Councillors tour site for community stadium (From York Press)

Councillors tour site for community stadium at Monks Cross, York

9:11am Wednesday 16th May 2012 in News

Actors from York Dungeon walk alongside council members and officials and other protesters during the site visit at Monks Cross

COUNCILLORS have spent more than two-and-a-half hours touring the site of one of York’s biggest proposed developments – accompanied by protesters including two “cackling witches and a cross monk”.

Members of City of York Council’s planning committee will tomorrow make a crucial decision on Oakgate (Monks Cross) Ltd’s controversial plans for a new community stadium and two superstores at Monks Cross, along with an expansion of the existing shopping centre.

Yesterday they went on a preparatory site visit to hear how the developments would impact on the existing shops, car parks, the local road network and Huntington Stadium.

Officials showed where the new John Lewis and Marks & Spencer stores would go, and how the 6,000-seater ground would sit slightly to the south of the existing stadium, which is currently home to York City Knights.

Two councillors, John Galvin and Brian Watson, grilled officials on the parking provision on match days, and were told 400 spaces would be allocated to fans at one side of the Monks Cross Park & Ride car park, with other supporters who parked elsewhere in the car park facing a £15 penalty.

Protesters included actors from York Dungeon in the city centre, who turned up dressed as a monk and witches to “curse” the development site.

Related links

'A serious threat to city centre's future'

Dungeon bosses said they shared the view of many businesses that the proposed out-of-town shopping centre could signal a death-knell for the city centre.

“We are bewildered by this proposal, which ignores the ample opportunity for commercial expansion within the city in favour of taking people away from it,” said general manager Helen Douglas.

“York is famed for being haunted,” she added. “If Monks Cross goes ahead the city could really become a ghost town.”

Another protester was environmentalist Gordon Campbell-Thomas, who was heavily involved in the successful campaign to stop the re-development of land near Clifford’s Tower a decade ago.

He said he now opposed “another lunatic scheme aimed at destroying the sustainability and viabilty of the city centre”. He carried a placard which read: “Ye Gods, The philistines are at it again,” a quote from Margaret Thatcher’s former press officer, Sir Bernard Ingham, about the Coppergate II proposals in 1992.

Comments(31)

yorkiemum says...
9:16am Wed 16 May 12

Oh for goodness sake get real York Dungeon. The Dungeon is there to attract tourists to the city Monks Cross is for shoppers and shopping visitors. I have lived all my life in York and have never been to the tacky York Dungeon but go to Monks Cross twice a week shopping so to say that extending Monks Cross will harm them is ridiculous!!

Report this post »

magic cat says...
9:25am Wed 16 May 12

Ghosts of old reappear - Gordon Campbell-Thomas environmentalist - thought he'd disappeared off to Africa. Talk about "bandwagons and jumping"

Report this post »

360View says...
9:28am Wed 16 May 12

York will not become a ghost town because it is a tourist city for goodness sake. People come from all over the world to see it and they will continue to come. However people who live are capable of exercising their own free will about where they want to shop. We are not enthralled by the city or the shops - Stonegate et al holds no attraction. So we might want to shop at Monks Cross without being "dictated" to by city centre outlets who seem to think that competition should not apply to them and that we should all be herded and cattle prodded down the city centre streets and have nowhere else to go. We will go the city when we want and Monks Cross when we want.....we will not told what it "best" for us (i.e. what is best for them). It is our money we are spending; there is no condition that it has to be spent within the city walls although there are plenty who would seem to like that.

Report this post »

pedalling paul says...
9:37am Wed 16 May 12

Oh dear. Not content with parking Santa's sleigh on the cycle path, we now have it blocked by a coven of witches and warlocks! Disgraceful!

Report this post »

yorkiemum says...
9:50am Wed 16 May 12

Exactly 360 I can't remember the last time I went into town to shop! I want to go to Monks Cross where I can park for free, do my weeks shop, buy an outfit and two or three pairs of shoes then have a coffee and something to eat all under one 'roof'. And before PP starts use my car because with the best will in the world would not be able to get all my shopping in my pannier bags!!!!!

Report this post »

meme says...
10:07am Wed 16 May 12

Looks like a scene from 'one flew over the Cuckoos nest'!

Report this post »

Fatsober says...
10:16am Wed 16 May 12

Although I am a lifelong City fan I have tried to look at the arguments for and against with a degree of objectivity. Yes, we do need a new stadium to ensure the long term future of the club, but obviously not at any cost.

