Monks Cross scheme divides heritage groups (From York Press)

Monks Cross scheme divides heritage groups

10:33am Tuesday 1st May 2012 in News Photograph of the Author By Mark Stead, Political Reporter

Artist's impression: How the new development at Monks Cross would look

HERITAGE organisations have given divided views on plans for a £90 million shopping scheme and a community stadium in York.

Proposals for John Lewis and Marks & Spencer stores alongside a 6,000-seater ground for York City FC and York City Knights will go before City of York Council’s planning committee later this month, but have split opinion within the city.

English Heritage has now backed the plans by Oakgate (Monks Cross) Ltd, as long as measures are put in place to protect archaeology in the area, but York Conservation Trust has said the plans should be turned down and claims they would “condemn” the centre of York to “decline for decades to come”.

The developers say the scheme would create 1,000 new jobs and bring an extra £50 million a year into York’s economy, while York City FC say the new ground is the only way the club’s future will be safeguarded.

Opponents of the plans, including city-centre traders, claim the scheme will wreck the heart of the city by forcing businesses to close or move, while the council’s highways department revealed last week they cannot support the current scheme because of its potential impact on York’s road network.

In a letter to planners, English Heritage set out its position by saying the development would not have a “physical” or “negative” impact on the nearby ancient Roman monument, a “practice camp” next to the site.

They added: “The application can be approved subject to the formulation of an appropriate archaeological mitigation strategy for the recovery of the archaeological deposits beneath the Ryedale Stadium [the previous name of the existing Huntington Stadium, which would be demolished and replaced by the new ground].

“The impact of the amended proposal on the significance of the heritage asset is understood to be of ‘less than substantial harm’.”

But in their letter to council leader James Alexander, York Conservation Trust directors Patricia Butler and Vanessa Butler said: “It will take the vibrant, vital heart out of city life.”

They added: “Many businesses and residents occupy York Conservation Trust’s restored and ancient properties. These businesses will suffer and have to cease trading due to fewer people coming into the centre of the city and tourists will not be attracted to an empty, soulless city centre, full of unoccupied buildings.”

Nick Brown, chairman of Browns department store, has also lodged a formal objection, saying “peripheral streets” in the city centre were “visibly suffering” and more free car-parking at Monks Cross would reduce the number of shoppers heading into the centre of York.

Comments(37)

The Great Buda says...
10:55am Tue 1 May 12

More scaremongering from the City Centre Brigade - pathetic.

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
11:04am Tue 1 May 12

Too many lobby-types are against this happening - have lost any belief that it will get built. Which as a life-long citizen of York, as well as a football fan, I personally think that is a shame.
But there you go - York has always been the same. Nothing for residents.

Report this post »

johnabostock says...
11:11am Tue 1 May 12

There is only one answer that will sort out this mess of a argument and unite all, both residents and traders. Those remaining Directors of YCFC who created the debts of the football club (and I don`t mean the McGills) through greed to give their all their money and proceeds back to the Club, like two of them have already done. Will this happen, NO, and we all know why, don`t we.

Report this post »

TerryYork says...
11:13am Tue 1 May 12

Pathetic and pointless lobbying from groups who really have no value of comment....apart for Mark "I wish I worked for the Daily Star" Stead. Again Mark, when did you lose your passion for writing? You're just spewing out any old fool who'll go on quote now.

Report this post »

TerryYork says...
11:14am Tue 1 May 12

The Great Buda wrote:
More scaremongering from the City Centre Brigade - pathetic.

Yep, and either the comment section is broken, or the Barnitts lobby group and telling the press to delete comments again.

Report this post »

Whitetornado says...
11:19am Tue 1 May 12

What's the fascination with shopping these days? Most people can't afford the stuff they buy anyway - but if they insist then keep them out of town.

Alot of people come to York for its heritage, alot of which is obviously city centre - you won't lose those people.

As for York City - not very ambitious are they, restricting themselves to a 6,000 seater stadium !

