Plans submitted for new Sainsbury's supermarket in Hull Road

York Press: The B & Q in Hull Road, which Sainsbury's want to convert The B & Q in Hull Road, which Sainsbury's want to convert

SAINSBURY'S proposals for a new store in York, which would create up to 400 jobs, have come a step closer to reality with the submission of a planning application.

The retail giant is seeking permission from City of York Council to convert the B&Q store on Hull Road into a 60,000 sq ft foodstore.

The Press reported in March that a petition asking for stricter controls around supermarket development had been signed by more than 1,700 people.

The petition, launched by Graham Kennedy, owner of the nearby Hull Road Service Station, said York had too many large supermarkets and any further expansion would threaten the existence and sustainability of independent local retailers.

It called for City of York Council not to give any further planning permission for stores without a public debate.

Mr Kennedy also said he feared for the future of his business of 25 years, and for his 36 staff should Sainsbury's get planning permission.

But Sainsbury's says that its plans, first unveiled at a public exhibition in January, have gained strong support from members of the public.

A spokeswoman said that more than 70 per cent of respondents were in favour of the scheme, which would feature 490 car parking spaces, a customer café and two electric vehicle charging bays.

Bruno Moore, head of Town Planning for Sainsbury’s, said: “We’ve worked really hard to finalise the details of the plans, and are really pleased to have submitted our application for the council’s consideration.

“Our exhibition in January was well attended and we received really positive feedback from lots of people in the local community."

He said there wasn't a large foodstore in this part of York, so the scheme could really improve shopping choice for local people.

“We hope people will continue to engage with us now that we have submitted our plans.”

The spokeswoman said a decision by the council was expected later this year but she was unable to speculate on when the store might open.

B & Q said last October that it intended to secure a new store to replace the one closing in Hull Road.

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:01pm Sun 11 May 14

bolero says...

For a place the size of York aren't we going a bit over the top with supermarkets and retail food outlets? It's time the line was drawn I think. Each new one means more traffic and more congestion with the resultant pollution. Seems to go against the idea of trying to reduce congestion. I know it will be argued that the majority of its custom will come from students who will walk or cycle but remember that as Clifton Moor and Monks Cross become more and more difficult to access due to the ever increasing volume of traffic this new one will be a viable alternative for motorists.
For a place the size of York aren't we going a bit over the top with supermarkets and retail food outlets? It's time the line was drawn I think. Each new one means more traffic and more congestion with the resultant pollution. Seems to go against the idea of trying to reduce congestion. I know it will be argued that the majority of its custom will come from students who will walk or cycle but remember that as Clifton Moor and Monks Cross become more and more difficult to access due to the ever increasing volume of traffic this new one will be a viable alternative for motorists. bolero
  • Score: -88

4:10pm Sun 11 May 14

oi oi savaloy says...

oh goody, another supermarket #lowpaidjobsandnogro
wth
oh goody, another supermarket #lowpaidjobsandnogro wth oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -46

4:36pm Sun 11 May 14

ouseswimmer says...

Would these be 400 zero hours jobs so needed in the area?
Would these be 400 zero hours jobs so needed in the area? ouseswimmer
  • Score: -49

4:37pm Sun 11 May 14

Flabbergob says...

Wonderful to see such an expert opinion in the effects of retail, transport and population demographics.

Those who know now't have so much to offer in opinions all too often.
Wonderful to see such an expert opinion in the effects of retail, transport and population demographics. Those who know now't have so much to offer in opinions all too often. Flabbergob
  • Score: -44

4:41pm Sun 11 May 14

notpedallingpaul says...

bolero wrote:
For a place the size of York aren't we going a bit over the top with supermarkets and retail food outlets? It's time the line was drawn I think. Each new one means more traffic and more congestion with the resultant pollution. Seems to go against the idea of trying to reduce congestion. I know it will be argued that the majority of its custom will come from students who will walk or cycle but remember that as Clifton Moor and Monks Cross become more and more difficult to access due to the ever increasing volume of traffic this new one will be a viable alternative for motorists.
Have to agree that we seem to have far to many supermarket outlets, I'm not against supermarkets 'per se' but they should be limited in the numbers permitted, I am in walking distance of Foss Islands Road where there are two - Waitrose and Morrison's, with Sainsbury's on Foss Bank, and they have also invaded our town centre, what about the local shops and small retailers? don't they matter anymore?
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: For a place the size of York aren't we going a bit over the top with supermarkets and retail food outlets? It's time the line was drawn I think. Each new one means more traffic and more congestion with the resultant pollution. Seems to go against the idea of trying to reduce congestion. I know it will be argued that the majority of its custom will come from students who will walk or cycle but remember that as Clifton Moor and Monks Cross become more and more difficult to access due to the ever increasing volume of traffic this new one will be a viable alternative for motorists.[/p][/quote]Have to agree that we seem to have far to many supermarket outlets, I'm not against supermarkets 'per se' but they should be limited in the numbers permitted, I am in walking distance of Foss Islands Road where there are two - Waitrose and Morrison's, with Sainsbury's on Foss Bank, and they have also invaded our town centre, what about the local shops and small retailers? don't they matter anymore? notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -34

5:13pm Sun 11 May 14

RoseD says...

Yay, 400 JOBS!! WOW

How many jobs lost when B&Q closes?
Yay, 400 JOBS!! WOW How many jobs lost when B&Q closes? RoseD
  • Score: -48

5:34pm Sun 11 May 14

bolero says...

I have to smile at those who criticise comments but yet haven't the savvy to offer any opinion themselves. Perhaps they haven't any.
I have to smile at those who criticise comments but yet haven't the savvy to offer any opinion themselves. Perhaps they haven't any. bolero
  • Score: -67

5:45pm Sun 11 May 14

CaroleBaines says...

Demand and supply says we get the retail we want. If you do not like supermarkets, vote with your wallet, do not whinge about losing 'nice to have' independent retailers and then drive past to fill up your car with groceries from Tesco/Sainsbury et al.

Most commentators on here seem of the right wing variety, certainly those who shout loudest. So there is an irony that they slag off the incumbent left wing council for allowing capitalism to do its own thing.

