Community stadium rejection would be ‘disaster for York’ (From York Press)

And planning is supposed to be non political!!!

Once more hypocrite Sinclair gets more column inches.

Firstly he was involved in objecting to The Castle Piccadilly debacle in 2002,now along with his C4Y cronies he suddenly wants it to happen.

This is the same person who went on Look North in November 2011 and stated ""out of town shopping is very bad for City Centres regardless of the retailer" but has his very own shop in an out of town Centre at McArthur Glenn.

This is all about protectionism of profit margins and nothing to do with what's best for the City of York.

Sinclair and the C4Y are the epitome of what this is all about.

Eric Bartholomew wrote:
Once more hypocrite Sinclair gets more column inches.

Firstly he was involved in objecting to The Castle Piccadilly debacle in 2002,now along with his C4Y cronies he suddenly wants it to happen.

This is the same person who went on Look North in November 2011 and stated ""out of town shopping is very bad for City Centres regardless of the retailer" but has his very own shop in an out of town Centre at McArthur Glenn.

This is all about protectionism of profit margins and nothing to do with what's best for the City of York.

Sinclair and the C4Y are the epitome of what this is all about.

Finally, a comment worth reading. Surely York Designer Outlet does more damage to city centre traders than a new M&S and John Lewis store would?

The only serious reservation I have is that for once, on balance, I tend to agree with James Alexander which I find quite concerning ....

Its seriously about time that York joined the 21st Century....McArthur Glen is outdated old shops selling old stock that people didnt want the first time!.....and even if its agreed John Lewis and M&S are hardly cutting edge.

Yawn, it's all getting rather boring now. How about some 'hush' and then surprise us all with a final outcome, (when they've made the final, final, final decision and not u-turned along the way)!!

More political posturing from Cllr Alexander to try and steamroller through this without informed debate.

Back of a fag packet economics is his watchword... all mouth and no substance...

James Alexander is talking out of his backside. Given that he is a self-serving career politician, then this is no surprise.

Anyone who sees spending vast amounts of money as a way out of recession needs their head testing. If the country wasn't already in debt up to the hilt, then it may be acceptable. Spending isn't the magic bullet.

As a footnote, if you properly taxed 0.003% of the wealthiest people in the UK, overnight, you would almost clear the deficit. Shame on the coalition for doing absolutely zero about this.

marvell wrote:
More political posturing from Cllr Alexander to try and steamroller through this without informed debate.

Back of a fag packet economics is his watchword... all mouth and no substance...

Without debate!? This was first mooted about 8yrs ago and has been debated to death every since. Get it built!!

I thought the railway teardrop was the 'opportunity of a generation'? Cllr Alexander is very quiet on that one

Teardrop will never happen

As a resident of York, i do most of my shopping at Monks Cross already. I only need the City Centre for the wonderful Barnitt's, and the parking is so expensive. Tourists only visit for the buildings and museums, so let Mr Sinclair cater for a few wealthy Americans, and leave Monks Cross for us. York City FC have had 60,000 visitors this year and so need the new ground. How many York residents have been in Mulberry Hall this year?

Get It passed ! York could be the shopping capital of the North given some support !

Let York develop into a Roman theme park inside the City walls.

Isn't planning supposed to be non-partisan? Unless he's not speaking in a his professional capacity (?) as Leader of the Council?

JA isn't on the planning committee, Mark.

Adam Sinclair said, "the Monks Cross proposals would have a significant adverse and long-term impact on the income of the world-class city centre, and on future investment in the centre"

It is only a world-class tourist city centre and will continue to be regardless what happens at out of town shopping centres. If most people only want shops they are more likely to go to Leeds or Manchester.

The planning committee must make a decision based on what is good for the whole community in terms of jobs, income and future development, and not for a few city centre business.

You don't have to be a business guru to know that if the Monks Cross development gets blocked as a result of complaints by York's tourist sector, potential future investors will not bother and look to invest elsewhere. York will be locked in a time-warp for many years to come.