Report this post »

HTC says...
11:33am Tue 1 May 12

"English Heritage has now backed the plans"

Good, I've heard of them, they are a nationwide, well respected organisation.

"York Conservation Trust has said the plans should be turned down"

Sorry, Who? Can we have some background as to what exactly this company does? The list of directors is interesting:

Nicholas C Morrell
Peter S Morrell
Margaret A Morrell
Jeremy S Morrell
James R Morrell
Olivia H Morrell
Vanessa R M Butler
John B Morrell
Charles H E Butler
Patricia A Butler

So who are the Morrells and the Butlers?

Interestingly if you go to their website on the "Projects" page it says simply:

"Coming soon, please check back regularly."

So basically I know which of these two organisations the Council should be listening to the most, and unfortunately this article gives both organisations the same weight.

Report this post »

BL2 says...
11:50am Tue 1 May 12

Just let them get on with it. John Lewis would be a good employer for the city and the won't move into the centre of York. What's the problem?

Report this post »

lis0r says...
11:51am Tue 1 May 12

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/John_Bowes_
Morrell would appear to be the progenitor of most of them. Smells like money trying to throw it's weight around.

Report this post »

ouseswimmer says...
11:52am Tue 1 May 12

I beleive these extra shopping centres bring more people into the city. I'm certain the Designer centre draws people from afar who then spend a few hours in town. The city centre is as busy as ever despite the recession York is doing well.

Report this post »

HTC says...
11:52am Tue 1 May 12

Well I now know what the York Conservation Trust do.

As far as I can tell they buy up property in the centre of town and lease it out. What exactly does this have to do with Monks Cross?

Report this post »

Zetkin says...
12:02pm Tue 1 May 12

YCFC aren't "restricting themselves" to 6,000 seats.

The available cash places that restriction on the development.

The current outline plans allow for expansion to a larger capacity if it's needed in future.

As it stands the only time the club needs bigger is once every three or four seasons when it has a good FA Cup run or reaches the play-offs.

That's a sad state of affairs, but a 12,000-seat ground for 3500 people wouldn't be the best use of the limited cash available imo.

Report this post »

lezyork1966 says...
12:08pm Tue 1 May 12

what is it with these idiots....

An out of town sprawl like this has so many good points.

1) initial high employment (for maybe a year)
2) more facilities for residents, helps with local house prices
3) gives people parking for shopping
4) lets us have somewhere for our sports thats not an embarrassing crumbling eyesore
5) leaves the centre free for more 'historical' shops and preserves citys character

what is wrong with these 'groups'

but no more fastfood joints please....
leave that to the city for the hungry hippo tourists and leave the restaurants in the city too its ideal for them.

Report this post »

sortyorkout says...
12:09pm Tue 1 May 12

I do not see why there is all this aggro over two new stores opening at Monk Cross. When York Designer Outlet was built, did it come up against this sort of opposition? Surely when you see cars queuing off the A64 on a Saturday onto the Fulford turn off to get to the designer outlet, that takes more business away from city-centre traders than a John Lewis will?

Report this post »

upthecity says...
12:27pm Tue 1 May 12

HTC wrote:
"English Heritage has now backed the plans" Good, I've heard of them, they are a nationwide, well respected organisation. "York Conservation Trust has said the plans should be turned down" Sorry, Who? Can we have some background as to what exactly this company does? The list of directors is interesting: Nicholas C Morrell Peter S Morrell Margaret A Morrell Jeremy S Morrell James R Morrell Olivia H Morrell Vanessa R M Butler John B Morrell Charles H E Butler Patricia A Butler So who are the Morrells and the Butlers? Interestingly if you go to their website on the "Projects" page it says simply: "Coming soon, please check back regularly." So basically I know which of these two organisations the Council should be listening to the most, and unfortunately this article gives both organisations the same weight.