However, the issue I keep coming back to is how exactly it is that the proposed shops and stadium are going to “rip the heart out of the centre of York” or even “turn it into a ghost town”. No one has been able to put forward a concrete argument as to exactly how these travesties are to befall the City. York is blessed with a heritage and City centre that attracts 7 million visitors per year, spending over £443 million in the process. Having reviewed the plans I can see no mention of the Minster being demolished, the bar walls flattened , the Jorvik Centre or the York Dungeon turned into underground car-parks. Will we see a mass exodus of tourists from the City because there are a some large retail outlets and a new sports stadium on the edge of the City? I rather doubt it.

I recently visited Bath and to my astonishment I was able to see all the attractions without once been tempted to do my weekly shop or buy some new furniture from the shops I passed on my way.

I would argue that the counter proposal (of sorts) to develop Coppergate II would do more to harm those businesses who are bemoaning an out of town development. Without a massive investment in infra-structure those same business will be competing for a finite amount of business within the few square miles of the City centre with whichever 'big boys' move into Coppergate II.

Against the backdrop of doom and gloom it is interesting to note the new business who are moving into the City and the number of new restaurants that seem to be cropping up. Perhaps they are preparing to feed the army of supernatural enthusiast who will descend upon this 'Ghost Town' if the plans are passed, to witness tourist and shoppers of the past vying with the Roman Legions for top billing on the Ghost Walks. I don't think so.

Although I am a lifelong City fan I have tried to look at the arguments for and against with a degree of objectivity. Yes, we do need a new stadium to ensure the long term future of the club, but obviously not at any cost. However, the issue I keep coming back to is how exactly it is that the proposed shops and stadium are going to “rip the heart out of the centre of York” or even “turn it into a ghost town”. No one has been able to put forward a concrete argument as to exactly how these travesties are to befall the City. York is blessed with a heritage and City centre that attracts 7 million visitors per year, spending over £443 million in the process. Having reviewed the plans I can see no mention of the Minster being demolished, the bar walls flattened , the Jorvik Centre or the York Dungeon turned into underground car-parks. Will we see a mass exodus of tourists from the City because there are a some large retail outlets and a new sports stadium on the edge of the City? I rather doubt it. I recently visited Bath and to my astonishment I was able to see all the attractions without once been tempted to do my weekly shop or buy some new furniture from the shops I passed on my way. I would argue that the counter proposal (of sorts) to develop Coppergate II would do more to harm those businesses who are bemoaning an out of town development. Without a massive investment in infra-structure those same business will be competing for a finite amount of business within the few square miles of the City centre with whichever 'big boys' move into Coppergate II. Against the backdrop of doom and gloom it is interesting to note the new business who are moving into the City and the number of new restaurants that seem to be cropping up. Perhaps they are preparing to feed the army of supernatural enthusiast who will descend upon this 'Ghost Town' if the plans are passed, to witness tourist and shoppers of the past vying with the Roman Legions for top billing on the Ghost Walks. I don't think so. Fatsober

Report this post »

YorkToff says...
10:28am Wed 16 May 12

I wish councillors would not wear their ceremonial clothes in public!

Report this post »

BioLogic says...
10:41am Wed 16 May 12

I think the whole 'ghost town' protestation is an excellent publicity stunt, however it rather detracts from the real issues.

What do the facts tell us? Will this proposed development "rip the heart" from the city centre, unlikely. It will however result in a downturn in trade, which depending on who's figure you believe will be anywhere from around 8% upwards. That is still a significant impact on levels of trade for at least the next four years.

Does the proposed development meet with the City's planning objectives? No it doesn't. The project is not supported by the highways team and is ou of step with the (albeit suspended) Local Development Framework. It is incredibly unusual for a Planning officer to make no recommendation for acceptance or refusal and in my book represents a dereliction of the duty of CYC and it's officers.

The likely reason for this is that following all of the guidance, the weight of evidence is for a refusal and a purely political decision has been made to not make that recommendation as it makes the possibility of it being refused significantly higher.

In the light of these points I can see why city centre traders might be upset. Mr Sinclair is probably not the best poster boy for the group admittedly, he can be rather a pompous prat, but he is doing a good job at making the voices of all of the smaller independent traders heard, which is no bad thing. I can also see why the YCFC supporters are so passionate about it going ahead because without it, the club's days may be numbered.

Personally I take a view that it shouldn't go ahead at this stage, simply because the evidence is against it. If the Stadium could go ahead alone, and the traffic issues overcome, then fine, but not at the cost of the impact of the associated enabling development's impact.

I think they have been lazy, not bottoming issues as far as they should through design, but by trying to "manage" them out for expediency. It will probably come up and bite them as I suspect that regardless of the committee's decision this will get called in by the SoS for review. In which case we will still be in the same position a year from now.

