MP backs community stadium and shops plan (From York Press)

Thing is, since the Chamber of Trade campaigned against Coppergate II in 2002, York has gained another 23,000 residents and is the second fastest growing city in the UK.
Its clear that C4Y want these extra customers, but not the extra competition. They didn't want fair choice for shoppers in 2002 and they don't now.
So, we give our trade to Leeds and other areas, to keep the tills ringing at Barnitts and Mulberry Hall. People develop habits, people will get used to not shopping in York - this city WILL be left behind.
Even without the stadium I'd be supporting MX2; time to drag York into this century!

A stadium built on the periphery of York will not get the same attendances of one built within walking distance of the city centre. It's why both Darlington fc and york wasps got into financial trouble. But don't let little facts like this get into the way of commercial empire building.

Darlington crowds didn't decline, their downfall was because the infamous safe-breaker chairman wanted a 25,000 seater venue for a club which only got 2,500 fans. The costs were huge for such a small club.

York Wasps meanwhile were struggling for fans at Clarence St., which is why they had to sell it!! It was also 25yrs ago when car ownership was less and at a time when rugby franchising was killing the sport for all the smaller clubs. What you see today at YCK is mirrored at many smaller clubs - the sport just isn't what it was.

I'm sorry and I can see where you got the idea for your argument, Tricky, but stats have show that nearly every club moving out of town has had an increase in support. The average increase is about 30%. This is why the likes of' Burton, Morecambe, Huddersfield, Scunthorpe, Shrewsbury, Rotherham and many, many more have prospered.

In fairness, I'm not sure MX is the perfect venue, but your argument using Darlington/Wasps just doesn't bear weight to the facts.

I have been slow to support the Community Stadium/MX2 plan, probably out of sentimentality for BC. But reality rules. If YCFC have no alternative (and they don't) the Community Stadium is essential. A couple more shops at MX won't afect the city centre, and as a previous post says, the population of York is growing. The Council must support this plan.

It's clear this has the support of all but six strange outsiders who moved here for the gift shops (see other article for their photo), so this shouldn't even be a debate. Get it done, but refine the plans for 6,000 - needs to be bigger (not at additional costs too).

The extra retail space will not have a negative impact on York City centre.

6,000 is capacity enough for YCFC. If promotion is secured and the revenue streams are generated as hoped, we can expand on this. I think aiming for 10,000 within 5 years should be the ambition of the club.

However, given the fight to even get this through, it wouldn't surprise me to hear any expansion of the stadium would "kill the city centre"!

Even AndyD wrote:
Thing is, since the Chamber of Trade campaigned against Coppergate II in 2002, York has gained another 23,000 residents and is the second fastest growing city in the UK.
Its clear that C4Y want these extra customers, but not the extra competition. They didn't want fair choice for shoppers in 2002 and they don't now.
So, we give our trade to Leeds and other areas, to keep the tills ringing at Barnitts and Mulberry Hall. People develop habits, people will get used to not shopping in York - this city WILL be left behind.
Even without the stadium I'd be supporting MX2; time to drag York into this century!

Excellent point Dave. I hope you've expressed these very points to the relevant people.

planning.teamenquiri
es@york.gov.uk

Just hurry up and build the blooming thing and approve planning tomorrow CYC!!!

It wont make much difference to the city centre shops. Most tourists come for the city centre ambience, and won't be getting another bus out to Monks Cross. Lets do what the residents want for a change instead of pandering to the tourists.

Need Julian Sturdy now to do his wonderful Yes Minster impersonation: 'well of-course I'm for this in principle. In principle its a fine idea, I'm just not sure its good for here'. :-)

Having read through the numerous comments on this and previous stories regarding this development there appears to be a common theme. The majority of posts appear to support the principle of the additional two stores at Monks Cross and suggest that the rejection of such a development would be to the detriment of York and its residents.

It appears that the building of a community stadium is not an altruistic act by Oakgate but as part of an agreement in order to return something to the 'community' in return for permission to build the new stores. I'm sure that Oakgate would be agreeable to spend a similar sum on any project nominated by the council in return for planning permission.

Given that one of the major issues raised in the planning process has been the transport infrastructure in the locality, presumably focussing upon the ringroad and junctions, perhaps the council could consider requiring Oakgate to fund improvements to these. Whilst this would mean that the stadium was not funded by Oakgate, it may be that this solution would benefit a greater number of residents through an improved transport system whilst signalling that York is still open for business.

The more people watching York at the new stadium, the more room for people to shop in the city or in Monks Cross - so everyone's a winner!

Even AndyD wrote:
Need Julian Sturdy now to do his wonderful Yes Minster impersonation: 'well of-course I'm for this in principle. In principle its a fine idea, I'm just not sure its good for here'. :-)

It's not like that though. The principle is clear - getting two big retailers and using a wad of their money to fund the bailing out of the football club and other supposed facilities for the community.

