City of York Council hit back at brownfield site targets

Councillor Chris Steward Leader of the Conservative Group on City Of York Council

Councillor Chris Steward Leader of the Conservative Group on City Of York Council

First published in News
Last updated
by

CONSERVATIVE politicians are calling for a rethink over housing plans for York's greenfield land, after figures showed the city-centre had one of the highest concentrations of undeveloped brownfield sites in the country.

Data provided by the House of Commons library shows that previously developed land makes up 2.89 percent of York Inner's land - putting it in the top sixth of constituencies in England and Wales in a league table of brownfield land.

City of York Council has said the figures, which date from a 2009 survey, are out-of-date, and the brownfield land available would not meet even conservative estimates of York's housing need in the long term.

But both York Outer MP Julian Sturdy and Conservative group leader Chris Steward have said the data shows large greenfield developments in the local plan are unnecessary.

Cllr Steward said: "CYC has simply not taken brownfield sites into account to the extent it should have when preparing its Local Plan. Instead the Labour administration is seeking to attract developers by allowing them to build large estates on easy-to-build-on green land rather than the more sustainable infill opportunities presented by brownfield sites."

Although some brownfield sites will not be suitable for development, and others should be set aside for industrial or business use, he said many have massive potential for housing. Cllr Steward also pointed to sites such as The Press's former site on Walmgate, which he said have recently been given planning permission but not considered in the local plan.

Mr Sturdy added: "One of the key purposes of the greenbelt is in promoting urban regeneration. By underutilising the city’ previously developed land and by allowing developers to cherry pick such huge swathes of the beautiful open countryside which surrounds York, the Labour-run Council is failing our great city and its people.”

But council's assistant director of planning policy Mike Slater said the local plan is based on more up-to-date figures, and identifies 80.3 hectares of brownfield land - more than the Commons' 2009 figures.

Even if all 67.7 hectares shown in the 2009 figures were developed with 50 dwellings per hectare, it would build only 3,385 houses which would be enough for four years of 850 homes a year - the target included in the former Regional Spatial Strategy Plan for York - and well short of the 15 year plan. The current draft local plan works to a target of 1200 new homes a year.

The council's cabinet member for planning Cllr Dave Merrett added: "Apart from using figures that are five years out of date, and inaccurate, Julian Sturdy, Cllr Steward and local Conservatives continue to underestimate the housing crisis York is experiencing across both constituencies. Even building on available brownfield sites at densities not recommended by their Government, York would still not deliver the number of new homes required, as identified by independent research.

"What they don’t say is under Conservative housing targets some greenfield development would still be required. Labour is the only party prepared to deliver a Local Plan to meet the housing challenges York faces."

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:23pm Sat 30 Aug 14

What-a-joke-they-are says...

'Some'. Greenfield development is acceptable in a controlled manner.

2 new towns that will turn York into a sprawling urban mess isn't !

This council are a joke and the sooner they are removed the better!

Remove national politics from local government - listen to the residents and last of all - can the council please remove this 'cabinet' which is doing untold damage to this previously great town!
'Some'. Greenfield development is acceptable in a controlled manner. 2 new towns that will turn York into a sprawling urban mess isn't ! This council are a joke and the sooner they are removed the better! Remove national politics from local government - listen to the residents and last of all - can the council please remove this 'cabinet' which is doing untold damage to this previously great town! What-a-joke-they-are
  • Score: -5

12:40pm Sat 30 Aug 14

pedalling paul says...

The National Planning Policy Framework is Whitehall guidance to local Authorities. It has a number of core principles including paragraph 17…

“actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”

Brownfield sites should generally be developed as a first choice, to minimise car dependancy for local journeys.

But does this mandate the hierarchy of choices that were previously laid down in the predecessor PPG guidance? And in the continued absence of a Local Development Framework (the fault of the pro-stadium lobby) can prospective developers be guided to brownfield sites as a first choice, or is CoYC currently unable to legally resist proposals for greenfield development?

No point being abusive to Dave Merrett. Councillors hands are often tied by local, regional and national policies and guidance. It would be a bold Councillor who flew in the face of Officer advice.

I sense another bout of electioneering build up by the Tories. But that's what democracy is all about isn't it. Don't tell it like it is, as elections loom.
The National Planning Policy Framework is Whitehall guidance to local Authorities. It has a number of core principles including paragraph 17… “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable” Brownfield sites should generally be developed as a first choice, to minimise car dependancy for local journeys. But does this mandate the hierarchy of choices that were previously laid down in the predecessor PPG guidance? And in the continued absence of a Local Development Framework (the fault of the pro-stadium lobby) can prospective developers be guided to brownfield sites as a first choice, or is CoYC currently unable to legally resist proposals for greenfield development? No point being abusive to Dave Merrett. Councillors hands are often tied by local, regional and national policies and guidance. It would be a bold Councillor who flew in the face of Officer advice. I sense another bout of electioneering build up by the Tories. But that's what democracy is all about isn't it. Don't tell it like it is, as elections loom. pedalling paul
  • Score: 42

12:50pm Sat 30 Aug 14

nottoooldtocare says...

Had the present council not put unrealistic demand on developers for free housing as part of any development we might not have such a shortfall. also and regardless of how accurate the figures are, shouldn't we be looking to utilise brownfield sits first/ There are some significant sites in and around York that are dormant. British Sugar and the old grain site in Clifton are two that spring to mind, neither of which flood and are with easy reach of the City Centre without needing a car (should help to satisfy PP and Mr Merritt's cycling obsession).

looking forward, if brownfield can't be developed (for good reason such as flooding) then this should be turned into an open green space to help compensate for new greenfield loss. It shouldn't be too hard to work with developers if the council are being reasonable, should it?
Had the present council not put unrealistic demand on developers for free housing as part of any development we might not have such a shortfall. also and regardless of how accurate the figures are, shouldn't we be looking to utilise brownfield sits first/ There are some significant sites in and around York that are dormant. British Sugar and the old grain site in Clifton are two that spring to mind, neither of which flood and are with easy reach of the City Centre without needing a car (should help to satisfy PP and Mr Merritt's cycling obsession). looking forward, if brownfield can't be developed (for good reason such as flooding) then this should be turned into an open green space to help compensate for new greenfield loss. It shouldn't be too hard to work with developers if the council are being reasonable, should it? nottoooldtocare
  • Score: -38

12:50pm Sat 30 Aug 14

What-a-joke-they-are says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The National Planning Policy Framework is Whitehall guidance to local Authorities. It has a number of core principles including paragraph 17…

“actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”

Brownfield sites should generally be developed as a first choice, to minimise car dependancy for local journeys.

But does this mandate the hierarchy of choices that were previously laid down in the predecessor PPG guidance? And in the continued absence of a Local Development Framework (the fault of the pro-stadium lobby) can prospective developers be guided to brownfield sites as a first choice, or is CoYC currently unable to legally resist proposals for greenfield development?

No point being abusive to Dave Merrett. Councillors hands are often tied by local, regional and national policies and guidance. It would be a bold Councillor who flew in the face of Officer advice.

I sense another bout of electioneering build up by the Tories. But that's what democracy is all about isn't it. Don't tell it like it is, as elections loom.
Rubbish!

Councillors should represent their constituents irrespective of party politics

If that means campaigning against 'officers advice' then so be it

Too much bureaucracy, self serving ladder climbing and not enough common sense
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The National Planning Policy Framework is Whitehall guidance to local Authorities. It has a number of core principles including paragraph 17… “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable” Brownfield sites should generally be developed as a first choice, to minimise car dependancy for local journeys. But does this mandate the hierarchy of choices that were previously laid down in the predecessor PPG guidance? And in the continued absence of a Local Development Framework (the fault of the pro-stadium lobby) can prospective developers be guided to brownfield sites as a first choice, or is CoYC currently unable to legally resist proposals for greenfield development? No point being abusive to Dave Merrett. Councillors hands are often tied by local, regional and national policies and guidance. It would be a bold Councillor who flew in the face of Officer advice. I sense another bout of electioneering build up by the Tories. But that's what democracy is all about isn't it. Don't tell it like it is, as elections loom.[/p][/quote]Rubbish! Councillors should represent their constituents irrespective of party politics If that means campaigning against 'officers advice' then so be it Too much bureaucracy, self serving ladder climbing and not enough common sense What-a-joke-they-are
  • Score: -26

12:52pm Sat 30 Aug 14

What-a-joke-they-are says...

And how come I get increasing -ve scores as soon as pp arrives?
And how come I get increasing -ve scores as soon as pp arrives? What-a-joke-they-are
  • Score: -31

12:53pm Sat 30 Aug 14

oi oi savaloy says...

What-a-joke-they-are wrote:
'Some'. Greenfield development is acceptable in a controlled manner.

2 new towns that will turn York into a sprawling urban mess isn't !

This council are a joke and the sooner they are removed the better!

Remove national politics from local government - listen to the residents and last of all - can the council please remove this 'cabinet' which is doing untold damage to this previously great town!
AND labour keep spouting on about the need for affordable housing for hardworking families? Can JA OR T S-L come on here and tell the hard working people of York the last time you gave social housing to a hard working indigenous family? Hard working families cannot get on the waiting list even, they are told to private rent and then claim housing benefit whilst immigrants jump the queue , Jack Straw himself said that they would house immigrants first because they have nowhere to go. And the council spout on about a duty of care, are the council following the new rules that came in to effect this year OR is it business as usual?
[quote][p][bold]What-a-joke-they-are[/bold] wrote: 'Some'. Greenfield development is acceptable in a controlled manner. 2 new towns that will turn York into a sprawling urban mess isn't ! This council are a joke and the sooner they are removed the better! Remove national politics from local government - listen to the residents and last of all - can the council please remove this 'cabinet' which is doing untold damage to this previously great town![/p][/quote]AND labour keep spouting on about the need for affordable housing for hardworking families? Can JA OR T S-L come on here and tell the hard working people of York the last time you gave social housing to a hard working indigenous family? Hard working families cannot get on the waiting list even, they are told to private rent and then claim housing benefit whilst immigrants jump the queue , Jack Straw himself said that they would house immigrants first because they have nowhere to go. And the council spout on about a duty of care, are the council following the new rules that came in to effect this year OR is it business as usual? oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -19

1:17pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first.

The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work?

With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home?

From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on.

Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids.

That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.
Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too. Jack Ham
  • Score: -12

1:38pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

Labour's Local Plan uses inflated housing need data to justify excessive allocations of green belt land because it provides 35% affordable (social housing, instead of 20% on brownfield.

They have used every trick in the book to grab as much green belt as possible; reduced densities/capacities on brownfield sites, excessive buffer of 15% on full 15yr plan land allocation (instead of 5%-20% x 5yrs), and no windfalls taken into consideration.

It's an ideologically driven agenda to flood York with cheap green belt land to maximise the social housing grab, and then who will this housing be allocated to? Interlopers from West Yorkshire!

It's all very cynical and wrong!
Labour's Local Plan uses inflated housing need data to justify excessive allocations of green belt land because it provides 35% affordable (social housing, instead of 20% on brownfield. They have used every trick in the book to grab as much green belt as possible; reduced densities/capacities on brownfield sites, excessive buffer of 15% on full 15yr plan land allocation (instead of 5%-20% x 5yrs), and no windfalls taken into consideration. It's an ideologically driven agenda to flood York with cheap green belt land to maximise the social housing grab, and then who will this housing be allocated to? Interlopers from West Yorkshire! It's all very cynical and wrong! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -17

1:48pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

Jack Ham wrote:
Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.
Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England.

When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that?

Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that?

There's a pattern emerging here.....

It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run.

The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me!
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.[/p][/quote]Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England. When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that? Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that? There's a pattern emerging here..... It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run. The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -53

1:55pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Jack Ham wrote:
Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.
Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England.

When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that?

Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that?

There's a pattern emerging here.....

It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run.

The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me!
I don't remember it including retail outlets and NHS facilities either. If I lived in Huntington and had to drive I would be seriously worried right now.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.[/p][/quote]Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England. When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that? Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that? There's a pattern emerging here..... It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run. The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me![/p][/quote]I don't remember it including retail outlets and NHS facilities either. If I lived in Huntington and had to drive I would be seriously worried right now. Jack Ham
  • Score: -70

2:46pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Mr Trellis says...

Its much harder to build on brown field sites. Big builders cant do it so they lobby ( for lobby read what you will) to get green field ones
Its that simple
Developing brown field sites makes sense for everybody except the large builders.
Its much harder to build on brown field sites. Big builders cant do it so they lobby ( for lobby read what you will) to get green field ones Its that simple Developing brown field sites makes sense for everybody except the large builders. Mr Trellis
  • Score: -54

4:38pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Meirion M says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The National Planning Policy Framework is Whitehall guidance to local Authorities. It has a number of core principles including paragraph 17…

“actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”

Brownfield sites should generally be developed as a first choice, to minimise car dependancy for local journeys.

But does this mandate the hierarchy of choices that were previously laid down in the predecessor PPG guidance? And in the continued absence of a Local Development Framework (the fault of the pro-stadium lobby) can prospective developers be guided to brownfield sites as a first choice, or is CoYC currently unable to legally resist proposals for greenfield development?

No point being abusive to Dave Merrett. Councillors hands are often tied by local, regional and national policies and guidance. It would be a bold Councillor who flew in the face of Officer advice.

I sense another bout of electioneering build up by the Tories. But that's what democracy is all about isn't it. Don't tell it like it is, as elections loom.
Absolute twaddle!
Why not cycle into the sunset, you Labour apologist.
I, for one, will NOT vote Labour in the local elections in May 2015.
I have voted Labour since 1965, but in the local elections next year.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The National Planning Policy Framework is Whitehall guidance to local Authorities. It has a number of core principles including paragraph 17… “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable” Brownfield sites should generally be developed as a first choice, to minimise car dependancy for local journeys. But does this mandate the hierarchy of choices that were previously laid down in the predecessor PPG guidance? And in the continued absence of a Local Development Framework (the fault of the pro-stadium lobby) can prospective developers be guided to brownfield sites as a first choice, or is CoYC currently unable to legally resist proposals for greenfield development? No point being abusive to Dave Merrett. Councillors hands are often tied by local, regional and national policies and guidance. It would be a bold Councillor who flew in the face of Officer advice. I sense another bout of electioneering build up by the Tories. But that's what democracy is all about isn't it. Don't tell it like it is, as elections loom.[/p][/quote]Absolute twaddle! Why not cycle into the sunset, you Labour apologist. I, for one, will NOT vote Labour in the local elections in May 2015. I have voted Labour since 1965, but in the local elections next year. Meirion M
  • Score: -35

5:47pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Dave Ruddock says...

Can the council work without ANY Member of the (I AM THE MAN ) people that continually get elected with (PROMISES), then fail on everyone, Thats ALL Parties, As for these Plans (When do plans get put into effect or is it Plans for plans sake and nothing at all is done, Get the chamber of commerce working. get the Housing Department to work WITHOUT some muppett bragging or slagging off others, its like a Infant school . Sorry Infants .
Can the council work without ANY Member of the (I AM THE MAN ) people that continually get elected with (PROMISES), then fail on everyone, Thats ALL Parties, As for these Plans (When do plans get put into effect or is it Plans for plans sake and nothing at all is done, Get the chamber of commerce working. get the Housing Department to work WITHOUT some muppett bragging or slagging off others, its like a Infant school . Sorry Infants . Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -23

7:36pm Sat 30 Aug 14

LindaNess says...

Jack Ham wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Jack Ham wrote:
Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.
Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England.

When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that?

Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that?

There's a pattern emerging here.....

It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run.

The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me!
I don't remember it including retail outlets and NHS facilities either. If I lived in Huntington and had to drive I would be seriously worried right now.
87 properties going up soon on New Lane, Huntington, with many more to follow if the Local Plan is adopted. The local infant/junior school is full. There are no buses on New Lane in the evening or on a Sunday. More cars needed to transport the kids to wherever there are available places. What will the added impact on the environment be?
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.[/p][/quote]Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England. When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that? Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that? There's a pattern emerging here..... It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run. The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me![/p][/quote]I don't remember it including retail outlets and NHS facilities either. If I lived in Huntington and had to drive I would be seriously worried right now.[/p][/quote]87 properties going up soon on New Lane, Huntington, with many more to follow if the Local Plan is adopted. The local infant/junior school is full. There are no buses on New Lane in the evening or on a Sunday. More cars needed to transport the kids to wherever there are available places. What will the added impact on the environment be? LindaNess
  • Score: -28

7:47pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Pinza-C55 says...

"Even if all 67.7 hectares shown in the 2009 figures were developed with 50 dwellings per hectare, it would build only 3,385 houses which would be enough for four years of 850 homes a year "

Four years worth sounds excellent to me ?

That would be four years before we needed to look at greenfield sites ?
"Even if all 67.7 hectares shown in the 2009 figures were developed with 50 dwellings per hectare, it would build only 3,385 houses which would be enough for four years of 850 homes a year " Four years worth sounds excellent to me ? That would be four years before we needed to look at greenfield sites ? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -18

9:04pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Tug job says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Jack Ham wrote:
Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.
Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England.

When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that?

Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that?

There's a pattern emerging here.....

It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run.

The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me!
Why do you keep repeating the lie that the Community Stadium is costing £37million? You know very well that this is the cost of the FULL development, including all of the leisure facilities and the various elements within the community hub. The projected cost of the actual stadium is around £13million, as you well know. Why are you misrepresenting the costs in this way?
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.[/p][/quote]Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England. When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that? Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that? There's a pattern emerging here..... It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run. The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me![/p][/quote]Why do you keep repeating the lie that the Community Stadium is costing £37million? You know very well that this is the cost of the FULL development, including all of the leisure facilities and the various elements within the community hub. The projected cost of the actual stadium is around £13million, as you well know. Why are you misrepresenting the costs in this way? Tug job
  • Score: -9

9:57pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

Tug job wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Jack Ham wrote: Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.
Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England. When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that? Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that? There's a pattern emerging here..... It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run. The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me!
Why do you keep repeating the lie that the Community Stadium is costing £37million? You know very well that this is the cost of the FULL development, including all of the leisure facilities and the various elements within the community hub. The projected cost of the actual stadium is around £13million, as you well know. Why are you misrepresenting the costs in this way?
Let me correct you Tug Job....

From Press article 19th November 2012:

City of York Council’s cabinet has approved a revised business case for the £19.2 million Monks Cross project, including a 6,000-seater stadium for York City FC and York City Knights alongside community facilities.

But although the scheme’s overall cost has remained the same, the project costs – relating to the search for an operator to run the stadium and York’s other public leisure facilities – have increased from £750,000 to £1.2 million between March and November. Meanwhile, the cost of the stadium itself has fallen by £350,000, to £10.65 million.

Councillors Ian Gillies, Mark Warters and Dave Taylor have now called in the cabinet’s decision on the business case, as well as its agreement to offer GLL – the current operators of Huntington Stadium, Waterworld and Courtney’s gym – reduced rent for a year until March 2014.

GLL told the council on October 1 that its losses meant it would terminate its lease in six months. The new agreement – financial details of which have been kept confidential – can be extended until June 2014, with the authority underwriting any losses in its final three months, but this was preferred to either closing the facilities or returning them to council control.

The call-in – which can lead to the cabinet being asked to revisit its original decisions – will be discussed at a scrutiny meeting today. Coun Gillies said the business case changes were “not particularly obvious and transparent”, particularly the increased project costs.

He raised concerns over potential “medium and high” risks associated with the project – mainly funding matters – becoming “unacceptable”, as well as over the GLL deal’s impact on the project’s “financial stability and sustainability


You and the council are the ones 'misrepresenting the costs' actually.
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.[/p][/quote]Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England. When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that? Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that? There's a pattern emerging here..... It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run. The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me![/p][/quote]Why do you keep repeating the lie that the Community Stadium is costing £37million? You know very well that this is the cost of the FULL development, including all of the leisure facilities and the various elements within the community hub. The projected cost of the actual stadium is around £13million, as you well know. Why are you misrepresenting the costs in this way?[/p][/quote]Let me correct you Tug Job.... From Press article 19th November 2012: [quote] City of York Council’s cabinet has approved a revised business case for the £19.2 million Monks Cross project, including a 6,000-seater stadium for York City FC and York City Knights alongside community facilities. But although the scheme’s overall cost has remained the same, the project costs – relating to the search for an operator to run the stadium and York’s other public leisure facilities – have increased from £750,000 to £1.2 million between March and November. Meanwhile, the cost of the stadium itself has fallen by £350,000, to £10.65 million. Councillors Ian Gillies, Mark Warters and Dave Taylor have now called in the cabinet’s decision on the business case, as well as its agreement to offer GLL – the current operators of Huntington Stadium, Waterworld and Courtney’s gym – reduced rent for a year until March 2014. GLL told the council on October 1 that its losses meant it would terminate its lease in six months. The new agreement – financial details of which have been kept confidential – can be extended until June 2014, with the authority underwriting any losses in its final three months, but this was preferred to either closing the facilities or returning them to council control. The call-in – which can lead to the cabinet being asked to revisit its original decisions – will be discussed at a scrutiny meeting today. Coun Gillies said the business case changes were “not particularly obvious and transparent”, particularly the increased project costs. He raised concerns over potential “medium and high” risks associated with the project – mainly funding matters – becoming “unacceptable”, as well as over the GLL deal’s impact on the project’s “financial stability and sustainability [/quote] You and the council are the ones 'misrepresenting the costs' actually. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -53

10:18pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Tug job says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Tug job wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Jack Ham wrote: Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.
Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England. When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that? Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that? There's a pattern emerging here..... It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run. The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me!
Why do you keep repeating the lie that the Community Stadium is costing £37million? You know very well that this is the cost of the FULL development, including all of the leisure facilities and the various elements within the community hub. The projected cost of the actual stadium is around £13million, as you well know. Why are you misrepresenting the costs in this way?
Let me correct you Tug Job....

From Press article 19th November 2012:

City of York Council’s cabinet has approved a revised business case for the £19.2 million Monks Cross project, including a 6,000-seater stadium for York City FC and York City Knights alongside community facilities.

But although the scheme’s overall cost has remained the same, the project costs – relating to the search for an operator to run the stadium and York’s other public leisure facilities – have increased from £750,000 to £1.2 million between March and November. Meanwhile, the cost of the stadium itself has fallen by £350,000, to £10.65 million.

Councillors Ian Gillies, Mark Warters and Dave Taylor have now called in the cabinet’s decision on the business case, as well as its agreement to offer GLL – the current operators of Huntington Stadium, Waterworld and Courtney’s gym – reduced rent for a year until March 2014.

GLL told the council on October 1 that its losses meant it would terminate its lease in six months. The new agreement – financial details of which have been kept confidential – can be extended until June 2014, with the authority underwriting any losses in its final three months, but this was preferred to either closing the facilities or returning them to council control.

The call-in – which can lead to the cabinet being asked to revisit its original decisions – will be discussed at a scrutiny meeting today. Coun Gillies said the business case changes were “not particularly obvious and transparent”, particularly the increased project costs.

He raised concerns over potential “medium and high” risks associated with the project – mainly funding matters – becoming “unacceptable”, as well as over the GLL deal’s impact on the project’s “financial stability and sustainability