What I would finally say is quality niche independents do survive, but they provide what the big stores cannot. York Beer and Wine and some of the excellent little shops on Bishopthorpe Rd testify to this.

Just my thoughts.
Demand and supply says we get the retail we want. If you do not like supermarkets, vote with your wallet, do not whinge about losing 'nice to have' independent retailers and then drive past to fill up your car with groceries from Tesco/Sainsbury et al. Most commentators on here seem of the right wing variety, certainly those who shout loudest. So there is an irony that they slag off the incumbent left wing council for allowing capitalism to do its own thing. What I would finally say is quality niche independents do survive, but they provide what the big stores cannot. York Beer and Wine and some of the excellent little shops on Bishopthorpe Rd testify to this. Just my thoughts. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 22

6:49pm Sun 11 May 14

Flabbergob says...

I have to smile at those who make ridiculous comments about increased traffic, congestion and pollution without considering the reduction in other areas brought about by residents not needing to travel to Monk X or Clifton Moor.

I have to smile at those who think putting what people want near the location they live can only mean incremental increases in traffic.

I have to laugh almost hysterically at anyone who thinks or god forbid believes the main driver for putting a huge supermarket on Hull Road was to attract and serve the student population, who all ride bikes.

Right place, right location, right infrastructure, it also reduces the need to travel further for a good proportion of residents living in the Hull Road area.

Putting whats needed near those who need it, that is how you reduce traffic, congestion and pollution.
I have to smile at those who make ridiculous comments about increased traffic, congestion and pollution without considering the reduction in other areas brought about by residents not needing to travel to Monk X or Clifton Moor. I have to smile at those who think putting what people want near the location they live can only mean incremental increases in traffic. I have to laugh almost hysterically at anyone who thinks or god forbid believes the main driver for putting a huge supermarket on Hull Road was to attract and serve the student population, who all ride bikes. Right place, right location, right infrastructure, it also reduces the need to travel further for a good proportion of residents living in the Hull Road area. Putting whats needed near those who need it, that is how you reduce traffic, congestion and pollution. Flabbergob
  • Score: 24

7:17pm Sun 11 May 14

bolero says...

Flabbergob wrote:
I have to smile at those who make ridiculous comments about increased traffic, congestion and pollution without considering the reduction in other areas brought about by residents not needing to travel to Monk X or Clifton Moor.

I have to smile at those who think putting what people want near the location they live can only mean incremental increases in traffic.

I have to laugh almost hysterically at anyone who thinks or god forbid believes the main driver for putting a huge supermarket on Hull Road was to attract and serve the student population, who all ride bikes.

Right place, right location, right infrastructure, it also reduces the need to travel further for a good proportion of residents living in the Hull Road area.

Putting whats needed near those who need it, that is how you reduce traffic, congestion and pollution.
Smile on sunshine.
[quote][p][bold]Flabbergob[/bold] wrote: I have to smile at those who make ridiculous comments about increased traffic, congestion and pollution without considering the reduction in other areas brought about by residents not needing to travel to Monk X or Clifton Moor. I have to smile at those who think putting what people want near the location they live can only mean incremental increases in traffic. I have to laugh almost hysterically at anyone who thinks or god forbid believes the main driver for putting a huge supermarket on Hull Road was to attract and serve the student population, who all ride bikes. Right place, right location, right infrastructure, it also reduces the need to travel further for a good proportion of residents living in the Hull Road area. Putting whats needed near those who need it, that is how you reduce traffic, congestion and pollution.[/p][/quote]Smile on sunshine. bolero
  • Score: -53

7:21pm Sun 11 May 14

adrian12 says...

I fully support this new Sainsburys store, with the new development at Monks Cross now open the traffic is horrendous. I think this will help this side of town, as well as Stamford Bridge, Elvington etc communities, as well as the University area
The Garage owner is more worried about his shop sales, which he charges mega prices for!
I fully support this new Sainsburys store, with the new development at Monks Cross now open the traffic is horrendous. I think this will help this side of town, as well as Stamford Bridge, Elvington etc communities, as well as the University area The Garage owner is more worried about his shop sales, which he charges mega prices for! adrian12
  • Score: 49

8:19pm Sun 11 May 14

Sign 'O' The Times says...

bolero wrote:
For a place the size of York aren't we going a bit over the top with supermarkets and retail food outlets? It's time the line was drawn I think. Each new one means more traffic and more congestion with the resultant pollution. Seems to go against the idea of trying to reduce congestion. I know it will be argued that the majority of its custom will come from students who will walk or cycle but remember that as Clifton Moor and Monks Cross become more and more difficult to access due to the ever increasing volume of traffic this new one will be a viable alternative for motorists.
Can you explain why this will mean more traffic, congestion and pollution? I seriously doubt that people from Leeds, Selby, Hull etc. are going to travel to it simply because it is there. It is likely to be used by people living in that area, therefore reducing the need for them to travel to Monks Cross or Clifton Moor. I would think that a company such as Sainsbury's would do adequate research beforehand to determine whether or not such a venture would be economically viable. I can't understand why you and others of a similar opinion are so against the idea of creating jobs. Would it be better if Sainsbury's and other companies decided to ignore York because they see the City as being backward thinking and negative about any kind of progress. As much as people would like to think so, this City can not stay as it is forever more. If we stayed as we are, we would eventually become a place to avoid.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: For a place the size of York aren't we going a bit over the top with supermarkets and retail food outlets? It's time the line was drawn I think. Each new one means more traffic and more congestion with the resultant pollution. Seems to go against the idea of trying to reduce congestion. I know it will be argued that the majority of its custom will come from students who will walk or cycle but remember that as Clifton Moor and Monks Cross become more and more difficult to access due to the ever increasing volume of traffic this new one will be a viable alternative for motorists.[/p][/quote]Can you explain why this will mean more traffic, congestion and pollution? I seriously doubt that people from Leeds, Selby, Hull etc. are going to travel to it simply because it is there. It is likely to be used by people living in that area, therefore reducing the need for them to travel to Monks Cross or Clifton Moor. I would think that a company such as Sainsbury's would do adequate research beforehand to determine whether or not such a venture would be economically viable. I can't understand why you and others of a similar opinion are so against the idea of creating jobs. Would it be better if Sainsbury's and other companies decided to ignore York because they see the City as being backward thinking and negative about any kind of progress. As much as people would like to think so, this City can not stay as it is forever more. If we stayed as we are, we would eventually become a place to avoid. Sign 'O' The Times
  • Score: 32

