area of land is York's one and only chance for significant city centre development. A good mix of homes, offices and retail in walking distance of the city centre and next to the station is just what is needed to keep the city alive, relevant in the UK and attractive to inward investment. It is good news that this is moving again. The fact that the bridge may be temporary is a sign that there are bigger plans afoot as the site evolves and devlops. There's still the feasibility at a later date of further road development through the old British Sugar site and up to the ring road at the Great North Way on the ring road (Honda dealership / BP petrol station roundabout), for example. This bridge is just 'cracking the nut' of this area being inpenetrable for significant development.[/p][/quote]I think you are missing the point! No one is suggesting that this land should not be developed. It should - otherwise it's an unaffordable wasted asset. The problem is York's record on infrastructure developments and transport planning which in the passt has been abysmal and provides no confidence for the future. Note: 1. the original P&R Schemes (a very good idea but badly managed and detailed and some now requiring expensive modifications and too often located too near existing roundabouts causing complex traffic movements and congestion), 2. the Ring Road (undersized from the start in the 80's, particularly the number of lanes at roundabout entries and exits, the 3 attempts to get the Rawcliffe roundabout right, and others undersized) 3. the Bendy Buses saga 4. road under-capacities within the roads feeding the Ring Road to and from York, and particularly the improvements needed to accommodate the intended new businesses, shopping malls and housing developments intended within these areas. 5. etc. etc. At the moment there is little trust in our local politicians, particularly in the way money is being wasted on grand projects. York's performance and premature commitments and contributions to contracts and taxation funded costs/damages on the Allerton Incinerator is also another example of the environment in which such Projects are being poorly managed and taxpayers are exposed to ever increasing costs. In these circumstances the Council Tax Payers and others using York facilities have a reasonable right to expect some assurances before further commitments are made that this project will being carried through and not be a white elephant or a freebie for developers, will not involve any significant public funding except possibly monies for the low cost housing provided via Housing Associations, and details of accesses and how the new development's traffic will not further congest the roads around it. We need to see the consequences and total costs of what is intended, and not some PR glossy brochure wish lists and schedules of laudable but very general attributes. uriahh

4:44pm Wed 4 Dec 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

uriahh, you might want to read this contribution from Lastv8.

The costs of the bridge is only a start. Also states the Council looks set to carry out its threat to close Leeman Road near the Marble Arch bridge.

Lot's more £millions yet to be spent.

Link:
http://stevegalloway

.mycouncillor.org.uk

/2011/11/30/york-nor

th-west-development-

%E2%80%93-transport-

arrangements-publish

ed-but-hidden-from-r

esidents/
uriahh, you might want to read this contribution from Lastv8. The costs of the bridge is only a start. Also states the Council looks set to carry out its threat to close Leeman Road near the Marble Arch bridge. Lot's more £millions yet to be spent. Link: http://stevegalloway .mycouncillor.org.uk /2011/11/30/york-nor th-west-development- %E2%80%93-transport- arrangements-publish ed-but-hidden-from-r esidents/ YOUWILLDOASISAY

5:04pm Wed 4 Dec 13

mersaultdies says...

dafmeuk wrote:
Anything new always seems to bring out the "nay-sayers", but ultimatley this has to be good for the City of York.

York is extremely constrained by old architecture and infrastructure, which makes it very difficult for any significant development to ever happen. For a city to thrive, it needs to evolve with the times, and this area of land is York's one and only chance for significant city centre development. A good mix of homes, offices and retail in walking distance of the city centre and next to the station is just what is needed to keep the city alive, relevant in the UK and attractive to inward investment.

It is good news that this is moving again. The fact that the bridge may be temporary is a sign that there are bigger plans afoot as the site evolves and devlops. There's still the feasibility at a later date of further road development through the old British Sugar site and up to the ring road at the Great North Way on the ring road (Honda dealership / BP petrol station roundabout), for example. This bridge is just 'cracking the nut' of this area being inpenetrable for significant development.
Personally, I'm usually an 'aye-sayer'.

HOWEVER, raising concerns about the lack of planning and consultation that is going into the most important new development in York should be a minimum requirement for anyone who gives a toss.