I think the whole 'ghost town' protestation is an excellent publicity stunt, however it rather detracts from the real issues. What do the facts tell us? Will this proposed development "rip the heart" from the city centre, unlikely. It will however result in a downturn in trade, which depending on who's figure you believe will be anywhere from around 8% upwards. That is still a significant impact on levels of trade for at least the next four years. Does the proposed development meet with the City's planning objectives? No it doesn't. The project is not supported by the highways team and is ou of step with the (albeit suspended) Local Development Framework. It is incredibly unusual for a Planning officer to make no recommendation for acceptance or refusal and in my book represents a dereliction of the duty of CYC and it's officers. The likely reason for this is that following all of the guidance, the weight of evidence is for a refusal and a purely political decision has been made to not make that recommendation as it makes the possibility of it being refused significantly higher. In the light of these points I can see why city centre traders might be upset. Mr Sinclair is probably not the best poster boy for the group admittedly, he can be rather a pompous prat, but he is doing a good job at making the voices of all of the smaller independent traders heard, which is no bad thing. I can also see why the YCFC supporters are so passionate about it going ahead because without it, the club's days may be numbered. Personally I take a view that it shouldn't go ahead at this stage, simply because the evidence is against it. If the Stadium could go ahead alone, and the traffic issues overcome, then fine, but not at the cost of the impact of the associated enabling development's impact. I think they have been lazy, not bottoming issues as far as they should through design, but by trying to "manage" them out for expediency. It will probably come up and bite them as I suspect that regardless of the committee's decision this will get called in by the SoS for review. In which case we will still be in the same position a year from now. BioLogic

Report this post »

Eric Bartholomew says...
10:45am Wed 16 May 12

York Dungeon,what a joke,since when did they offer a service to the residents of York?

Another plastic tourist attraction not worthy of a visit.

Report this post »

Von_Dutch says...
10:50am Wed 16 May 12

Fatsober - I'm with you 100%. The Press shouldn't give any credibility or column inches to scaremongerers who can't back up their arguments. Just because Sinclair et al say something, it doesn't make it true.

Report this post »

marvell says...
12:12pm Wed 16 May 12

Brian Watson = Alexander puppet. Look at the pictures of him using the Beckfield Lane tip just a couple of weeks before knifing it in the back and voting to close it.

Report this post »

Missy7878 says...
1:17pm Wed 16 May 12

As I have just commented elsewhere, B&Q has free parking but Barnitts survives; Morrissons sells cheap beer but Evil Eye still has an off license and the Designer outlet exists yet so does Sarah Coggles and Amanda's. So, can someone from the anti-campaign please explain how the out of town developments damage the city centre? I don't shop in the centre anyway thanks to expensive parking and shops. Perhaps the anti-campaign can start focussing on the real threats to the city centre instead of spending good money on propaganda to mislead the people of York who actually want this new development.

Report this post »

harry the horse says...
1:24pm Wed 16 May 12

york dungy(eon) - york city fans - bar it for life!

Report this post »

Sarah York says...
1:27pm Wed 16 May 12

Oh look, another one who was against development 10 years ago and now also doesn't want this. How dare we. Sorry about that I thought this was our city but no no we'll make sure everything stands still until you're happy.

Unbelievable.

Report this post »

Jazzper says...
2:38pm Wed 16 May 12

Missy7878 wrote:
As I have just commented elsewhere, B&Q has free parking but Barnitts survives; Morrissons sells cheap beer but Evil Eye still has an off license and the Designer outlet exists yet so does Sarah Coggles and Amanda's. So, can someone from the anti-campaign please explain how the out of town developments damage the city centre? I don't shop in the centre anyway thanks to expensive parking and shops. Perhaps the anti-campaign can start focussing on the real threats to the city centre instead of spending good money on propaganda to mislead the people of York who actually want this new development.

Well said 'Missy', I couldn't have put it more clearly !

Report this post »

Fatsober says...
3:07pm Wed 16 May 12

Jazzper wrote:

Missy7878 wrote:
As I have just commented elsewhere, B&Q has free parking but Barnitts survives; Morrissons sells cheap beer but Evil Eye still has an off license and the Designer outlet exists yet so does Sarah Coggles and Amanda's. So, can someone from the anti-campaign please explain how the out of town developments damage the city centre? I don't shop in the centre anyway thanks to expensive parking and shops. Perhaps the anti-campaign can start focussing on the real threats to the city centre instead of spending good money on propaganda to mislead the people of York who actually want this new development.
Well said 'Missy', I couldn't have put it more clearly !

Ditto.