8:21pm Sun 11 May 14

Pinza-C55 says...

bolero wrote:
For a place the size of York aren't we going a bit over the top with supermarkets and retail food outlets? It's time the line was drawn I think. Each new one means more traffic and more congestion with the resultant pollution. Seems to go against the idea of trying to reduce congestion. I know it will be argued that the majority of its custom will come from students who will walk or cycle but remember that as Clifton Moor and Monks Cross become more and more difficult to access due to the ever increasing volume of traffic this new one will be a viable alternative for motorists.
"It's time the line was drawn I think. "

I'm afraid the line was crossed a long time ago. Too late to turn back.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: For a place the size of York aren't we going a bit over the top with supermarkets and retail food outlets? It's time the line was drawn I think. Each new one means more traffic and more congestion with the resultant pollution. Seems to go against the idea of trying to reduce congestion. I know it will be argued that the majority of its custom will come from students who will walk or cycle but remember that as Clifton Moor and Monks Cross become more and more difficult to access due to the ever increasing volume of traffic this new one will be a viable alternative for motorists.[/p][/quote]"It's time the line was drawn I think. " I'm afraid the line was crossed a long time ago. Too late to turn back. Pinza-C55
  • Score: -17

8:26pm Sun 11 May 14

Sign 'O' The Times says...

RoseD wrote:
Yay, 400 JOBS!! WOW

How many jobs lost when B&Q closes?
I seriously doubt that B&Q employ 400 people in that store. Also, if you had actually read the article, you would have seen that they are looking to re-locate in York.
[quote][p][bold]RoseD[/bold] wrote: Yay, 400 JOBS!! WOW How many jobs lost when B&Q closes?[/p][/quote]I seriously doubt that B&Q employ 400 people in that store. Also, if you had actually read the article, you would have seen that they are looking to re-locate in York. Sign 'O' The Times
  • Score: 15

8:26pm Sun 11 May 14

strangebuttrue? says...

There is only one reason traffic is bad up at Monks Cross and that is the silly set of short set traffic lights at the junction of Kathryn Avenue & Jockey Lane. If anything is waiting at the pedestrian crossing or Kathryn Avenue, which is most of the time, they are set to allow 6 cars through from Jockey Lane then go red again then pause for some time and allow 3 vehicles out of Kathryn Ave or a pedestrian to cross then a long pause and 6 more cars then repeat all over again. I have been up there 3 times recently and seen this sequencing each time with traffic backed up, as it was on Saturday, half way up Jockey Lane toward the A64 all round the roundabout, up every road leading to it and all over the car park at John Lewis. Not only is it considerably dangerous it is also completely unnecessary as are all of the short set lights which the council say they use deliberately to dissuade car driver from using roads in and around York.
There is only one reason traffic is bad up at Monks Cross and that is the silly set of short set traffic lights at the junction of Kathryn Avenue & Jockey Lane. If anything is waiting at the pedestrian crossing or Kathryn Avenue, which is most of the time, they are set to allow 6 cars through from Jockey Lane then go red again then pause for some time and allow 3 vehicles out of Kathryn Ave or a pedestrian to cross then a long pause and 6 more cars then repeat all over again. I have been up there 3 times recently and seen this sequencing each time with traffic backed up, as it was on Saturday, half way up Jockey Lane toward the A64 all round the roundabout, up every road leading to it and all over the car park at John Lewis. Not only is it considerably dangerous it is also completely unnecessary as are all of the short set lights which the council say they use deliberately to dissuade car driver from using roads in and around York. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -73

9:48pm Sun 11 May 14

What's Up, Doc? says...

It is no wonder that Graham Kennedy is so against the opening of a supermarket. Have you seen the prices he charges? Even one of his staff apologised to me for the prices!

The design flaw, or lack of planning, I see with Clifton Moor and Monk's Cross, is that neither really cater for pedestrians. Walking between different parts of the estates is nigh on impossible without proper pavements to separate vehicles and pedestrians. At least the proposed planning for the new supermarket means pedestrians (students) can walk there.
It is no wonder that Graham Kennedy is so against the opening of a supermarket. Have you seen the prices he charges? Even one of his staff apologised to me for the prices! The design flaw, or lack of planning, I see with Clifton Moor and Monk's Cross, is that neither really cater for pedestrians. Walking between different parts of the estates is nigh on impossible without proper pavements to separate vehicles and pedestrians. At least the proposed planning for the new supermarket means pedestrians (students) can walk there. What's Up, Doc?
  • Score: 26

11:13pm Sun 11 May 14

Dave Ruddock says...

seems the council never ever learn, and agree with "Whats Up Doc", not every one has a car, andI wounder how long before York
on a POLO City
seems the council never ever learn, and agree with "Whats Up Doc", not every one has a car, andI wounder how long before York on a POLO City Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -16

1:31am Mon 12 May 14

4yorks says...

RoseD wrote:
Yay, 400 JOBS!! WOW

How many jobs lost when B&Q closes?
Apparently none. I recall seeing an article in the press last year saying how B&Q are going to relocate into York (somewhere) and still have 2 stores in the city.
[quote][p][bold]RoseD[/bold] wrote: Yay, 400 JOBS!! WOW How many jobs lost when B&Q closes?[/p][/quote]Apparently none. I recall seeing an article in the press last year saying how B&Q are going to relocate into York (somewhere) and still have 2 stores in the city. 4yorks
  • Score: 16

6:48am Mon 12 May 14

pedalling paul says...

Many commentators assign a freedom of choice with Planning decisions upon CoYC, which they do not legally possess. Local Authorities have very limited scope for resisting Planning Applications, more so at present in York because our Local Development Framework has not been finalised. That was a consequence of hanging retail development at Monks Cross onto the football stadium. And lurking in the background is that literal heavyweight Eric Pickles whose so-called liberalising of Planning red tape will only lead to more car dependant lifestyles.
Many commentators assign a freedom of choice with Planning decisions upon CoYC, which they do not legally possess. Local Authorities have very limited scope for resisting Planning Applications, more so at present in York because our Local Development Framework has not been finalised. That was a consequence of hanging retail development at Monks Cross onto the football stadium. And lurking in the background is that literal heavyweight Eric Pickles whose so-called liberalising of Planning red tape will only lead to more car dependant lifestyles. pedalling paul
  • Score: 83

8:59am Mon 12 May 14

MrsHoney says...

I wouldn't mind another one on the West side of York, we've 2 Tesco's near us, not exactly much choice. Yes there's a Morrisons in Acomb but for me that's too small a shop to do my weekly shopping in. Pure laziness I know but I don't fancy trekking across town or having to venture North on the ring road.
I wouldn't mind another one on the West side of York, we've 2 Tesco's near us, not exactly much choice. Yes there's a Morrisons in Acomb but for me that's too small a shop to do my weekly shopping in. Pure laziness I know but I don't fancy trekking across town or having to venture North on the ring road. MrsHoney
  • Score: 13

9:13am Mon 12 May 14

meme says...

we live in a free market and planners cannot decide to block new supermarkets on grounds that there are too many
Imagine if they decided to block dress shops/coffee outlets/jewellers etc Its called freedom of choice and the customer is free to go elsewhere if they don't like it
we live in a free market and planners cannot decide to block new supermarkets on grounds that there are too many Imagine if they decided to block dress shops/coffee outlets/jewellers etc Its called freedom of choice and the customer is free to go elsewhere if they don't like it meme
  • Score: 17

9:27am Mon 12 May 14

The Great Buda says...

Flabbergob wrote:
I have to smile at those who make ridiculous comments about increased traffic, congestion and pollution without considering the reduction in other areas brought about by residents not needing to travel to Monk X or Clifton Moor.

I have to smile at those who think putting what people want near the location they live can only mean incremental increases in traffic.

I have to laugh almost hysterically at anyone who thinks or god forbid believes the main driver for putting a huge supermarket on Hull Road was to attract and serve the student population, who all ride bikes.

Right place, right location, right infrastructure, it also reduces the need to travel further for a good proportion of residents living in the Hull Road area.

Putting whats needed near those who need it, that is how you reduce traffic, congestion and pollution.
Very well put. As someone who live on that side of the City, it will reduce my need to get stuck in traffic heading to Foss Island or Monks Cross.
[quote][p][bold]Flabbergob[/bold] wrote: I have to smile at those who make ridiculous comments about increased traffic, congestion and pollution without considering the reduction in other areas brought about by residents not needing to travel to Monk X or Clifton Moor. I have to smile at those who think putting what people want near the location they live can only mean incremental increases in traffic. I have to laugh almost hysterically at anyone who thinks or god forbid believes the main driver for putting a huge supermarket on Hull Road was to attract and serve the student population, who all ride bikes. Right place, right location, right infrastructure, it also reduces the need to travel further for a good proportion of residents living in the Hull Road area. Putting whats needed near those who need it, that is how you reduce traffic, congestion and pollution.[/p][/quote]Very well put. As someone who live on that side of the City, it will reduce my need to get stuck in traffic heading to Foss Island or Monks Cross. The Great Buda
  • Score: 16

10:54am Mon 12 May 14

BL2 says...

Personally I'd love to see it there. here nearest supermarkets for people that side of York (Elvington, etc) are either Monks Cross or Foss Islands Road. It is far closer and more accessible than either! As for the independent (captive audience) garage, if his prices are reasonable and service is good then he won't lost trade will he?
Personally I'd love to see it there. here nearest supermarkets for people that side of York (Elvington, etc) are either Monks Cross or Foss Islands Road. It is far closer and more accessible than either! As for the independent (captive audience) garage, if his prices are reasonable and service is good then he won't lost trade will he? BL2
  • Score: 16

12:05pm Mon 12 May 14

ReginaldBiscuit says...

I hear what people are saying about traffic. I think the solution should come from the cash-whoring supermarkets. They want to people, they have to pay large for the upgrade of the infrastructure. Might stop them trying to take over.
I hear what people are saying about traffic. I think the solution should come from the cash-whoring supermarkets. They want to people, they have to pay large for the upgrade of the infrastructure. Might stop them trying to take over. ReginaldBiscuit
  • Score: -11

1:22pm Mon 12 May 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

1) There are no supermarkets at this end of York (apart from Monks Cross)
2) Its straight off the A64
3) Less traffic heading to Clifton Moor and Monks Cross
4) Loads of new jobs created
5) I'm assuming supermarket priced petrol

What more could you ask for at this end of York?

Cons: The guy next door gets a little bit upset
The council will need to manage the traffic lights on Hull road heading from B&Q up to the ByPass. On a Saturday I have sat for 15-20 mins in slow moving traffic to get onto that bypass because of the traffic lights they have in place.
1) There are no supermarkets at this end of York (apart from Monks Cross) 2) Its straight off the A64 3) Less traffic heading to Clifton Moor and Monks Cross 4) Loads of new jobs created 5) I'm assuming supermarket priced petrol What more could you ask for at this end of York? Cons: The guy next door gets a little bit upset The council will need to manage the traffic lights on Hull road heading from B&Q up to the ByPass. On a Saturday I have sat for 15-20 mins in slow moving traffic to get onto that bypass because of the traffic lights they have in place. pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: 21

1:47pm Mon 12 May 14

FortessBC says...

My worry is that B&Q will not look to re-locate in York. The choices in York for a suitable site are IMO limited. I know someone who works at the store and they tell me the company are saying nothing. Is it that the staff will simply be made redundant for yet another supermarket?
My worry is that B&Q will not look to re-locate in York. The choices in York for a suitable site are IMO limited. I know someone who works at the store and they tell me the company are saying nothing. Is it that the staff will simply be made redundant for yet another supermarket? FortessBC
  • Score: -7

3:16pm Mon 12 May 14

doltare says...

I think you will find that the people on here singing for another supermarket work for the supermarket! they employ people to leave comments in favor! Anyway it will get permission as its Labour in York plus you must think of all the east European workers behind the scene at Sainsbury's there hundreds employed there all waiting for pickup were I live on a morning. Supermarket are very good at putting British workers on the shop front! to fool the shoppers.
I think you will find that the people on here singing for another supermarket work for the supermarket! they employ people to leave comments in favor! Anyway it will get permission as its Labour in York plus you must think of all the east European workers behind the scene at Sainsbury's there hundreds employed there all waiting for pickup were I live on a morning. Supermarket are very good at putting British workers on the shop front! to fool the shoppers. doltare
  • Score: -64

3:45pm Mon 12 May 14

bolero says...

These postings are yet another example of someone rigging votes. The Press are not interested because if you read the `site terms` this sort of interference is in direct conflict with the conditions of usage and particularly Clause 5 of those terms.The Press must be aware and who the culprit is but refuse to take any action towards safeguarding their own integrity and credibility.
These postings are yet another example of someone rigging votes. The Press are not interested because if you read the `site terms` this sort of interference is in direct conflict with the conditions of usage and particularly Clause 5 of those terms.The Press must be aware and who the culprit is but refuse to take any action towards safeguarding their own integrity and credibility. bolero
  • Score: -22

4:43pm Mon 12 May 14

DavidMaughan says...

Would much prefer to have a decent supermarket on Hull Rd like Sainsbury's instead of the Co-op.
Would much prefer to have a decent supermarket on Hull Rd like Sainsbury's instead of the Co-op. DavidMaughan
  • Score: 8

4:47pm Mon 12 May 14

Can't all be wrong says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Demand and supply says we get the retail we want. If you do not like supermarkets, vote with your wallet, do not whinge about losing 'nice to have' independent retailers and then drive past to fill up your car with groceries from Tesco/Sainsbury et al.

Most commentators on here seem of the right wing variety, certainly those who shout loudest. So there is an irony that they slag off the incumbent left wing council for allowing capitalism to do its own thing.

What I would finally say is quality niche independents do survive, but they provide what the big stores cannot. York Beer and Wine and some of the excellent little shops on Bishopthorpe Rd testify to this.

Just my thoughts.
Have to agree completely with you. Also consider, supermarkets simply don't open up new stores on a whim, there would have been through research into the viability of such a venture. Given the predicted development ear marked for Heslington and Fulford this would seem to be a well thought out location. I suspect the town centre store may disappear once the Hull Road site gains traction. Regrettably this is one more nail in the coffin for town centre shopping I suspect.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Demand and supply says we get the retail we want. If you do not like supermarkets, vote with your wallet, do not whinge about losing 'nice to have' independent retailers and then drive past to fill up your car with groceries from Tesco/Sainsbury et al. Most commentators on here seem of the right wing variety, certainly those who shout loudest. So there is an irony that they slag off the incumbent left wing council for allowing capitalism to do its own thing. What I would finally say is quality niche independents do survive, but they provide what the big stores cannot. York Beer and Wine and some of the excellent little shops on Bishopthorpe Rd testify to this. Just my thoughts.[/p][/quote]Have to agree completely with you. Also consider, supermarkets simply don't open up new stores on a whim, there would have been through research into the viability of such a venture. Given the predicted development ear marked for Heslington and Fulford this would seem to be a well thought out location. I suspect the town centre store may disappear once the Hull Road site gains traction. Regrettably this is one more nail in the coffin for town centre shopping I suspect. Can't all be wrong
  • Score: 6

5:13pm Mon 12 May 14

CaroleBaines says...

DavidMaughan wrote:
Would much prefer to have a decent supermarket on Hull Rd like Sainsbury's instead of the Co-op.
Each to their own, I guess - but I really like that Co-op!
[quote][p][bold]DavidMaughan[/bold] wrote: Would much prefer to have a decent supermarket on Hull Rd like Sainsbury's instead of the Co-op.[/p][/quote]Each to their own, I guess - but I really like that Co-op! CaroleBaines
  • Score: 7

5:33pm Mon 12 May 14

yourkidding says...

has any one had the pleasure of driving down murton rd.near the church on the bad bend.with cars and vans parked .no yellow lines.?????????
has any one had the pleasure of driving down murton rd.near the church on the bad bend.with cars and vans parked .no yellow lines.????????? yourkidding
  • Score: -6

5:39pm Mon 12 May 14

Pedro says...

RoseD wrote:
Yay, 400 JOBS!! WOW

How many jobs lost when B&Q closes?
If you read the article they are going elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]RoseD[/bold] wrote: Yay, 400 JOBS!! WOW How many jobs lost when B&Q closes?[/p][/quote]If you read the article they are going elsewhere. Pedro
  • Score: 8

6:39pm Mon 12 May 14

notpedallingpaul says...

bolero wrote:
These postings are yet another example of someone rigging votes. The Press are not interested because if you read the `site terms` this sort of interference is in direct conflict with the conditions of usage and particularly Clause 5 of those terms.The Press must be aware and who the culprit is but refuse to take any action towards safeguarding their own integrity and credibility.
I wrote the followinf to the press:

I am an avid reader of the news articles on the press web site, and the comments associated with them.
However the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" facility which I assume is supposed to relate to how many agree or disagree with whatever issue is being discussed puzzles me in that there appears to be huge differentials for it to be a true reflection of opinion.
Quite a few commenters it would seem are of an opinion that the system is being abused by a third party or parties - to give the wrong impression - by vastly under scoring or over scoring comments on contentious topics, such as the recent Lendal Bridge issue for example.
Would it not be better for the Press to update its web site and remove this facility, or do they condone the practice of what is to me a blatant manipulation of the system in order to make topics look as though they have huge support or no support at all.

The press replied:

We are aware that this is being abused and mostly on stories concerning City of York Council. This service is provided to us by a central team that services all of the papers across the country that are owned by our parent company Newsquest. We are currently talking to them about this.

Regards
Steve Hughes
Editor
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: These postings are yet another example of someone rigging votes. The Press are not interested because if you read the `site terms` this sort of interference is in direct conflict with the conditions of usage and particularly Clause 5 of those terms.The Press must be aware and who the culprit is but refuse to take any action towards safeguarding their own integrity and credibility.[/p][/quote]I wrote the followinf to the press: I am an avid reader of the news articles on the press web site, and the comments associated with them. However the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" facility which I assume is supposed to relate to how many agree or disagree with whatever issue is being discussed puzzles me in that there appears to be huge differentials for it to be a true reflection of opinion. Quite a few commenters it would seem are of an opinion that the system is being abused by a third party or parties - to give the wrong impression - by vastly under scoring or over scoring comments on contentious topics, such as the recent Lendal Bridge issue for example. Would it not be better for the Press to update its web site and remove this facility, or do they condone the practice of what is to me a blatant manipulation of the system in order to make topics look as though they have huge support or no support at all. The press replied: We are aware that this is being abused and mostly on stories concerning City of York Council. This service is provided to us by a central team that services all of the papers across the country that are owned by our parent company Newsquest. We are currently talking to them about this. Regards Steve Hughes Editor notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -147

6:43pm Mon 12 May 14

bolero says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
bolero wrote:
These postings are yet another example of someone rigging votes. The Press are not interested because if you read the `site terms` this sort of interference is in direct conflict with the conditions of usage and particularly Clause 5 of those terms.The Press must be aware and who the culprit is but refuse to take any action towards safeguarding their own integrity and credibility.
I wrote the followinf to the press:

I am an avid reader of the news articles on the press web site, and the comments associated with them.
However the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" facility which I assume is supposed to relate to how many agree or disagree with whatever issue is being discussed puzzles me in that there appears to be huge differentials for it to be a true reflection of opinion.
Quite a few commenters it would seem are of an opinion that the system is being abused by a third party or parties - to give the wrong impression - by vastly under scoring or over scoring comments on contentious topics, such as the recent Lendal Bridge issue for example.
Would it not be better for the Press to update its web site and remove this facility, or do they condone the practice of what is to me a blatant manipulation of the system in order to make topics look as though they have huge support or no support at all.

The press replied:

We are aware that this is being abused and mostly on stories concerning City of York Council. This service is provided to us by a central team that services all of the papers across the country that are owned by our parent company Newsquest. We are currently talking to them about this.

Regards
Steve Hughes
Editor
Thank you. How long is it since you wrote to The Press please?
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: These postings are yet another example of someone rigging votes. The Press are not interested because if you read the `site terms` this sort of interference is in direct conflict with the conditions of usage and particularly Clause 5 of those terms.The Press must be aware and who the culprit is but refuse to take any action towards safeguarding their own integrity and credibility.[/p][/quote]I wrote the followinf to the press: I am an avid reader of the news articles on the press web site, and the comments associated with them. However the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" facility which I assume is supposed to relate to how many agree or disagree with whatever issue is being discussed puzzles me in that there appears to be huge differentials for it to be a true reflection of opinion. Quite a few commenters it would seem are of an opinion that the system is being abused by a third party or parties - to give the wrong impression - by vastly under scoring or over scoring comments on contentious topics, such as the recent Lendal Bridge issue for example. Would it not be better for the Press to update its web site and remove this facility, or do they condone the practice of what is to me a blatant manipulation of the system in order to make topics look as though they have huge support or no support at all. The press replied: We are aware that this is being abused and mostly on stories concerning City of York Council. This service is provided to us by a central team that services all of the papers across the country that are owned by our parent company Newsquest. We are currently talking to them about this. Regards Steve Hughes Editor[/p][/quote]Thank you. How long is it since you wrote to The Press please? bolero
  • Score: -164

7:16pm Mon 12 May 14

mike.......durkin says...

keep B,Q we dont wont supermarkit .......morison not that far...away
keep B,Q we dont wont supermarkit .......morison not that far...away mike.......durkin
  • Score: -9

7:19pm Mon 12 May 14

notpedallingpaul says...

bolero wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
bolero wrote:
These postings are yet another example of someone rigging votes. The Press are not interested because if you read the `site terms` this sort of interference is in direct conflict with the conditions of usage and particularly Clause 5 of those terms.The Press must be aware and who the culprit is but refuse to take any action towards safeguarding their own integrity and credibility.
I wrote the followinf to the press:

I am an avid reader of the news articles on the press web site, and the comments associated with them.
However the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" facility which I assume is supposed to relate to how many agree or disagree with whatever issue is being discussed puzzles me in that there appears to be huge differentials for it to be a true reflection of opinion.
Quite a few commenters it would seem are of an opinion that the system is being abused by a third party or parties - to give the wrong impression - by vastly under scoring or over scoring comments on contentious topics, such as the recent Lendal Bridge issue for example.
Would it not be better for the Press to update its web site and remove this facility, or do they condone the practice of what is to me a blatant manipulation of the system in order to make topics look as though they have huge support or no support at all.

The press replied:

We are aware that this is being abused and mostly on stories concerning City of York Council. This service is provided to us by a central team that services all of the papers across the country that are owned by our parent company Newsquest. We are currently talking to them about this.

Regards
Steve Hughes
Editor
Thank you. How long is it since you wrote to The Press please?
Yesterday, they obviously would not print my letter so replied by email instead, so was waiting for a chance to slip it into the comments and you gave me that chance, cheers.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: These postings are yet another example of someone rigging votes. The Press are not interested because if you read the `site terms` this sort of interference is in direct conflict with the conditions of usage and particularly Clause 5 of those terms.The Press must be aware and who the culprit is but refuse to take any action towards safeguarding their own integrity and credibility.[/p][/quote]I wrote the followinf to the press: I am an avid reader of the news articles on the press web site, and the comments associated with them. However the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" facility which I assume is supposed to relate to how many agree or disagree with whatever issue is being discussed puzzles me in that there appears to be huge differentials for it to be a true reflection of opinion. Quite a few commenters it would seem are of an opinion that the system is being abused by a third party or parties - to give the wrong impression - by vastly under scoring or over scoring comments on contentious topics, such as the recent Lendal Bridge issue for example. Would it not be better for the Press to update its web site and remove this facility, or do they condone the practice of what is to me a blatant manipulation of the system in order to make topics look as though they have huge support or no support at all. The press replied: We are aware that this is being abused and mostly on stories concerning City of York Council. This service is provided to us by a central team that services all of the papers across the country that are owned by our parent company Newsquest. We are currently talking to them about this. Regards Steve Hughes Editor[/p][/quote]Thank you. How long is it since you wrote to The Press please?[/p][/quote]Yesterday, they obviously would not print my letter so replied by email instead, so was waiting for a chance to slip it into the comments and you gave me that chance, cheers. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -344

8:21pm Mon 12 May 14

notpedallingpaul says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
bolero wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
bolero wrote:
These postings are yet another example of someone rigging votes. The Press are not interested because if you read the `site terms` this sort of interference is in direct conflict with the conditions of usage and particularly Clause 5 of those terms.The Press must be aware and who the culprit is but refuse to take any action towards safeguarding their own integrity and credibility.
I wrote the followinf to the press:

I am an avid reader of the news articles on the press web site, and the comments associated with them.
However the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" facility which I assume is supposed to relate to how many agree or disagree with whatever issue is being discussed puzzles me in that there appears to be huge differentials for it to be a true reflection of opinion.
Quite a few commenters it would seem are of an opinion that the system is being abused by a third party or parties - to give the wrong impression - by vastly under scoring or over scoring comments on contentious topics, such as the recent Lendal Bridge issue for example.
Would it not be better for the Press to update its web site and remove this facility, or do they condone the practice of what is to me a blatant manipulation of the system in order to make topics look as though they have huge support or no support at all.

The press replied:

We are aware that this is being abused and mostly on stories concerning City of York Council. This service is provided to us by a central team that services all of the papers across the country that are owned by our parent company Newsquest. We are currently talking to them about this.

Regards
Steve Hughes
Editor
Thank you. How long is it since you wrote to The Press please?
Yesterday, they obviously would not print my letter so replied by email instead, so was waiting for a chance to slip it into the comments and you gave me that chance, cheers.
Oh no! the score fairy's gotten me!
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: These postings are yet another example of someone rigging votes. The Press are not interested because if you read the `site terms` this sort of interference is in direct conflict with the conditions of usage and particularly Clause 5 of those terms.The Press must be aware and who the culprit is but refuse to take any action towards safeguarding their own integrity and credibility.[/p][/quote]I wrote the followinf to the press: I am an avid reader of the news articles on the press web site, and the comments associated with them. However the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" facility which I assume is supposed to relate to how many agree or disagree with whatever issue is being discussed puzzles me in that there appears to be huge differentials for it to be a true reflection of opinion. Quite a few commenters it would seem are of an opinion that the system is being abused by a third party or parties - to give the wrong impression - by vastly under scoring or over scoring comments on contentious topics, such as the recent Lendal Bridge issue for example. Would it not be better for the Press to update its web site and remove this facility, or do they condone the practice of what is to me a blatant manipulation of the system in order to make topics look as though they have huge support or no support at all. The press replied: We are aware that this is being abused and mostly on stories concerning City of York Council. This service is provided to us by a central team that services all of the papers across the country that are owned by our parent company Newsquest. We are currently talking to them about this. Regards Steve Hughes Editor[/p][/quote]Thank you. How long is it since you wrote to The Press please?[/p][/quote]Yesterday, they obviously would not print my letter so replied by email instead, so was waiting for a chance to slip it into the comments and you gave me that chance, cheers.[/p][/quote]Oh no! the score fairy's gotten me! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 71

9:41pm Mon 12 May 14

johnwill says...

Why knock the big supermarkets ? they provide 24hr, 7 day opening, employ 1000s of people in part-time and full time jobs and have fierce competition between themselves keeping food costs down.
I remember when the only shops open on a Sunday were a few independents and they used to fleece their customers by charging top prices without embarrassment .
Why knock the big supermarkets ? they provide 24hr, 7 day opening, employ 1000s of people in part-time and full time jobs and have fierce competition between themselves keeping food costs down. I remember when the only shops open on a Sunday were a few independents and they used to fleece their customers by charging top prices without embarrassment . johnwill
  • Score: 8

5:00am Tue 13 May 14

Magicman! says...

Still no word on where B&Q will open up instead. Monks Cross would be useful, as currently people over this part of the city have to get to either Hull Road or use the A1237 to get to Clifton Moor for bulky DIY-based goods.
Still no word on where B&Q will open up instead. Monks Cross would be useful, as currently people over this part of the city have to get to either Hull Road or use the A1237 to get to Clifton Moor for bulky DIY-based goods. Magicman!
  • Score: -6

11:11am Tue 13 May 14

Didyoureallyreadthestory says...

I live directly behind the current store. I use B&Q once a month at best, realistically once every couple of months. Every week I drive to either Monks Cross, Clifton Moor or Tadcaster Road for my weekly food shop. If this goes ahead i will use the new store without doubt. Thus reducing carbon emissions from my family significantly and saving me an average of three quarters of an hour each week. As someone who charges their time out by the hour this adds up.

The complaint by the garage lacks any credibility. Would the owner be making the same noises if the proposed supermarket was to be built in Fulford, or further afield. I suspect not!

It is just like those in Fulford battling to stop Germany Beck, where were they when Derwenthorpe (on my door step) was proposed. For the record I am in favour of Derwenthrope too. York needs economic investment and expansion otherwise we will be just another small town near Leeds. For me people need to look at the bigger picture rather than just to the end of their garden.
I live directly behind the current store. I use B&Q once a month at best, realistically once every couple of months. Every week I drive to either Monks Cross, Clifton Moor or Tadcaster Road for my weekly food shop. If this goes ahead i will use the new store without doubt. Thus reducing carbon emissions from my family significantly and saving me an average of three quarters of an hour each week. As someone who charges their time out by the hour this adds up. The complaint by the garage lacks any credibility. Would the owner be making the same noises if the proposed supermarket was to be built in Fulford, or further afield. I suspect not! It is just like those in Fulford battling to stop Germany Beck, where were they when Derwenthorpe (on my door step) was proposed. For the record I am in favour of Derwenthrope too. York needs economic investment and expansion otherwise we will be just another small town near Leeds. For me people need to look at the bigger picture rather than just to the end of their garden. Didyoureallyreadthestory
  • Score: 9

1:32pm Tue 13 May 14

meme says...

anyone remember when Band q got permission for this store they had to have lots of bicycle spaces so people could cycle there and take their DIY stuff home on a bike. it was restricted to bulky goods only...Just shows how planners turn turtle
But MX was the same . Where John Lewis is now was restricted to science based offices because it was so important to York but money made the planners turn turtle again.
If only planners would stop being so unrealistic because of politics and allow free enterprise to get on with it we would be a far better and richer city for all
anyone remember when Band q got permission for this store they had to have lots of bicycle spaces so people could cycle there and take their DIY stuff home on a bike. it was restricted to bulky goods only...Just shows how planners turn turtle [I actually think its a great idea to have a supermarket here] But MX was the same . Where John Lewis is now was restricted to science based offices because it was so important to York but money made the planners turn turtle again. If only planners would stop being so unrealistic because of politics and allow free enterprise to get on with it we would be a far better and richer city for all meme
  • Score: -7

2:40pm Tue 13 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

doltare wrote:
I think you will find that the people on here singing for another supermarket work for the supermarket! they employ people to leave comments in favor! Anyway it will get permission as its Labour in York plus you must think of all the east European workers behind the scene at Sainsbury's there hundreds employed there all waiting for pickup were I live on a morning. Supermarket are very good at putting British workers on the shop front! to fool the shoppers.
Hahahaha are you suggesting that everyone who comments on here who sees a common sense idea to locate a supermarket on the east of York to allow all those on the outskirts (Evington pocklington etc) all work for the supermarkets? and if so you actually believe that their loyalty to that supermarket would mean they want more? Are you nuts? Anyone who works in a supermarket doesn’t do it for loyalty to their franchise! Its a job. As for them paying people to leave positive comments again are you mad? why would they bother its a small time newspaper with no punch about it... I hardly think supermarkets (multi million pound companies) would feel the need to get positive comments on such a site...

Also just so I’m clear I’d rather see this building used not vacant! its a good location and its needed... its a shame its Sainsburys mind as they are terrible... and so is their front man but each to their own.. but just like others have said don't spurt out cr@p and lies because you can't think of a valid reason not to put one there. extra traffic blah blah... yeh because no one went to b&q in the first place did they! muppets.
[quote][p][bold]doltare[/bold] wrote: I think you will find that the people on here singing for another supermarket work for the supermarket! they employ people to leave comments in favor! Anyway it will get permission as its Labour in York plus you must think of all the east European workers behind the scene at Sainsbury's there hundreds employed there all waiting for pickup were I live on a morning. Supermarket are very good at putting British workers on the shop front! to fool the shoppers.[/p][/quote]Hahahaha are you suggesting that everyone who comments on here who sees a common sense idea to locate a supermarket on the east of York to allow all those on the outskirts (Evington pocklington etc) all work for the supermarkets? and if so you actually believe that their loyalty to that supermarket would mean they want more? Are you nuts? Anyone who works in a supermarket doesn’t do it for loyalty to their franchise! Its a job. As for them paying people to leave positive comments again are you mad? why would they bother its a small time newspaper with no punch about it... I hardly think supermarkets (multi million pound companies) would feel the need to get positive comments on such a site... Also just so I’m clear I’d rather see this building used not vacant! its a good location and its needed... its a shame its Sainsburys mind as they are terrible... and so is their front man but each to their own.. but just like others have said don't spurt out cr@p and lies because you can't think of a valid reason not to put one there. extra traffic blah blah... yeh because no one went to b&q in the first place did they! muppets. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -51

3:52pm Fri 16 May 14

Cheeky face says...

B and Q and Sainsburys's should have corporate executives preparing business cases for the siting of their stores/depots. Very often there are hidden deals which often confuse the public.

The university students will choose to use the store in the same way students/6th formers use Tesco at Askham bar.

These big operations seem to know how to get their own way.

These big national concerns look at short/medium/long term periods ahead; and often these projected forecasts are scary. e.g. In 2040 there will be nearly 50% more traffic! HS2, road building, and housing market trends are unknown but will need massive investment Doctors will scare us even more on what we should eat. The shoppers analysis will need to cater for a bigger % of over 65s. And by 2040 we may close York completely to non -essential motor cars; and still not know how to deal with congestion, because motor cars are so convenient! Something drastic is needed; but in the meantime changes to sites/stores will continue.

I believe ineffective time, (sat in cars etc, waiting for phones to be answered) will not stop increasing alarmingly. Can the country allow us to have so much time wasted ? Other countries are far ahead of us in long term issues, and they do not spend so long getting a plan together.
B and Q and Sainsburys's should have corporate executives preparing business cases for the siting of their stores/depots. Very often there are hidden deals which often confuse the public. The university students will choose to use the store in the same way students/6th formers use Tesco at Askham bar. These big operations seem to know how to get their own way. These big national concerns look at short/medium/long term periods ahead; and often these projected forecasts are scary. e.g. In 2040 there will be nearly 50% more traffic! HS2, road building, and housing market trends are unknown but will need massive investment Doctors will scare us even more on what we should eat. The shoppers analysis will need to cater for a bigger % of over 65s. And by 2040 we may close York completely to non -essential motor cars; and still not know how to deal with congestion, because motor cars are so convenient! Something drastic is needed; but in the meantime changes to sites/stores will continue. I believe ineffective time, (sat in cars etc, waiting for phones to be answered) will not stop increasing alarmingly. Can the country allow us to have so much time wasted ? Other countries are far ahead of us in long term issues, and they do not spend so long getting a plan together. Cheeky face
  • Score: -8

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