The practical side can then be very different - e.g. if it was essentially £1 of local govt money going in to the club I expect we'd all back it, if it was £30 million I doubt any would. At the current level there is a debate. (Because it is an enabling development don't for one second not regard it as public money as if it wasn't spent on the stadium it could be spent elsewhere.) Then there are the issues of the damage to the city centre, the highways problems and the financial sustainability.

It is about getting a balance and whilst some support the principle (and others oppose it), there would be nothing wrong with opposing the practicalities of the shambolic, secret, muddle that CYC has got together.

To cap the farce the 'expert', highly paid, officers who have then further spent loads on reports have totally bottled it and incredibly not given a recommendation.

Therefore with the Labou majority on planning they will all be whipped as usual and the biggest decision in York for decades will ignore the facts and be based on what James Alexander wants to help make his mark for when he goes to be an MP.

It was more a tongue in cheek comment really, Micklegate, prompted by a genuine flashback to Yes Minister when I read Julian's piece in the Press a week or so back.
It was evident he was trying to appeal to all sides whilst also towing the party line and the 'in principle' just made me smile. I'm not being politically biased either here - I know they all do it!

Yes fair enough and I know you weren't really having a go. However I do think he's been very fair on the issue; unlike Hugh Bayley where MC2 must be bad for York Central and yet he has taken next to no interest except to nod along with James Alexander when required.

mg1974 wrote:
Having read through the numerous comments on this and previous stories regarding this development there appears to be a common theme. The majority of posts appear to support the principle of the additional two stores at Monks Cross and suggest that the rejection of such a development would be to the detriment of York and its residents. It appears that the building of a community stadium is not an altruistic act by Oakgate but as part of an agreement in order to return something to the 'community' in return for permission to build the new stores. I'm sure that Oakgate would be agreeable to spend a similar sum on any project nominated by the council in return for planning permission. Given that one of the major issues raised in the planning process has been the transport infrastructure in the locality, presumably focussing upon the ringroad and junctions, perhaps the council could consider requiring Oakgate to fund improvements to these. Whilst this would mean that the stadium was not funded by Oakgate, it may be that this solution would benefit a greater number of residents through an improved transport system whilst signalling that York is still open for business.

The cost of full dualling with segregated junctions is £115 million-plus, according to a recent report by Halcrow? How much of that do you expect the MX developer to cough up, and how far might it go, bearing in mind that the A19 roundabout upgrade cost at least £2m .

The article is about support from Hugh Bayley - rather than the scheme itself. The arguments for and against have been blogged to death.
The project is being forced through by the ruling Labour group at York Council. Hugh Bayley is Labour MP for York and big chums with the Labour councillors. They are in bed together. It is hardly surprising that he would support their pet project. But he has not commented before. Why now? Cynics would justifiably argue this timing was deliberate just before the planning meeting.

pedalling paul wrote:

mg1974 wrote:
Having read through the numerous comments on this and previous stories regarding this development there appears to be a common theme. The majority of posts appear to support the principle of the additional two stores at Monks Cross and suggest that the rejection of such a development would be to the detriment of York and its residents. It appears that the building of a community stadium is not an altruistic act by Oakgate but as part of an agreement in order to return something to the 'community' in return for permission to build the new stores. I'm sure that Oakgate would be agreeable to spend a similar sum on any project nominated by the council in return for planning permission. Given that one of the major issues raised in the planning process has been the transport infrastructure in the locality, presumably focussing upon the ringroad and junctions, perhaps the council could consider requiring Oakgate to fund improvements to these. Whilst this would mean that the stadium was not funded by Oakgate, it may be that this solution would benefit a greater number of residents through an improved transport system whilst signalling that York is still open for business.

The cost of full dualling with segregated junctions is £115 million-plus, according to a recent report by Halcrow? How much of that do you expect the MX developer to cough up, and how far might it go, bearing in mind that the A19 roundabout upgrade cost at least £2m .

I'm not suggesting for one minute that Oakgate would pay for the ring road to be improved to dual carriageway. What I am suggesting is that Oakgate may fund an alternative project that in some way offsets the effects of the development.

There are two decisions to be made, firstly whether the development should go ahead and secondly what project should be attached to it for the benefit of as many residents as possible. That project could be a stadium, road improvements or something else entirely.

Even AndyD wrote:
Need Julian Sturdy now to do his wonderful Yes Minster impersonation: 'well of-course I'm for this in principle. In principle its a fine idea, I'm just not sure its good for here'. :-)

Julian Sturdy said ages ago he is favour of the Stadium.

He has just gained a football stadium, John Lewis and M&S.

tricky1992000 wrote:
A stadium built on the periphery of York will not get the same attendances of one built within walking distance of the city centre. It's why both Darlington fc and york wasps got into financial trouble. But don't let little facts like this get into the way of commercial empire building.

You really are thick !