Picture the scene: You (in your car, most likely) crawl out of town, almost gridlocked, from Leeman Road, and take a left turn through the new development. You roll slowly past the young people from the new All Saints school visiting the McDonald's, past the Burger King, past the Holiday Inn Express, past the Tesco Express, past the Wetherspoon's, past the Sainsbury's Local, past the Yates', past a host of other soulless anytown corporations. You leave the thriving fast food/beer/stag do hub behind, and start moving through the multi-storied 'apartments', timber-framed, poorly insulated and finished and move into the section for OMG! ACTUAL houses, though obviously these are all small new build terraces of the same cheap quality as the even smaller flats, the walls or fences enclosing almost three sides of the development looming around the back edge of the residential area, filling up with litter and old couches lacking cushions, and eventually you move seamlessly (20 mins later) to the junction with the A59, before turning right and continuing your journey to west York or the west beyond York.

To be honest - I'd rather the council decided to make it a pleasant place for people to live, rather than being led by market forces into dumping George Hudson Street into Monks Cross Retail Park and then plonking that whole edifice into a newer version of Walmgate.
[quote][p][bold]dafmeuk[/bold] wrote: Anything new always seems to bring out the "nay-sayers", but ultimatley this has to be good for the City of York. York is extremely constrained by old architecture and infrastructure, which makes it very difficult for any significant development to ever happen. For a city to thrive, it needs to evolve with the times, and this area of land is York's one and only chance for significant city centre development. A good mix of homes, offices and retail in walking distance of the city centre and next to the station is just what is needed to keep the city alive, relevant in the UK and attractive to inward investment. It is good news that this is moving again. The fact that the bridge may be temporary is a sign that there are bigger plans afoot as the site evolves and devlops. There's still the feasibility at a later date of further road development through the old British Sugar site and up to the ring road at the Great North Way on the ring road (Honda dealership / BP petrol station roundabout), for example. This bridge is just 'cracking the nut' of this area being inpenetrable for significant development.[/p][/quote]Personally, I'm usually an 'aye-sayer'. HOWEVER, raising concerns about the lack of planning and consultation that is going into the most important new development in York should be a minimum requirement for anyone who gives a toss. Picture the scene: You (in your car, most likely) crawl out of town, almost gridlocked, from Leeman Road, and take a left turn through the new development. You roll slowly past the young people from the new All Saints school visiting the McDonald's, past the Burger King, past the Holiday Inn Express, past the Tesco Express, past the Wetherspoon's, past the Sainsbury's Local, past the Yates', past a host of other soulless anytown corporations. You leave the thriving fast food/beer/stag do hub behind, and start moving through the multi-storied 'apartments', timber-framed, poorly insulated and finished and move into the section for OMG! ACTUAL houses, though obviously these are all small new build terraces of the same cheap quality as the even smaller flats, the walls or fences enclosing almost three sides of the development looming around the back edge of the residential area, filling up with litter and old couches lacking cushions, and eventually you move seamlessly (20 mins later) to the junction with the A59, before turning right and continuing your journey to west York or the west beyond York. To be honest - I'd rather the council decided to make it a pleasant place for people to live, rather than being led by market forces into dumping George Hudson Street into Monks Cross Retail Park and then plonking that whole edifice into a newer version of Walmgate. mersaultdies

6:04pm Wed 4 Dec 13

gmsgop says...

uriahh wrote:
asd wrote:
uriahh wrote:
asd wrote: This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so.
So, trust us we're politicians! LOL Why don't they publish the outline details and maps for public appraisal to illustrate the scheme before committing taxpayer money to the Project. Who's to say we are not buying yet another pig in a poke, and free gifts to developers!
You could put yourself forward in the elections if you think its going to be such a bad thing for York. Everyone moans but who will actually do anything hmmmmm.
Genuinely, I'm too honest to be a politician!
Yes, I was asked also - (yesterday press ) seems some people on this site think you can't have an opinion if you don't stand as a Councillor and you cant make a contribution if you are not a Councillor! , or you can't have a valid opinion if haven't lived in York all your life , or if you are middle class!! wrong wrong wrong:)
This scheme like the johnnycomelately bid to be a non-voting member of West Yorkshire smell of desperation and rank unprofessionalism.

Gwen Swinburn
[quote][p][bold]uriahh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uriahh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: This is actually good news and all parties must pull together for a change. This is early stages and I guess that more detailed information will be available when each stage is due to start, well I hope so.[/p][/quote]So, trust us we're politicians! LOL Why don't they publish the outline details and maps for public appraisal to illustrate the scheme before committing taxpayer money to the Project. Who's to say we are not buying yet another pig in a poke, and free gifts to developers![/p][/quote]You could put yourself forward in the elections if you think its going to be such a bad thing for York. Everyone moans but who will actually do anything hmmmmm.[/p][/quote]Genuinely, I'm too honest to be a politician![/p][/quote]Yes, I was asked also - (yesterday press ) seems some people on this site think you can't have an opinion if you don't stand as a Councillor and you cant make a contribution if you are not a Councillor! , or you can't have a valid opinion if haven't lived in York all your life , or if you are middle class!! wrong wrong wrong:) This scheme like the johnnycomelately bid to be a non-voting member of West Yorkshire smell of desperation and rank unprofessionalism. Gwen Swinburn gmsgop

6:49pm Wed 4 Dec 13

JasBro says...

What's baffling here is that the British Sugar site development has a website, alternative plans, public consultations and feedback opportunities.

But this, a bigger development, close to the centre of York, has nothing.
What's baffling here is that the British Sugar site development has a website, alternative plans, public consultations and feedback opportunities. But this, a bigger development, close to the centre of York, has nothing. JasBro

7:35pm Wed 4 Dec 13

uriahh says...

JasBro wrote:
What's baffling here is that the British Sugar site development has a website, alternative plans, public consultations and feedback opportunities.

But this, a bigger development, close to the centre of York, has nothing.
The difference is the BS Site is at a far later project stage with a definite proposal on the table from a Developer. This site is still a big fish pond still waiting for some Developer to fish in it, and with the YCC providing some bait!
I'm tempted to say, "Once bitten, twice shy!" But I don't think the YCC do on the job learning!
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: What's baffling here is that the British Sugar site development has a website, alternative plans, public consultations and feedback opportunities. But this, a bigger development, close to the centre of York, has nothing.[/p][/quote]The difference is the BS Site is at a far later project stage with a definite proposal on the table from a Developer. This site is still a big fish pond still waiting for some Developer to fish in it, and with the YCC providing some bait! I'm tempted to say, "Once bitten, twice shy!" But I don't think the YCC do on the job learning! uriahh

8:02pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Pinza-C55 says...

If money being wasted made a gurgling noise like water running down a plughole, this would surely do it.
Mark this page so in 5 years, when the site is still full of weeds, you remember.
If money being wasted made a gurgling noise like water running down a plughole, this would surely do it. Mark this page so in 5 years, when the site is still full of weeds, you remember. Pinza-C55

8:05pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Pinza-C55 says...

Kevin Turvey wrote:
It is a large area that is proposed to be re-developed and someone is going to make a lot of money however:
It is an example of yet another asset owned by the country this time in the form of unused railway infrastructure that has been abandoned to be sold off to the greater god of quick return rather than long term retention for the good of the country as a whole that paid for it in the first place.
It could have been redeveloped as a major goods/freight area giving the obvious green improvements of getting more long distance lorry journeys off the roads freeing them up for car drivers and motorcyclists.
Who in their right minds wants to spend their own money on a property that is flanked on at least two sides by a railway line that is built on asbestos, PCB’s, Oil, diesel and god knows what else contaminated ground? I would not be planting any vegetables in the back garden!
Think of the noise all night long from freight trains sat idle ticking over at a red signal outside the open window of your flat on a summer’s night!
The constant noise of traffic from the close proximity roads and rail traffic, train announcements from the station and accelerating and braking HST’s going past.
My prediction it will be built mainly of crammed in soulless flats filled with people who some have bought but mostly part owned or rented and the obviously social issues this brings.
There again as a used car salesman friend once said to me ‘there is a sucker for every seat!’
I suppose they are better there fenced in where you know where they are than near me.
I wonder is James Alexander has his eyes on one of the no doubt listed as top properties?
Although I suggest with his past evidential financial acumen it will be rented but by then he will be back working part time at the camera shop after his mayhem causing misadventure in local politics comes to the inevitable conclusion faster than he thinks.
All absolutely true. Its a landlocked railway site which should be used for railway purposes.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Turvey[/bold] wrote: It is a large area that is proposed to be re-developed and someone is going to make a lot of money however: It is an example of yet another asset owned by the country this time in the form of unused railway infrastructure that has been abandoned to be sold off to the greater god of quick return rather than long term retention for the good of the country as a whole that paid for it in the first place. It could have been redeveloped as a major goods/freight area giving the obvious green improvements of getting more long distance lorry journeys off the roads freeing them up for car drivers and motorcyclists. Who in their right minds wants to spend their own money on a property that is flanked on at least two sides by a railway line that is built on asbestos, PCB’s, Oil, diesel and god knows what else contaminated ground? I would not be planting any vegetables in the back garden! Think of the noise all night long from freight trains sat idle ticking over at a red signal outside the open window of your flat on a summer’s night! The constant noise of traffic from the close proximity roads and rail traffic, train announcements from the station and accelerating and braking HST’s going past. My prediction it will be built mainly of crammed in soulless flats filled with people who some have bought but mostly part owned or rented and the obviously social issues this brings. There again as a used car salesman friend once said to me ‘there is a sucker for every seat!’ I suppose they are better there fenced in where you know where they are than near me. I wonder is James Alexander has his eyes on one of the no doubt listed as top properties? Although I suggest with his past evidential financial acumen it will be rented but by then he will be back working part time at the camera shop after his mayhem causing misadventure in local politics comes to the inevitable conclusion faster than he thinks.[/p][/quote]All absolutely true. Its a landlocked railway site which should be used for railway purposes. Pinza-C55

8:06pm Wed 4 Dec 13

JasBro says...

uriahh wrote:
JasBro wrote:
What's baffling here is that the British Sugar site development has a website, alternative plans, public consultations and feedback opportunities.

But this, a bigger development, close to the centre of York, has nothing.
The difference is the BS Site is at a far later project stage with a definite proposal on the table from a Developer. This site is still a big fish pond still waiting for some Developer to fish in it, and with the YCC providing some bait!
I'm tempted to say, "Once bitten, twice shy!" But I don't think the YCC do on the job learning!
Yup, understood. But I'd still prefer to see some evidence of actual thought involved, before committing £10m of public money.
[quote][p][bold]uriahh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: What's baffling here is that the British Sugar site development has a website, alternative plans, public consultations and feedback opportunities. But this, a bigger development, close to the centre of York, has nothing.[/p][/quote]The difference is the BS Site is at a far later project stage with a definite proposal on the table from a Developer. This site is still a big fish pond still waiting for some Developer to fish in it, and with the YCC providing some bait! I'm tempted to say, "Once bitten, twice shy!" But I don't think the YCC do on the job learning![/p][/quote]Yup, understood. But I'd still prefer to see some evidence of actual thought involved, before committing £10m of public money. JasBro

1:06am Thu 5 Dec 13

jgycfc says...

Apologies if this has already been floated, but I'm sure that the powers that be in deciding the location of a "Community Stadium" once said about this site (not verbatim) that the reason the Teardrop site was not a viable location, albeit the best location for the Community Stadium in terms of access, calling it community, that kind of thing, was the cost involved in giving the site the access.

Now that issue seems to have gone away / be going away, so surely this now brings it back into play, although "barn doors" and "bolted" spring to mind.

Just asking by the way, in case anyone has any insight into this whole impending debacle? I mean stadium build process.
Apologies if this has already been floated, but I'm sure that the powers that be in deciding the location of a "Community Stadium" once said about this site (not verbatim) that the reason the Teardrop site was not a viable location, albeit the best location for the Community Stadium in terms of access, calling it community, that kind of thing, was the cost involved in giving the site the access. Now that issue seems to have gone away / be going away, so surely this now brings it back into play, although "barn doors" and "bolted" spring to mind. Just asking by the way, in case anyone has any insight into this whole impending debacle? I mean stadium build process. jgycfc

Comments are closed on this article.

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