MarkyMarkMark wrote:
Isn't planning supposed to be non-partisan? Unless he's not speaking in a his professional capacity (?) as Leader of the Council?

I take it you have never attended a planning committee meeting??

James Alexander thought this was a shoe in. An 'opportunity of a lifetime'? An opportunity of a lifeline more like.

After the debacle of UTCP that he put his name too he assumed wrongly that any objection to MX2 would wither and fail, and yet in the face of 2000 resident objections plus his own officers experts plus some of his council colleagues etc., he is bricking it.

This 'partisan / political / call to arms' whatever you want to call it is a last ditch attempt to rally some support without quite enforcing a whip. Which we all know is illegal.

Planning is supposed to be apolitical, and this is more evidence if it were needed to consider a judicial review if the call-in of a public enquiry fails.

yorkie42 wrote:
As a resident of York, i do most of my shopping at Monks Cross already. I only need the City Centre for the wonderful Barnitt's, and the parking is so expensive. Tourists only visit for the buildings and museums, so let Mr Sinclair cater for a few wealthy Americans, and leave Monks Cross for us. York City FC have had 60,000 visitors this year and so need the new ground. How many York residents have been in Mulberry Hall this year?

YCFC had 60,000 visitors! LOL

2500 - 3000 people going to 25 ish games is still only 2500 - 3000 people!

They don't need a new ground.

They do need new owners.

Chance of an investment into this city during tough times. A chance to give employment to thousands of unemployed - with decent employers too (JL and MS). Chance for a community stadium paid for by private money. Chance to save professional sport in York. This is what is being proposed.

I'd say the trader lobby are pretty strong at the moment, just as they were when they got Coppergate II thrown out in 2002. Funny that they now support support something they called a 'violent threat' a decade ago. Might they change their mind again once MX2 is dead and buried? I'd say its likely.

But like I say, Adam Sinclair and friends look like they may well get there way again. Whether that is good for York remains to be seen. Personally I think its reactionary and again this city is being held back. Others think differently - we will soon find out.

'Their way' - apologies for typo.

ReginaldBiscuit wrote:
James Alexander is talking out of his backside. Given that he is a self-serving career politician, then this is no surprise.

Anyone who sees spending vast amounts of money as a way out of recession needs their head testing. If the country wasn't already in debt up to the hilt, then it may be acceptable. Spending isn't the magic bullet.

As a footnote, if you properly taxed 0.003% of the wealthiest people in the UK, overnight, you would almost clear the deficit. Shame on the coalition for doing absolutely zero about this.

Quite a lot of economists must, by your reckoning, need their heads testing. Are you talking about debt or deficit ? Debt is what the world runs on, debt and credit. It always has. What matters is being able to service the debt. You have a massive debt in your mortgage but you borrow over twenty five years. Governments do the same. Most of the UK debt is long-term. We've had a national debt for two hundred years.

If the Minster burnt to the ground it would be a disaster for York. If the river Ouse flooded thirty feet above normal it would be a disaster for York. But to say that Monks Cross failing to get planning permission would be a disaster for York is as unintelligent as it is untrue. Grossly exaggerated statements like this simply serve to expose the desperation of the Council leader.

To say two more shops at Monks Cross is going bring about the downfall of the city centre is as unintelligent as it is untrue.

I only hope that JA's publicly avowed support for the scheme, does not mean that he has done another Water End and privately urged his party colleagues to toe his line.
If James wants to present his views, he should go via the same procedure as any Councillor not on the Planning Committee that wishes to address the meeting ie register to speak. That would be far more ethical than exerting pressure on colleagues via the media.

Wonder if he discussed this whilst in the Royal box at the match on Saturday, taking his video for The Press?

bjb wrote:
To say two more shops at Monks Cross is going bring about the downfall of the city centre is as unintelligent as it is untrue.

Absolutely; the apocalyptic rhetoric is largely coming from the C4Y/Chamber of Trade camp. Just as it did ten years ago when the latter protested so vehemently against Coppergate. Times change, apparently stances change too - but strangely the language is the same.

Even AndyD wrote:

marvell wrote:
More political posturing from Cllr Alexander to try and steamroller through this without informed debate.

Back of a fag packet economics is his watchword... all mouth and no substance...

Without debate!? This was first mooted about 8yrs ago and has been debated to death every since. Get it built!!

Pay attention - I said without INFORMED debate.

I'm a resident of York and I endorse the Monk Cross development scheme.

pedalling paul wrote:
I only hope that JA's publicly avowed support for the scheme, does not mean that he has done another Water End and privately urged his party colleagues to toe his line. If James wants to present his views, he should go via the same procedure as any Councillor not on the Planning Committee that wishes to address the meeting ie register to speak. That would be far more ethical than exerting pressure on colleagues via the media.

Whatever the outcome, Alexander, has hedged his bets. If it fails, it was'nt his fault, because on the face of it he supported it. If it succeeds, he's a hero.

Not long ago, he was saying that the private sector was pushing him to get the LDF adopted. This, he said was a priority and could not be delayed. Enter the Planning Inspector, who found the Core Strategy, after eight years in the making, potentially unsound. The result - a six-month delay, with the likelihood that it might still fail.

If the stadium application is approved, the LDF fails automatically, so the question is, what exactly is James doing to ensure that the LDF is adopted ? Answer; NOTHING ! It sends out the message that it has failed, otherwise he would not be backing the stadium. James may end up a hero in the eyes of YCFC fans on Thursday, but, not in the eyes of his number two and number three; Coun Simpson-Laing and Coun Merrett. His two senior colleagues have backed the success of the LDF to the hilt and it's failure will make them look ridiculous after their predictions of it being certain to be found sound. Eight years work costing hundreds of thousands, thrown down the pan, for the sake of pandering to the footy fans and shoppers. Like the 'ides' (15th) of March was Julius Caesar's downfall, the ides (15th) of May could be the downfall of Julius Alexander, or should that be Judas Alexander..... just another back-stabber !

BTW, in case your reading this thread, James - please remember, that actions have consequences !

Mr Crabtree wrote:
BTW, in case your reading this thread, James - please remember, that actions have consequences !

Yes James. Remember that the 2000??? objectors will not represent a significant election win. The vast majority of the citizens of York that want this to happen does. If the decision goes against what the all the reesidents of York wants beware the next election.

Mr Crabtree wrote:

pedalling paul wrote:
I only hope that JA's publicly avowed support for the scheme, does not mean that he has done another Water End and privately urged his party colleagues to toe his line. If James wants to present his views, he should go via the same procedure as any Councillor not on the Planning Committee that wishes to address the meeting ie register to speak. That would be far more ethical than exerting pressure on colleagues via the media.

Whatever the outcome, Alexander, has hedged his bets. If it fails, it was'nt his fault, because on the face of it he supported it. If it succeeds, he's a hero.

Not long ago, he was saying that the private sector was pushing him to get the LDF adopted. This, he said was a priority and could not be delayed. Enter the Planning Inspector, who found the Core Strategy, after eight years in the making, potentially unsound. The result - a six-month delay, with the likelihood that it might still fail.

If the stadium application is approved, the LDF fails automatically, so the question is, what exactly is James doing to ensure that the LDF is adopted ? Answer; NOTHING ! It sends out the message that it has failed, otherwise he would not be backing the stadium. James may end up a hero in the eyes of YCFC fans on Thursday, but, not in the eyes of his number two and number three; Coun Simpson-Laing and Coun Merrett. His two senior colleagues have backed the success of the LDF to the hilt and it's failure will make them look ridiculous after their predictions of it being certain to be found sound. Eight years work costing hundreds of thousands, thrown down the pan, for the sake of pandering to the footy fans and shoppers. Like the 'ides' (15th) of March was Julius Caesar's downfall, the ides (15th) of May could be the downfall of Julius Alexander, or should that be Judas Alexander..... just another back-stabber !

Pandering to footy fans and shoppers, Mr C? You mean most of the population of York then? Who should JA pander to, house-builders and four traders in the town centre?

JA isn't a 'hero' to YCFC fans, I find that rather patronising. I don't think I've seen one comment suggesting that on RnB forum. Believe it or not, enjoying this country's national sport doesn't preclude one comprehending the nuances of local politics.

Septimius Severus wrote:

yorkie42 wrote:
As a resident of York, i do most of my shopping at Monks Cross already. I only need the City Centre for the wonderful Barnitt's, and the parking is so expensive. Tourists only visit for the buildings and museums, so let Mr Sinclair cater for a few wealthy Americans, and leave Monks Cross for us. York City FC have had 60,000 visitors this year and so need the new ground. How many York residents have been in Mulberry Hall this year?

YCFC had 60,000 visitors! LOL

2500 - 3000 people going to 25 ish games is still only 2500 - 3000 people!

They don't need a new ground.

They do need new owners.

If it weren't for the McGills, YCFC would already have ceased to exist, and left 3000 fans bereft. Would the same number of residents be heart-broken if Mulberry Hall ceased to exist. Most daily visitors come from the West Riding, and they already have their own big stores. They come for the unique ambience of the City Centre, not to look for a John Lewis. Many of them come by train and bus, straight to the City Centre - I can't believe they would get on another bus to go out to Monks Cross. Let's look after the residents for once, and get the thing built.

Even AndyD wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:

pedalling paul wrote: I only hope that JA's publicly avowed support for the scheme, does not mean that he has done another Water End and privately urged his party colleagues to toe his line. If James wants to present his views, he should go via the same procedure as any Councillor not on the Planning Committee that wishes to address the meeting ie register to speak. That would be far more ethical than exerting pressure on colleagues via the media.

Whatever the outcome, Alexander, has hedged his bets. If it fails, it was'nt his fault, because on the face of it he supported it. If it succeeds, he's a hero. Not long ago, he was saying that the private sector was pushing him to get the LDF adopted. This, he said was a priority and could not be delayed. Enter the Planning Inspector, who found the Core Strategy, after eight years in the making, potentially unsound. The result - a six-month delay, with the likelihood that it might still fail. If the stadium application is approved, the LDF fails automatically, so the question is, what exactly is James doing to ensure that the LDF is adopted ? Answer; NOTHING ! It sends out the message that it has failed, otherwise he would not be backing the stadium. James may end up a hero in the eyes of YCFC fans on Thursday, but, not in the eyes of his number two and number three; Coun Simpson-Laing and Coun Merrett. His two senior colleagues have backed the success of the LDF to the hilt and it's failure will make them look ridiculous after their predictions of it being certain to be found sound. Eight years work costing hundreds of thousands, thrown down the pan, for the sake of pandering to the footy fans and shoppers. Like the 'ides' (15th) of March was Julius Caesar's downfall, the ides (15th) of May could be the downfall of Julius Alexander, or should that be Judas Alexander..... just another back-stabber !

Pandering to footy fans and shoppers, Mr C? You mean most of the population of York then? Who should JA pander to, house-builders and four traders in the town centre? JA isn't a 'hero' to YCFC fans, I find that rather patronising. I don't think I've seen one comment suggesting that on RnB forum. Believe it or not, enjoying this country's national sport doesn't preclude one comprehending the nuances of local politics.

Then how do YOU reconcile the LDF ?

The plan for York's future, eight years in the making, with legions of officers working on it, for what ?

This plan, under the leadership of strategy boss Bill Woolley, is now under threat by an application that Woolley is himself backing. He makes one strategy then goes against it - how can that be right ? At least Coun Merrett is going to sit on the fence, and show his feelings - not exactly the actions of a brave, committed politician, but, it's not the complete U-turn that Woolley has made, without so much as an apology for wasting eight years on the LDF.

Oh, and your comprehension of the nuances of the politics of this is lacking - housebuilders do not benefit from the stadium being turned down, they benefit from it's approval. Pick that one out of the back of the net !

It all depends on tomorrow's vote by the Planning Committee members.

How will they vote ?

If all Labour councillors vote to approve, it will be passed, as they have 9 out of the 16 committee members;

Boyce
Cunningham-Cross (Chair)
Funnell
King
McIlveen
Merrett
Simpson-Laing
Watson
Williams

The rest are as follows:-
Galvin (Con & Vice-chair)
Healey (Con)
Watt (Con)
Ayre (Lib-Dem)
Reid (Lib-Dem)
Firth (Lib-Dem)
D'Agorne (Green)

If Merrett and Simpson-Laing abstain and the other parties vote to refuse, it will be 7 each and then I think the chair will have the casting vote (correct me if I'm wrong).

I think it will be a close call, and it could be in the hands of Merrett and Simpson-Laing. If they want to protect their LDF, and defy their leader, they will vote for refusal. I don't think they are brave enough to make a stand, but, I may be wrong ?

What do others think ?

What about Andy D, who claims to understand the political nuances of this issue ?”

Cllr Merrett not attending. Sent apologies. Cllr Burton is attending as a substitute.

Also think Cllr Healey is a sub and is in for Cllr Doughty.

Party groups shouldn't affect vote. Suspect pressure on Labour to conform, but more may abstain than listed as 'For'.

Septimius Severus wrote:
Cllr Merrett not attending. Sent apologies. Cllr Burton is attending as a substitute. Also think Cllr Healey is a sub and is in for Cllr Doughty. Party groups shouldn't affect vote. Suspect pressure on Labour to conform, but more may abstain than listed as 'For'.

Merrett's stand down is as good as an abstention, and is a coward's way of protesting.

Burton is a rookie, and will no doubt be whipped to approve.

Simpson-Laing is a hypocrite if she goes against the LDF, and best guess is abstention, but, she might feel that she has to show solidarity ?

Old guard; King and Watson will most likely tow party line and vote 'for'.

Rest are rookies/sheep and will follow their leader.

Cons should vote 'against', but, who knows ?

Reid is on LDF WG so should vote 'against'

Ayre is strong Lab opponent, so should vote 'against'

Not sure about Firth ?

D'Agorne 100% 'against'

We should be taking bets ;-)

Septimius Severus wrote:

yorkie42 wrote:
As a resident of York, i do most of my shopping at Monks Cross already. I only need the City Centre for the wonderful Barnitt's, and the parking is so expensive. Tourists only visit for the buildings and museums, so let Mr Sinclair cater for a few wealthy Americans, and leave Monks Cross for us. York City FC have had 60,000 visitors this year and so need the new ground. How many York residents have been in Mulberry Hall this year?

YCFC had 60,000 visitors! LOL

2500 - 3000 people going to 25 ish games is still only 2500 - 3000 people!

They don't need a new ground.

They do need new owners.

Oh dear, have the McGills upset you in some way? The same can be said of Mulberry Hall, Barnetts and Browns to Pro-sport in York? These clubs need a need ground to enable `growth` as does the economy in both York and the UK.

cynic3 wrote:
The only serious reservation I have is that for once, on balance, I tend to agree with James Alexander which I find quite concerning ....

I also feel the same Maybe a breath of fresh air to York . never thought i would ever support a follower of ROD HILLS .

Just taken the info below from the CYC website. The C4Y polarises their objections on the basis of their own minority interest and negative spin against a new stadium, but the issue is much wider. If the planning application were to fail today there will be a massive loss to the wider community of many other valuable facilities. The NHS service based in ASDA can be enhanced by those included in the plans for the stadium.

On 22 December 2010 York City Football Club, City of York Athletic Club and City of York Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding. This is a public declaration of personal commitment to the project, but also to a commitment to work together, within a spirit of trust and integrity, to a mutually beneficial conclusion.

Potential New Project Partners

As the project continues and develops the council is working very closely with health and education providers to potentially incorporate services into the stadium development. These include:
•
York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

•
York St John University

•
Independent Living Demonstration and Assessment Centre

•
Explore Learning Centre

The application has to be approved to the benefit of ALL York's residents.