Report this post »

was york now rotherham says...
3:24pm Wed 16 May 12

even though i live in rotherham now i still count york as my home as i was born and educated their, i was brought up in huntington (cleveland way) i went to the local primary school in the village and then went up to the comp so i remember what that area was like before all this building lark went on. The funny part about it all is that when rotherham fc was sold they had to find a new home as the previouse owner had that many clauses in it the club was going to be worse off so they went to the don vally stadium for a bit and now they have their own stadium which will be finnished intime for the start of the 2012-2013 season and all the time that they were at the don vally stadium their was no differnce in loss off sales or anything like that if anything it brought more people into the town as they were not put off by the home or visiting suporters.

Report this post »

ouseswimmer says...
3:50pm Wed 16 May 12

Why build a stadium for 6,000 when only 2,000 attend on average?

Report this post »

yorkonafork says...
3:54pm Wed 16 May 12

ouseswimmer wrote:
Why build a stadium for 6,000 when only 2,000 attend on average?

Yeah, you said this the other day. It wasn't funny then either.

You must be SEETHING seeing all these press articles about how well the football club are doing with pictures of people lining the street, and 1,000s in the crowds while the team lift a trophy aloft.

How precious.

Report this post »

The Mc says...
4:04pm Wed 16 May 12

The Darlington Arena is no longer used and thoughts are turning to it being demolished. I don't know how it was built but could parts of it be taken apart to build a smaller stadium in York? I am talking about things like seats, concrete terracing, girders, roof panels, floodlights etc that could be incorporated into a smaller arena. It might sound daft but other grandstands have been moved between grounds in the past!

Report this post »

HTC says...
4:45pm Wed 16 May 12

ouseswimmer wrote:
Why build a stadium for 6,000 when only 2,000 attend on average?

York City's average for the season (excluding playoffs and cup games) was 3117 and the highest attendance was 6057 for the Playoff game agains Mansfield.

Assuming they stay in the conference I'd say 6000 sounds like the perfect number, and if they go up they could probably do with a few more.

Report this post »

big boy york says...
5:25pm Wed 16 May 12

i now see donny rovers are been urged to buy the keepmoat from the council as its losing £2m a year & they would be out of business if they dont buy it back & run it themselves. darlington are now using shildon as they cant afford to play in there stadium anymore just hope this isnt city in a few years

Report this post »

redbluelion says...
7:52pm Wed 16 May 12

come on city fans get down to the meeting tomorrow early..stop idiot's like sinclair and his gang of groupies getting a seat...

Report this post »

Torycouncil2015 says...
8:04am Thu 17 May 12

York Dungeon General Manager Helen Douglas. Would that be Cllr Helen Douglas. Open dissent in the Labour ranks!

Report this post »

roskoboskovic says...
8:23am Thu 17 May 12

please publish the figures stating how many tourists to the city come for the out of town shopping.i guess it would be very few because tourists come for the sights not to get their groceries.i presume that the pro development people have real jobs to go to and can t afford time out to dress up and march around monks cross on a weds afternoon.

Report this post »

The Great Buda says...
8:24am Thu 17 May 12

Wow - fantastically bad PR for a very tacky tourist attraction.

They should really have thought this one through.

Report this post »

tommyinyork says...
12:42pm Thu 17 May 12

What a set of clowns in the pic. Average age must be 60.

Report this post »

clockwatcher says...
12:56pm Thu 17 May 12

Would we be having the discussion about York been a ghost town if ten years ago they allowed the council to redevelope Coppergate 2. This would have made York a great place to shop in the heart of town. But then again they didn't want that either. Make your minds up. City and knights need a new stadium, if that means shops as well, so be it. Can't have cake and eat it.

Report this post »

Silver says...
11:07pm Thu 17 May 12

roskoboskovic wrote:
please publish the figures stating how many tourists to the city come for the out of town shopping.i guess it would be very few because tourists come for the sights not to get their groceries.i presume that the pro development people have real jobs to go to and can t afford time out to dress up and march around monks cross on a weds afternoon.

The scarborough "tourists" I know don't come to the city centre, they goto Monks Cross for their shopping simply cos they have they can't get a lot of the stuff sold in Clifton Moor or Monks Cross for example Toys R Us....not much of a counter argument but S'boro has very little brand name shops....

Report this post »

Tug job says...
10:38pm Fri 25 May 12

magic cat wrote:
Ghosts of old reappear - Gordon Campbell-Thomas environmentalist - thought he'd disappeared off to Africa. Talk about "bandwagons and jumping"

Goa, India, not Africa. But yes he changes alliegances like the rest of us change shoes; difficult to assess what he really stands for (other than serving his own personal interests).

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

@yorkpress

The Press, York

Councillors tour site for community stadium (From York Press)

News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

Councillors tour site for community stadium at Monks Cross, York

Related links

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies