Artist’s impressions of York’s community stadium revealed (From York Press)

Hope its not all seater, there should be standing at the ends. At least there is no running track

I'd love it to have standing areas as well, but sadly the terms of the grant/loan from whatever the ground improvement quango is called this week mean that it will be all-seater, unless the law is changed and unless the football authorities can be persuaded that standing is not inherently dangerous.
`
It'll happen eventually, but not in time to provide terracing at the new ground.

definately need a terrace, at least for the home supporters.
it does look good from this impression, just wish it wasn't going to be out at bloomin monks cross!

Great idea in principle but can someone please tell me how this is going to get consent without giving the mother of all payments to CoYC?
There is no way the land on which they want to put retail would normally get consent unless the developers pay to build the stadium.I suspect the planning application will be called in to a planning enquiry and there will be huge opposition from retailers in the City centre and quite rightly so as the centre could suffer badly for the benefit of a small minority.
If this does go ahead will it be worth the political and moral storm that will come from granting what will be a very contentious permission in return for a huge capital payment to the City. We used to have a name for payments like this but it seems that no one seems to care anymore!

Looks great and at last some detail. What is Guildford's problem, I thought he had the guarantee from the council he wanted? If he has an issue with it, he needs to say specifically what it is - mumbling 'I'm a bit confused' helps nobody. Might I suggest he'd have been less confused had he bothered to turn up!

Doesnt look too bad considering..but NEEDS terracing, not only will that create a better feel for supporters but also potentially up the capacity a bit as well as bring down some costings.

Think you will find most fans want standing space,all seater grounds don't have the same atmosphere at this level of the game.
I too wish it was more central,way out from the city for any away fans coming by train,lacks pubs ,meaning it will be rip off prices at the ground bar, similar to the ones we travel too.
Having said that at least we have a team and the ground looks smart.
hopefully this article will silence the doubters (includes myself ) who thought this was just fantasy stuff with the council giving it lip service...time will tell.

I hope it all goes well. I have a foreboding that we are not being told the whole truth and that local tax payers will be footing most of the bill, despite assurances to the contrary.
Perhaps the cost could be reduced by introducing the seating in phases as necessary; instead of 6000 seats, ask both City supporters if they could bring a deck-chair.

meme wrote:
Great idea in principle but can someone please tell me how this is going to get consent without giving the mother of all payments to CoYC? There is no way the land on which they want to put retail would normally get consent unless the developers pay to build the stadium.I suspect the planning application will be called in to a planning enquiry and there will be huge opposition from retailers in the City centre and quite rightly so as the centre could suffer badly for the benefit of a small minority. If this does go ahead will it be worth the political and moral storm that will come from granting what will be a very contentious permission in return for a huge capital payment to the City. We used to have a name for payments like this but it seems that no one seems to care anymore!

Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement.

These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, cycle routes, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing.

The scope of such agreements is laid out in the government’s Circular 05/2005. Matters agreed as part of a S106 must be:

relevant to planning necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms directly related to the proposed development fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development reasonable in all other respects.A council’s approach to securing benefits through the S106 process should be grounded in evidence-based policy.

pedalling paul wrote:

meme wrote:
Great idea in principle but can someone please tell me how this is going to get consent without giving the mother of all payments to CoYC? There is no way the land on which they want to put retail would normally get consent unless the developers pay to build the stadium.I suspect the planning application will be called in to a planning enquiry and there will be huge opposition from retailers in the City centre and quite rightly so as the centre could suffer badly for the benefit of a small minority. If this does go ahead will it be worth the political and moral storm that will come from granting what will be a very contentious permission in return for a huge capital payment to the City. We used to have a name for payments like this but it seems that no one seems to care anymore!

Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement.

These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, cycle routes, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing.

The scope of such agreements is laid out in the government’s Circular 05/2005. Matters agreed as part of a S106 must be:

relevant to planning necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms directly related to the proposed development fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development reasonable in all other respects.A council’s approach to securing benefits through the S106 process should be grounded in evidence-based policy.

well done pp you even got a bike post in this explanation.
''such as highways, cycle routes, recreational facilities, education, ''

Very good - Burton Albionesq
Most of the accommodation seems to be down the sides but can I suggest that, even if seated, there is a larger home end behind the goal.

Question: Do we need more out of town shopping provision? If the answer for this is a resounding 'yes' - then I think the stadium might get built. If its a firm 'no' - it won't.
Strange times we live in that a community sports stadium relies on retail demand, but there you go.

spockboy wrote:

pedalling paul wrote:

meme wrote: Great idea in principle but can someone please tell me how this is going to get consent without giving the mother of all payments to CoYC? There is no way the land on which they want to put retail would normally get consent unless the developers pay to build the stadium.I suspect the planning application will be called in to a planning enquiry and there will be huge opposition from retailers in the City centre and quite rightly so as the centre could suffer badly for the benefit of a small minority. If this does go ahead will it be worth the political and moral storm that will come from granting what will be a very contentious permission in return for a huge capital payment to the City. We used to have a name for payments like this but it seems that no one seems to care anymore!

Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement. These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, cycle routes, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing. The scope of such agreements is laid out in the government’s Circular 05/2005. Matters agreed as part of a S106 must be: relevant to planning necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms directly related to the proposed development fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development reasonable in all other respects.A council’s approach to securing benefits through the S106 process should be grounded in evidence-based policy.

well done pp you even got a bike post in this explanation. ''such as highways, cycle routes, recreational facilities, education, ''

Actually I cheated..it wasn't mentioned in the article that I purloined from a quick Google search, so I added it in.........

Thought we were promised a grass roof?

There should be no real issue with planning permission, as the site is already a stadium, though I suppose it's possible that the Nimbys will raise a stink because the redeveloped stadium will be attracting much bigger crowds than does the existing one.
`
I seriously doubt though that this would result in the application being called in by the Secretary of State, or in a public inquiry being held.
`
Respect to the people who've been working so hard to make this happen, often in the face of unfounded criticism and abuse from people who seem determined to see the project fail.
`
There's still a way to go, I know, but this small step forward is a significant one.

This announcement is disgusting. Have we learned nothing from Wembley or Manchester City. People from around York fought long and hard to build the Ryedale stadium so that at long last future generations would have the benefit and use of a decent athletics track and stadium where it is and without disruption.
Atkins, you are a disgrace!

Right on cue :o)

Cold_as_Christmas wrote:
This announcement is disgusting. Have we learned nothing from Wembley or Manchester City. People from around York fought long and hard to build the Ryedale stadium so that at long last future generations would have the benefit and use of a decent athletics track and stadium where it is and without disruption.
Atkins, you are a disgrace!

Just towards the end of the article. Yes, keep reading...just a little further...and we have it:

"...pledge their commitment to building the community stadium, as well as a new home for City of York Athletics Club, by 2014..."

So you get a new athletics track for nowt! Well done!

MoU is a significant step.
Safe standing should surely be possible -on the continent it's OK why not here? On a cost per person it must be better.
I'd hoped for a ten thousand capacity to cope with our third round replays in future.
If the Rugby lot don't want to join in -great; it will safeguard the pitch.
Athletics at the University will be a big plus for them -definitely not around our pitch. Don Valley and Gateshead show that folly although of course they stage professional athletics meets and are not designed for team sports spectating.
Just need to get this week's game on now.

All involved parties WANT standing.

The Football Foundation (providing a large % of the cash) have to follow central government policy that they can only fund all-seater stadia.

Pointless, damaging, but hey, we need a new ground.

josephheller wrote:

Cold_as_Christmas wrote:
This announcement is disgusting. Have we learned nothing from Wembley or Manchester City. People from around York fought long and hard to build the Ryedale stadium so that at long last future generations would have the benefit and use of a decent athletics track and stadium where it is and without disruption.
Atkins, you are a disgrace!

Just towards the end of the article. Yes, keep reading...just a little further...and we have it:

"...pledge their commitment to building the community stadium, as well as a new home for City of York Athletics Club, by 2014..."

So you get a new athletics track for nowt! Well done!

Exactly and I recall the spokesperson for City of York Athletics said he was pleased with the proposal - it would result in a better track.
Some people use the word 'disgusting' rather too liberally IMHO. The are usually the same people who don't read articles in full! In any case, what is wrong with updating facilities - anyone who thinks HS is fit for purpose hasn't been there recently!

Cold_as_Christmas wrote:
This announcement is disgusting. Have we learned nothing from Wembley or Manchester City. People from around York fought long and hard to build the Ryedale stadium so that at long last future generations would have the benefit and use of a decent athletics track and stadium where it is and without disruption. Atkins, you are a disgrace!

Athletics pah! Go and run around the Knavesmire. We're talking proper sport here

sorry i'm niether a football or rugby suporter ,but have all you football suporter seen the conditions of a pitch after rugby have played on it, alot of premier div clubs pitch shared but soon got rid when they saw the state there pitches were left in in winter, so i can not see why your so keenon sharing a stadium

josephheller wrote:
All involved parties WANT standing. The Football Foundation (providing a large % of the cash) have to follow central government policy that they can only fund all-seater stadia. Pointless, damaging, but hey, we need a new ground.

I think the law only states that stadia in the top two tiers of football must be all-seater.
`
It's the Football Foundation's own criteria that state all their funding going to Football League clubs must be for all-seater stadia.
`
YCFC was a League club when the £2million FF loan was made, therefore that money can only be spent on an all-seater stadium.
`
In theory YCFC could get round this by returning the £2 million and accepting the standard non-league grant towards the stadium which would allow standing. Unfortunately the non-league grant is £400,000 at most, so that's a non-starter.
`
The FF's position is only likely to change if the FA, the Premier League, and the Football League change their policy which is still the knee-jerk reaction "standing bad, sitting good" mantra that became fashionable in the wake of the Hillsborough disaster.
`
A change in the legislation (in the form of a private members bill currently before parliament) might prompt a rethink by the football authorities, but I'm not holding my breath.

6,000 seats absolutely pathetic,sound as if there has been no thought for the future, and certainly no thoughts into been able to extend at a later date, I like many others are very disappointed.

6,000 seats absolutely pathetic,sound as if there has been no thought for the future, and certainly no thoughts into been able to extend at a later date, I like many others are very disappointed.

josephheller wrote:

Cold_as_Christmas wrote:
This announcement is disgusting. Have we learned nothing from Wembley or Manchester City. People from around York fought long and hard to build the Ryedale stadium so that at long last future generations would have the benefit and use of a decent athletics track and stadium where it is and without disruption.
Atkins, you are a disgrace!

Just towards the end of the article. Yes, keep reading...just a little further...and we have it:

"...pledge their commitment to building the community stadium, as well as a new home for City of York Athletics Club, by 2014..."

So you get a new athletics track for nowt! Well done!

However it's at the University and we are still waiting the promised swimming pool, so I would not hold your breath concerning the athletics track.

Why oh why do people throw in abuse without considering the facts.

Thanks to all for correcting all the nonsense about bungs and the issues around why it CANNOT have standing.

Just to counter this one, I believe the MOU is for a 6000 seater stadium with capacity to be expanded to 12000

Seethese guys do know what they're doing. Less ill researched sniping and more support in future I suspect

More shops and a new stadium, sounds like the perfect solution to ease congestion on the northern ring-road....
but I'm sure the devellopers and all other "interested parties" will be contributing loads of their profits towards improving the road?

Anyone who went to see the away game against Rotherham would know how awful it was watching a game of football across an athletic track. And anyone at the Darlington cup-tie will appreciate that a football match played in a large capacity stadium with a small attendances is soul destroying. So a 6,000 capacity stadium for a club of our status, is just about right. There is only one down side - "The Location", but I suppose we cant have everything.

roadwars wrote:
More shops and a new stadium, sounds like the perfect solution to ease congestion on the northern ring-road....
but I'm sure the devellopers and all other "interested parties" will be contributing loads of their profits towards improving the road?

You could apply that argument to anything. Lets not bother building affordable housing or a new pool, or anything cos it might just add traffic. Dear God - with that attitude nothing would get done. Transport infrastructure and public transport adapt to the living city as it changes and expands - not the other way round.

XLB wrote:

Cold_as_Christmas wrote:
This announcement is disgusting. Have we learned nothing from Wembley or Manchester City. People from around York fought long and hard to build the Ryedale stadium so that at long last future generations would have the benefit and use of a decent athletics track and stadium where it is and without disruption. Atkins, you are a disgrace!

Athletics pah! Go and run around the Knavesmire. We're talking proper sport here

Well said. And speaking of which, the Rugby can do one too. We're talking about a club which is taking 5,000 to Bolton, not a club that can't get more than a few hundred at home like the rugby. Now to get this stadium right, as Adkins has taken three years to come up with this and this is all we have to show? It's a good start, but taking too long, and needs some refinement within that design. Please can they post hi res images of all four sides.

roadwars wrote:
More shops and a new stadium, sounds like the perfect solution to ease congestion on the northern ring-road....
but I'm sure the devellopers and all other "interested parties" will be contributing loads of their profits towards improving the road?

Who gives a crap about "congestion on the northern ring road"? I'm sure your priority is to drive your Chelsea Wagon at 70mph on the way to your posh dinner in Rufforth, but you're being incredibly selfish. This is York. Those of us born here are a community, and the sporting representation of our community is York City FC. If I wasn't a football supporter, or one of these tourist types that moved here cause we've got a nice big church, I'd still understand and respect that. Not everyone it seems, however.

DarrenMiles wrote:

roadwars wrote:
More shops and a new stadium, sounds like the perfect solution to ease congestion on the northern ring-road....
but I'm sure the devellopers and all other "interested parties" will be contributing loads of their profits towards improving the road?

Who gives a crap about "congestion on the northern ring road"? I'm sure your priority is to drive your Chelsea Wagon at 70mph on the way to your posh dinner in Rufforth, but you're being incredibly selfish. This is York. Those of us born here are a community, and the sporting representation of our community is York City FC. If I wasn't a football supporter, or one of these tourist types that moved here cause we've got a nice big church, I'd still understand and respect that. Not everyone it seems, however.

It's going to be at Huntington not York.
York is the city, it has shops and other things to do that the "City of York" council just want to remove and stick on a ring road and then realise a few years later that the roads can't cope so spend endless public money improving them.
Devellopers get rich, SainsTesrisons get what they want and we pay for the disruption. May make you happy but not me.
Can you recommend somewhere nice to eat in Rufforth?

Roadwars the Rufforth Sunday car boot does a fabulous bacon sarnie

Back to the new ground they need to fill the corners in to keep out those brutal north east winds that will blow in at Monks Cross .

What are the chances that Barry Colon becomes our new striker in January following his release from Stockport ?

Thank you PKH, that was my point.
I said without disruption, because I doubt a new track facility will emerge.
I always read the whole article but don't believe every word I read.
To be honest, I can't see the football team sharing with anyone. Let's see what sort of Community Stadium this turns out to be.
Atkins remains a disgrace.

It seems to me that the athletics track is the component of thisproposed deal that is the MOST likely to happen.
`
Guildford's determination to distance himself from the project could be a deal-breaker as far as the actual stadium is concerned, because neither the football nor the rugby club has the resources on their own to secure the stadium.
`
One can only speculate as to why a property developer seems so keen not to develop the property which his team uses.