You and the council are the ones 'misrepresenting the costs' actually.
I happily concede that precise costings on large developments can be subject to fluctuaion- i am involved in civil engineering projects here in the US. But the stadium is not costing £37million, so why post that it is?
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.[/p][/quote]Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England. When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that? Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that? There's a pattern emerging here..... It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run. The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me![/p][/quote]Why do you keep repeating the lie that the Community Stadium is costing £37million? You know very well that this is the cost of the FULL development, including all of the leisure facilities and the various elements within the community hub. The projected cost of the actual stadium is around £13million, as you well know. Why are you misrepresenting the costs in this way?[/p][/quote]Let me correct you Tug Job.... From Press article 19th November 2012: [quote] City of York Council’s cabinet has approved a revised business case for the £19.2 million Monks Cross project, including a 6,000-seater stadium for York City FC and York City Knights alongside community facilities. But although the scheme’s overall cost has remained the same, the project costs – relating to the search for an operator to run the stadium and York’s other public leisure facilities – have increased from £750,000 to £1.2 million between March and November. Meanwhile, the cost of the stadium itself has fallen by £350,000, to £10.65 million. Councillors Ian Gillies, Mark Warters and Dave Taylor have now called in the cabinet’s decision on the business case, as well as its agreement to offer GLL – the current operators of Huntington Stadium, Waterworld and Courtney’s gym – reduced rent for a year until March 2014. GLL told the council on October 1 that its losses meant it would terminate its lease in six months. The new agreement – financial details of which have been kept confidential – can be extended until June 2014, with the authority underwriting any losses in its final three months, but this was preferred to either closing the facilities or returning them to council control. The call-in – which can lead to the cabinet being asked to revisit its original decisions – will be discussed at a scrutiny meeting today. Coun Gillies said the business case changes were “not particularly obvious and transparent”, particularly the increased project costs. He raised concerns over potential “medium and high” risks associated with the project – mainly funding matters – becoming “unacceptable”, as well as over the GLL deal’s impact on the project’s “financial stability and sustainability [/quote] You and the council are the ones 'misrepresenting the costs' actually.[/p][/quote]I happily concede that precise costings on large developments can be subject to fluctuaion- i am involved in civil engineering projects here in the US. But the stadium is not costing £37million, so why post that it is? Tug job
  • Score: -41

10:54pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

Tug job wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Tug job wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Jack Ham wrote: Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.
Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England. When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that? Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that? There's a pattern emerging here..... It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run. The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me!
Why do you keep repeating the lie that the Community Stadium is costing £37million? You know very well that this is the cost of the FULL development, including all of the leisure facilities and the various elements within the community hub. The projected cost of the actual stadium is around £13million, as you well know. Why are you misrepresenting the costs in this way?
Let me correct you Tug Job.... From Press article 19th November 2012:
City of York Council’s cabinet has approved a revised business case for the £19.2 million Monks Cross project, including a 6,000-seater stadium for York City FC and York City Knights alongside community facilities. But although the scheme’s overall cost has remained the same, the project costs – relating to the search for an operator to run the stadium and York’s other public leisure facilities – have increased from £750,000 to £1.2 million between March and November. Meanwhile, the cost of the stadium itself has fallen by £350,000, to £10.65 million. Councillors Ian Gillies, Mark Warters and Dave Taylor have now called in the cabinet’s decision on the business case, as well as its agreement to offer GLL – the current operators of Huntington Stadium, Waterworld and Courtney’s gym – reduced rent for a year until March 2014. GLL told the council on October 1 that its losses meant it would terminate its lease in six months. The new agreement – financial details of which have been kept confidential – can be extended until June 2014, with the authority underwriting any losses in its final three months, but this was preferred to either closing the facilities or returning them to council control. The call-in – which can lead to the cabinet being asked to revisit its original decisions – will be discussed at a scrutiny meeting today. Coun Gillies said the business case changes were “not particularly obvious and transparent”, particularly the increased project costs. He raised concerns over potential “medium and high” risks associated with the project – mainly funding matters – becoming “unacceptable”, as well as over the GLL deal’s impact on the project’s “financial stability and sustainability
You and the council are the ones 'misrepresenting the costs' actually.
I happily concede that precise costings on large developments can be subject to fluctuaion- i am involved in civil engineering projects here in the US. But the stadium is not costing £37million, so why post that it is?
Come on, a £17.65m increase on an original budget of £19.35m agreed in November 2012 - that is ridiculous!

This is not a complicated major civils job, it ain't Wembley, it's relatively simple,actually.

This project has been planned for years and has had detailed cost estimates prepared by cost consultants. Cost overruns usually occur during construction due to unforseen circumstances. Cost increases of the magnitude we are seeing here before construction commences, and when so much work has been done on the planning of it, is highly suspicious. It results either from gross incompetence, or gross misconduct!
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: Whether you like the Tories or not, what Chris Steward is saying makes logical sense and for once, we have a councillor who is putting residents, rather than sound bites first. The Labour group seem determined to destroy all what's good about York before they spring board into safe seats as MP's elsewhere. How much of our money has Alexander spent buying favour in West Yorkshire? What's the true purpose of that work? With a Chief Executive on £137,000 plus bonus who doesn't live in the city plus a Deputy CEO and other Directors who live elsewhere what do they really care about our home? From all accounts Kersten England has seen the writing on the wall and is applying for so many jobs at the moment it's a surprise she has time for all the foreign 'fact finding' trips she gives on. Labour will be gone next year but their pernicious, dangerous Local Plan has to potential to wreck our city beyond repair. It seems hypothetical now but what till the new estates, traveller camps and wind turbines start going up. Wait till your roads are grid locked and you can't get a school place for your kids. That will be Labours legacy if they get their way. Oh, and a very, very large pot of debt for our kids and grand kids to pay off too.[/p][/quote]Interesting points Jack, about Kersten England. When she came to York she boasted about Calderdale having wanted a leisure centre for 30yrs, and then she came along and delivered not one but two. How did she do that? Here we are in York, where we have wanted a new football stadium, and along comes KE and we get one that is not costing the £19m CYC said it would, but, £37m - double the cost!!! How didshe/they do that? There's a pattern emerging here..... It's called double-up, and b*gger off. Not take the money, but, spend the money an run. The scope of the community stadium did not include a replacement pool for Waterworld, and now it does. Isn't this all a bit suspect? Was the scope engineered to favour social enterprise GLL, and exclude/disadvantage other bidders? Itlooks that way to me![/p][/quote]Why do you keep repeating the lie that the Community Stadium is costing £37million? You know very well that this is the cost of the FULL development, including all of the leisure facilities and the various elements within the community hub. The projected cost of the actual stadium is around £13million, as you well know. Why are you misrepresenting the costs in this way?[/p][/quote]Let me correct you Tug Job.... From Press article 19th November 2012: [quote] City of York Council’s cabinet has approved a revised business case for the £19.2 million Monks Cross project, including a 6,000-seater stadium for York City FC and York City Knights alongside community facilities. But although the scheme’s overall cost has remained the same, the project costs – relating to the search for an operator to run the stadium and York’s other public leisure facilities – have increased from £750,000 to £1.2 million between March and November. Meanwhile, the cost of the stadium itself has fallen by £350,000, to £10.65 million. Councillors Ian Gillies, Mark Warters and Dave Taylor have now called in the cabinet’s decision on the business case, as well as its agreement to offer GLL – the current operators of Huntington Stadium, Waterworld and Courtney’s gym – reduced rent for a year until March 2014. GLL told the council on October 1 that its losses meant it would terminate its lease in six months. The new agreement – financial details of which have been kept confidential – can be extended until June 2014, with the authority underwriting any losses in its final three months, but this was preferred to either closing the facilities or returning them to council control. The call-in – which can lead to the cabinet being asked to revisit its original decisions – will be discussed at a scrutiny meeting today. Coun Gillies said the business case changes were “not particularly obvious and transparent”, particularly the increased project costs. He raised concerns over potential “medium and high” risks associated with the project – mainly funding matters – becoming “unacceptable”, as well as over the GLL deal’s impact on the project’s “financial stability and sustainability [/quote] You and the council are the ones 'misrepresenting the costs' actually.[/p][/quote]I happily concede that precise costings on large developments can be subject to fluctuaion- i am involved in civil engineering projects here in the US. But the stadium is not costing £37million, so why post that it is?[/p][/quote]Come on, a £17.65m increase on an original budget of £19.35m agreed in November 2012 - that is ridiculous! This is not a complicated major civils job, it ain't Wembley, it's relatively simple,actually. This project has been planned for years and has had detailed cost estimates prepared by cost consultants. Cost overruns usually occur during construction due to unforseen circumstances. Cost increases of the magnitude we are seeing here before construction commences, and when so much work has been done on the planning of it, is highly suspicious. It results either from gross incompetence, or gross misconduct! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -23

9:12am Sun 31 Aug 14

trailblazer says...

Lets face it if mayhem Merrett is involved in planning we only have to look at the Lendal Bridge scandal to know where the truth lies.
Lets face it if mayhem Merrett is involved in planning we only have to look at the Lendal Bridge scandal to know where the truth lies. trailblazer
  • Score: -14

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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