Exactly. English Heritage are a statutory consultee on such matters and judging by their response they have a standard approach to ensure the existing heritage assets are proctected through the implementation of a mitigation strategy. They are the specialists in this field whereas the York Conservation Trust are a non-statutory interest group whose emotive anti-development response only encourages scaremongering. The Planners will know which response should receive greater weight whereas this article does not.

Report this post »

bolero says...
12:38pm Tue 1 May 12

Having recently been in York centre by necessity, I took advantage of visiting two of the shops whose proprietors have had more than enough to say about the proposed Monks Cross development. In both shops I found myself going up and down stairs, up and down ramps, through endless passages getting nowhere until eventually I gave up. I stopped off at Clifton Moor and Monks Cross and bought exactly what I required in stores which were either on the level or had adequate facilities for getting to upper floors.Free parking too. I know that the shops in York are restricted in regard to restructuring etc. but who's fault is that. Has it got anything to do with the conservationists who are determined to live in the past and deprive every one else of modern standards? Come on York planners ignore these trogs and do something for the people of York.

Report this post »

BioLogic says...
1:13pm Tue 1 May 12

The problem here is that whilst the proposed stadium forms part of the Local Plan the enabling development (the shops) doesn't therefore there is an assumption in planning terms against the development of the shops. Without the shops there will be no stadium.

Unfortunately for those that want a new stadium there is a reasonably strong case against the enabling development and it should really be rejected on it's merits.

Ultimately the council in consultation with all of the interest groups put together the plan and they have to stick by it which creates a problem for them. It would be so much better for the project if the council were not involved a sa stakeholder as any hint of bias and there will be big trouble. Personally I feel that there should be no public involvement in the project, it is inappropriate, the football and rugby clubs are private businesses and should survive on their own merits and via their own financing, let them live or die on their own ability to make money.

Whatever the outcome of the planning committee there is likely to be an appeal, which will see this project drag on for a long, long time.

Report this post »

Thraps says...
1:20pm Tue 1 May 12

i dont know how the highways agency of york can say the ring road cant cope. Surely isnt it better to get traffic out of clifton a residential area and on to a area designed for traffic.

If the traffic system in the monks cross area is not sufficiant to deal with the traffic then the planning of the whole monks cross thing many moons ago was wrong by planners.

Saturdays on match days will see a increase of traffic, granted, however this would be offset by potential sales on a day out from people travelling from places around the country who come to support there teams playing york who would not normally come to the city at all.

Then on a tuesday night, kickoff is 1945 the traffic is minimal on the ring road from 1800 hrs onwards after rush hour, so the only real people using the ring road will be football fans, and traffic should run smoother as most of it will most likely be deflected to the A64 of away fans returning to there relevant cities.

Further whilst people are at the rugby or football games they are going tobe in the matches for approx 2 hours, therefore no traffic for the football or rugby will be out and about. When people travel to or from a game then its no different to rush hour and will most likely be less traffic than a rush hour.

Finally traffic from the M&S may slightly increase, as they already have a m&s at monks cross already so there usual customers wont generate a increase as that is the dauily pattern of life, because of the size of the store it may increase more people to go there. So the only reall extra traffic will be from john Lewis.

As for city center trade, there is more damaging effects from internet trade buying direct from warehouses, dropshipping and sites like ebay etc, city centers across the UK are in delcine and will most likely be obsolete in 10-15 years time anyway.

However there will still be some trade in the city center due to the tourism. As to the preposterous claims in the press article above from some nugget who says tourists will stay away due to a city center not full of people is silly. tourists come to city to see the sights, and take in the history of the place, not to get swamped by masses and masses of people. To be fair masses of people puts me of going to the city center and the fact parking to too **** expensive.

I thinkt he council needs to take a long hard look at its strategy regarding getting people into the city center, Castle car park is far too crowded, and i dont park there no more due to the amount of damage to my vehicle has occurred due to every car being packed in far too close.

Now also at parking places around the city it really shows how expensive to park a car can be when they offer to pay by card in stead of using simple change, as they cant no more due to the prices being so high.

The council really needs to solve cheaper busses, and reduced car parking to get people back into the city center, then i would almost certainly say that city center trade will boost due to the local population being able to afford to go to the city center.

Look at it like this from Acomb it costs me around £2 in fuel to go from acomb to MX and back again. I am not constricted by times of busses or wondering if i am able to get a parking space, mx provides a good service all round.

Now do get a bus to town will cost you probably over 4 pound for a return, your goverened by buss times and your foced to carry your shopping because you cant drop it off anywhere like say your car whilst you continue shopping some more.

If you drive into the city center then you have ful which is probably around the cost of getting to MX then u also have the added price of parking costs and still restricted by time, and if need more time then paying even more for parking.

I know which out of the 3 i would choose.

Reduce parking costs, and bus costs to the city center and you will see a increase in trade thats a fact.

i dont know how the highways agency of york can say the ring road cant cope. Surely isnt it better to get traffic out of clifton a residential area and on to a area designed for traffic. If the traffic system in the monks cross area is not sufficiant to deal with the traffic then the planning of the whole monks cross thing many moons ago was wrong by planners. Saturdays on match days will see a increase of traffic, granted, however this would be offset by potential sales on a day out from people travelling from places around the country who come to support there teams playing york who would not normally come to the city at all. Then on a tuesday night, kickoff is 1945 the traffic is minimal on the ring road from 1800 hrs onwards after rush hour, so the only real people using the ring road will be football fans, and traffic should run smoother as most of it will most likely be deflected to the A64 of away fans returning to there relevant cities. Further whilst people are at the rugby or football games they are going tobe in the matches for approx 2 hours, therefore no traffic for the football or rugby will be out and about. When people travel to or from a game then its no different to rush hour and will most likely be less traffic than a rush hour. Finally traffic from the M&S may slightly increase, as they already have a m&s at monks cross already so there usual customers wont generate a increase as that is the dauily pattern of life, because of the size of the store it may increase more people to go there. So the only reall extra traffic will be from john Lewis. As for city center trade, there is more damaging effects from internet trade buying direct from warehouses, dropshipping and sites like ebay etc, city centers across the UK are in delcine and will most likely be obsolete in 10-15 years time anyway. However there will still be some trade in the city center due to the tourism. As to the preposterous claims in the press article above from some nugget who says tourists will stay away due to a city center not full of people is silly. tourists come to city to see the sights, and take in the history of the place, not to get swamped by masses and masses of people. To be fair masses of people puts me of going to the city center and the fact parking to too **** expensive. I thinkt he council needs to take a long hard look at its strategy regarding getting people into the city center, Castle car park is far too crowded, and i dont park there no more due to the amount of damage to my vehicle has occurred due to every car being packed in far too close. Now also at parking places around the city it really shows how expensive to park a car can be when they offer to pay by card in stead of using simple change, as they cant no more due to the prices being so high. The council really needs to solve cheaper busses, and reduced car parking to get people back into the city center, then i would almost certainly say that city center trade will boost due to the local population being able to afford to go to the city center. Look at it like this from Acomb it costs me around £2 in fuel to go from acomb to MX and back again. I am not constricted by times of busses or wondering if i am able to get a parking space, mx provides a good service all round. Now do get a bus to town will cost you probably over 4 pound for a return, your goverened by buss times and your foced to carry your shopping because you cant drop it off anywhere like say your car whilst you continue shopping some more. If you drive into the city center then you have ful which is probably around the cost of getting to MX then u also have the added price of parking costs and still restricted by time, and if need more time then paying even more for parking. I know which out of the 3 i would choose. Reduce parking costs, and bus costs to the city center and you will see a increase in trade thats a fact. Thraps

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
1:25pm Tue 1 May 12

BioLogic wrote:
The problem here is that whilst the proposed stadium forms part of the Local Plan the enabling development (the shops) doesn't therefore there is an assumption in planning terms against the development of the shops. Without the shops there will be no stadium.

Unfortunately for those that want a new stadium there is a reasonably strong case against the enabling development and it should really be rejected on it's merits.

Ultimately the council in consultation with all of the interest groups put together the plan and they have to stick by it which creates a problem for them. It would be so much better for the project if the council were not involved a sa stakeholder as any hint of bias and there will be big trouble. Personally I feel that there should be no public involvement in the project, it is inappropriate, the football and rugby clubs are private businesses and should survive on their own merits and via their own financing, let them live or die on their own ability to make money.

Whatever the outcome of the planning committee there is likely to be an appeal, which will see this project drag on for a long, long time.

Appeals have to be dealt with within six months now don't they - as per the new calling-in rules.
As for the stadium, its not *just* for the rugby and football club; other uses have been documented and commented on for long enough now. Finally, nothing is being given to private companies for free, rents will be paid.

Report this post »

Geoffers says...
1:41pm Tue 1 May 12

while the council’s highways department revealed last week they cannot support the current scheme because of its potential impact on York’s road network.

This statement is unbelievable! It's their job to accomodate change. Looks like these are the words of the councillor responsible for the city's roads, not the words of the officials.

But, of course there will be no more cycle lanes in the development for the CoY council to spend money on!

Report this post »

BioLogic says...
1:53pm Tue 1 May 12

Even AndyD wrote:

BioLogic wrote:
The problem here is that whilst the proposed stadium forms part of the Local Plan the enabling development (the shops) doesn't therefore there is an assumption in planning terms against the development of the shops. Without the shops there will be no stadium.

Unfortunately for those that want a new stadium there is a reasonably strong case against the enabling development and it should really be rejected on it's merits.

Ultimately the council in consultation with all of the interest groups put together the plan and they have to stick by it which creates a problem for them. It would be so much better for the project if the council were not involved a sa stakeholder as any hint of bias and there will be big trouble. Personally I feel that there should be no public involvement in the project, it is inappropriate, the football and rugby clubs are private businesses and should survive on their own merits and via their own financing, let them live or die on their own ability to make money.

Whatever the outcome of the planning committee there is likely to be an appeal, which will see this project drag on for a long, long time.
Appeals have to be dealt with within six months now don't they - as per the new calling-in rules.
As for the stadium, its not *just* for the rugby and football club; other uses have been documented and commented on for long enough now. Finally, nothing is being given to private companies for free, rents will be paid.

At what point did I say anyone was getting anything for free? My objection to LA funding is based around the fact that, for me a precedent is being set where the local authority can be expected to provide premises for small scale local employers and rent them back.

Lets be realistic here, it is for the Football and Rugby Club, outside of those uses, there is little time for anyone else aside of the odd concert, but given the proposed location, that is unlikely on noise grounds.

If my memory serves me there is a 6 month window after determination in which an appeal can be submitted. Then there is a 6 month window in which all documentation must be submitted. Depending on the scale of hearing anything up to 10 months from submission of appeal is not unusual. This means a period of up to 18 months from a planning committee decision being made including the time for an appeal decision to be released. Then they would have to build it. So anywhere up to 2.5 years down the line a development would open.

That is a long long time in the life of a waivering business wouldn't you say? it may be harsh but that is the reality.

[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: The problem here is that whilst the proposed stadium forms part of the Local Plan the enabling development (the shops) doesn't therefore there is an assumption in planning terms against the development of the shops. Without the shops there will be no stadium. Unfortunately for those that want a new stadium there is a reasonably strong case against the enabling development and it should really be rejected on it's merits. Ultimately the council in consultation with all of the interest groups put together the plan and they have to stick by it which creates a problem for them. It would be so much better for the project if the council were not involved a sa stakeholder as any hint of bias and there will be big trouble. Personally I feel that there should be no public involvement in the project, it is inappropriate, the football and rugby clubs are private businesses and should survive on their own merits and via their own financing, let them live or die on their own ability to make money. Whatever the outcome of the planning committee there is likely to be an appeal, which will see this project drag on for a long, long time.[/p][/quote]Appeals have to be dealt with within six months now don't they - as per the new calling-in rules. As for the stadium, its not *just* for the rugby and football club; other uses have been documented and commented on for long enough now. Finally, nothing is being given to private companies for free, rents will be paid.[/p][/quote]At what point did I say anyone was getting anything for free? My objection to LA funding is based around the fact that, for me a precedent is being set where the local authority can be expected to provide premises for small scale local employers and rent them back. Lets be realistic here, it is for the Football and Rugby Club, outside of those uses, there is little time for anyone else aside of the odd concert, but given the proposed location, that is unlikely on noise grounds. If my memory serves me there is a 6 month window after determination in which an appeal can be submitted. Then there is a 6 month window in which all documentation must be submitted. Depending on the scale of hearing anything up to 10 months from submission of appeal is not unusual. This means a period of up to 18 months from a planning committee decision being made including the time for an appeal decision to be released. Then they would have to build it. So anywhere up to 2.5 years down the line a development would open. That is a long long time in the life of a waivering business wouldn't you say? it may be harsh but that is the reality. BioLogic

Report this post »

idlehousewife says...
2:15pm Tue 1 May 12

Shouldn't people have a choice as to where they wish to shop? The less people the better in the city centre! It's a pity the hen and stag parties cannot be transferred to the out of town areas!

Report this post »

yorkonafork says...
2:41pm Tue 1 May 12

Geoffers wrote:

while the council’s highways department revealed last week they cannot support the current scheme because of its potential impact on York’s road network.

This statement is unbelievable! It's their job to accomodate change. Looks like these are the words of the councillor responsible for the city's roads, not the words of the officials.

But, of course there will be no more cycle lanes in the development for the CoY council to spend money on!

Indeed, this is the worst bit of it all.
Forget the new shops at MX, forget the stadium, this should send alarm bells to everyone in York about where this city is in terms of any sort of expansion and development. We all know the roads in and around York are cr@p but does this signal the end for York's growth? If we can't even have a couple of new shops then I'd say there is a lot to worry about in the up coming years.

Report this post »

meme says...
4:06pm Tue 1 May 12

If highways cannot support it would normally be turned down as officers would probably have to recommend refusal.
I suspect this is a 50/50% call and likely to be appealed whichever way it goes which means at least 12 months delay.
everyone needs to be realistic. This fly's in the face of all planning policy and is an outside chance at best and with the Portas report this makes it more unlikely to be supported by an inspector in the future.
Not a dead duck but certainly a dying one!!

Report this post »

speaks99 says...
4:19pm Tue 1 May 12

People quoting the "Portas Review" make me laugh.
Firstly the report isn't about York, which is bucking national trends.
secondly the stats within that review show that OOT retail sales have only increased by just over 3% over the past 11 years, yet high street sales have declined by 7%. Which means that its internet sales which are a bigger threat. Plus OOT retail is set to increase only by less than a percentage point over the next 4 years.
Its not actually as relevant as people would have you believe.

Report this post »

Geoffers says...
4:53pm Tue 1 May 12

It's surely Highways responsibility to accomodate what the residents need.
This development has a lot of public support as the public see a need for it.

Policy can be changed and should be when there is public support for something.
CoY would be better supporting this development than building a Transport Policy based upon the availability of funds from Central Government!

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
6:46pm Tue 1 May 12

So, is the May planning meeting going ahead, or is everything on hold now?

Report this post »

dsom73 says...
9:05pm Tue 1 May 12

Nest feathering takes time

Report this post »

Paul Hepworth says...
10:35pm Tue 1 May 12

Geoffers wrote:

while the council’s highways department revealed last week they cannot support the current scheme because of its potential impact on York’s road network.

This statement is unbelievable! It's their job to accomodate change. Looks like these are the words of the councillor responsible for the city's roads, not the words of the officials.

But, of course there will be no more cycle lanes in the development for the CoY council to spend money on!

The Council's Highways team are not in post to automatically accomodate large scale changes, as you suggest. Much of their work is spent on encouraging modal shift so that the existing network is used more efficiently. Reallocation of road space to give artificial priority for eg buses and cyclists is part of that strategy.
Developers will inevitably be asked to contribute financially to any new highway infrastructure including cycle lanes. Morrisons helped fund the cycle link between Foss Island Road and James St. for example.
CoYC do not have a bottomless pit of cash for highway capital schemes. Most of their £several million a year of Council Tax income spent on roads goes on maintenance and repair. Note this includes the A1237 but excludes the A64 which is Highways Agency-funded.

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
8:34am Wed 2 May 12

lis0r wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/John_Bowes_

Morrell would appear to be the progenitor of most of them. Smells like money trying to throw it's weight around.

So are YCT are profit making business and not a heritage organisation at all then?

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
8:37am Wed 2 May 12

In fairness, Google indicates YCT is a charity.

Report this post »

lis0r says...
1:22pm Wed 2 May 12

Even AndyD wrote:
In fairness, Google indicates YCT is a charity.

I think you misspelled "tax dodge".

Report this post »

Even AndyD says...
1:38pm Wed 2 May 12

lis0r wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:
In fairness, Google indicates YCT is a charity.
I think you misspelled "tax dodge".

But surely Mr Stead would have uncovered and commented on such a thing? Is that not what journalism is about? Or perhaps not?

Report this post »

bagpuss73 says...
1:46pm Wed 2 May 12

for goodness sake just pass the thing & get a decent sports facility for our lovely city to enjoy
then get the coppergate II project sorted out and built & provide a decent covered shopping centre with a decent open space for our lovely city to enjoy
that will sit along side the traditional and historic side of our city already enjoyed

xx

All 3 can be accomodated and enjoyed together

Report this post »

YorkToff says...
5:49pm Wed 2 May 12

Throw in a free pen, to sweeten the honeypot!

Report this post »

intelligentviews says...
3:09pm Thu 3 May 12

English Heritage more than likely wants to get the lower orders removed from the city so what better way that to create shops for them at M.Cross(John Lewis may not do the trick though).

I support a 'no' to the development - M. Cross being ugly enough as it is. More concrete - no thanks!

Report this post »

Magicman! says...
1:11am Tue 8 May 12

Opponents of the plans, including city-centre traders, claim the scheme will wreck the heart of the city by forcing businesses to close or move

These same opponents who prevented a city centre development 10 years ago and so can be held responsible for the steady rise in empty retail properties in York as buisnesses move to Leeds. I suppose they don't see that as wrecking the city centre appearance, or maybe there's some other reason why they'd oppose any new shops ever being built anywhere near their precious assets.

I also find it funny how English Heritage would only want it to be built if archaeology in the area is kept... what archaeology might that be then? Because as far as I was aware, 20 years ago it was all just a load of fields and metal industrial units before Sainsburys built their store.

Now, where do I write to to stop C4Y putting litter through my letterbox twice a day?

--

Bagpuss73 and YorkToff's posts both should have a second mention because they deserve it!

Report this post »

click2find

Jobs

Looking for a new career? Find a job in York and all around North Yorkshire

Search Now »
Dating

Love and friendship - find your perfect match.

Search Now »
Homes

Find properties for sale and rent in and around York.

Search Now »
Cars

Find used vehicles for sale all over Yorkshire and the North.

Search Now »

Newsquest (Yorkshire & North East) Ltd, 58 Church Street, Weybridge, Surrey. KT13 8DP |3223515|Registered in England & Wales

Monks Cross scheme divides heritage groups (From York Press)

News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

Monks Cross scheme divides heritage groups

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies